OpenBCM V1.07b12 (Linux)

Packet Radio Mailbox

DB0FHN

[JN59NK Nuernberg]

 Login: GUEST





  
ZL3AI  > APRDIG   19.06.04 22:54l 810 Lines 29427 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3493-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jun 14, 1/2
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<
      ZL3VML
Sent: 040619/2049Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:26232 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3493-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To  : APRDIG@WW

TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Monday, June 14, 2004.

1. Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
2. Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
3. Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
4. Re: ui-radar vs uinws
5.  Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
6. Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
7. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was: Kenwood APRS radio
8. Re: Limiting the future of Mobile Computing!
9. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:  Kenwood APRS radio
10. Re: question about possession of an object.
11. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:  Kenwood APRS radio
12. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:   Kenwood APRS radio
13. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:  Kenwood APRS radio
14. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:   Kenwood APRS radio
15. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:  Kenwood APRS radio
16. UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might fly outta.... (was Trains,
planes, and APRS)
17. Re: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
18. RE: waterproof/underwater APRS
19. Re: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
20. 70cm APRS frequency?
21. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:   Kenwood APRS radio
22. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:    Kenwood APRS radio
23. Re: 70cm APRS frequency?
24. RE: 70cm APRS frequency?
25. ATTN K6GEK!!!
26. RE: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might fly	 outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
27. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:    Kenwood APRS radio
28. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:    Kenwood APRS radio
29. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:     Kenwood APRS radio
30. Fw: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:   Kenwood APRS radio
31. RE: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys  might fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
32. Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
33. RE: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might	 fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
34. Re: UI-Network, not on 2m?
35. Preemphasis circuit WAS: UI-Network, not on 2m?
36. Bill Nolle
37. wIDE2-2 instead of WIDE2-2
38. RE: wIDE2-2 instead of WIDE2-2
39. RE: wIDE2-2 instead of WIDE2-2
40. RE: wIDE2-2 instead of WIDE2-2

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
From: "James Lux" <aprssig@luxfamily.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:28:24
X-Message-Number: 1

>Well I can talk with you regards marine VHF radios being able to transmit 
>in the ham bands. None exist!

Handy to know.. I was kind of hoping that I could use one radio for two 
things.. aprs kinds of apps in the usual kind of way, but also to do VHF 
Marine stuff (ch 16, etc.) if needed.

Looks like you'd need two radios then (not to mention two modems etc., but 
then, PCs in the MiniITX form factor can help a lot.. I assume that you 
could do everything you needed with the sound card interface (except that 
it's probably illegal to do the digital modes with a Marine VHF handheld, 
since it's not type certified for it.))


>In the marine field this ability to transfer precisely the same type of 
data as APRS is called, Automatic Identification System, AIS.

Interesting about the AIS. Not surprising that it's not the same format as 
APRS, nor even that it's not interoperable.  However, an interesting point 
comes up.. If I send my position on AIS, does it show up on that 1000 ton 
container ship's display? This has real potential for folks doing things 
like crossing the Santa Barbara Channel, with BIG ships buzzing along at 
25-30 kts. This might be more useful than a radar reflector. I'll get a 
copy of the specs you referenced and do some research.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
From: "KC2MMi" <kc2mmi@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:58:21 -0400
X-Message-Number: 2

Jim-
 GPS doesn't work underwater, so forget that part of the topic.
Water-resistant packaging you've already got enough replies on.

<Are any of the Marine VHF radios able to do 2m ham band as well.>

Not in any way you'd find convenient to use. First, there's little
documented about mods for them, unlike ham radios. Second, marine VHF is
channelized. How are you going to get the display to read "143.9" when
there's only a 2-digit channel display on the radio? And  once you modify
it, it becomes illegal for marine VHF use anyway.

<<I would assume that a number of multiband radios could probably be
modified to transmit (illegally because the ham radios aren't type
accepted, etc.) on Marine VHF channels, but what about the inverse (which
would be legal).>>

Same problems with legality. You can find plenty of documentation on using
2m ham radios on the "real 2m band" which is marine VHF.<G> But it is
illegal to use a radio that is not type-approved for marine VHF. By all
means, if you have a 2m radio open it up so it can be used on Channel 16 for
distress calls, that's legal. But that's the end of it. Use a marine radio
and a ham radio, each for what it is legal for. The water resistance in all
of them fails eventually anyway, so add a dry bag regardless of the claims.

On your antenna? I'd suggest a thin fiberglass 8' whip, the kind used for
bicycle flags, dunebuggy flags, etc. Speaking as a sailor, I can tell you
that kayaks sit so d*mn low in the water that it would be very easy to run
one down. Late afternoons with sundogs and glare...all too easy not to spot
something that low in the water. Having a pennant up 8' above you would be a
major safety factor. And at the same time, it would allow you to use an
elevated antenna. Probably a vertical dipole, made of magnet wire, center
fed with a compromise thin coax. Easy, cheap, light, and if you slip a heat
shrink tube over the whole thing, protected too. You could just stick a 1/4
wave whip on the deck and run a ground wire under the keel...but I suspect
getting the few feet of height that you can, would be more important. And
getting the antenna above the ground plane.

One alternative might be the OpenTrack from www.byonics.com which integrates
the TinyTrack and a 250mw transmitter in an Altoids tin. Can be installed in
a small pelican box and then just connected to a GPS for a small
package...but 250mW is still a weak signal, you've got to know if that will
be of any use in your area. Starting that low to the water....it isn't going
to get far inland.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
From: db2fm <db2fm@jfsattv.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:51:25 +0200
X-Message-Number: 3

Am Montag, 14.06.04 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb KC2MMi:

>...

>One alternative might be the OpenTrack from www.byonics.com which integrates
>the TinyTrack and a 250mw transmitter in an Altoids tin. Can be installed in
>a small pelican box and then just connected to a GPS for a small
>package...but 250mW is still a weak signal, you've got to know if that will
>be of any use in your area. Starting that low to the water....it isn't going
>to get far inland.

I think, you thought of the 'PocketTracker', not of the OpenTRAC 
protocol :)

Juergen

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: ui-radar vs uinws
From: "Randy Whitney" <kk6rw@kk6rw.us>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 5:2:50
X-Message-Number: 4

Deni,

>Just what is the major difference between ui-radar and ui-nws.

Ui-Radar operates as you describe. I t grabs the latest radar image from 
the selected NWS station, then displays it on your Ui-View screen.

UI-NWS is a UI-View32 plug-in that processes the USA National Weather 
Service (NWS) APRS messages. It displays the messages, and draws shapes on 
the UI-View32 map corresponding to the areas in the messages. Ui-NWS uses 
shapefiles to display areas with weather Warnings, Watches, and 
Advisories.

There is a new program available called NwsGet by Bill Diaz, KC9XG, which 
grabs short range radar images, processes the image to show only the 
weather artifacts while removing the black background from standard NWS 
radar image downloads. It has many other features, a look here: 
http://www.billdiaz.dynip.com/NwsRadar.htm will give you all the details of 
the features of the program. The NWS radar image downloads are automatic 
and provide a seamless interface to the Ui-View program. NwsGet does 
require Precision Maps 6 with the PMapserver6 addon for UiView.

Program downloads are available at the above URL.

HTH,

Randy, KK6RW

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:  Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
From: WB4GQK@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:43:47 EDT
X-Message-Number: 5

on 8/14/04 James Lux queried :
>If I send my position on AIS, does it show up on that 1000 ton
>container ship's display?

Absolutely! Now let me explain one drawback. I have an excellent marine VHF 
radio, an ICOM M602. It listens on the AIS frequencies but it will NOT 
TRANSMIT! It is not approved for AIS two way operation. However by
listening and utilizing a developers AIS application it will provide the
MMSI and position of the ship (all in text no plots). You then switch your
marine VHF radio to the DSC calling channel 70, 156.525 MHZ, and key
transmit on your AIS application. Your MMSI plus position, course and speed
will be transmitted to the ship AND you receive an ACK back. For sure the
commercial ship knows where you are.

There are over a dozen radio manufacturers that build approved AIS 
transponders. Unfortunately they are commercial radios and the prices START
at $3000. The more elaborate ones with large plotting displays run up to
$15,000. So for the small cruiser the cost at the present time is
prohibitive. Of course a few of the 100 ft private yachts have a AIS
transponder installed. 

My approach has been to look and watch, if it appears our "paths" may cross
I do contact the vessel via DSC when about 5 miles away. If he wants to
switch to CH 16 and talk it will show on the M602 screen.

73 Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: waterproof/underwater APRS
From: "KC2MMi" <kc2mmi@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:11:00 -0400
X-Message-Number: 6

Correction!
 As Juergen so kindly pointed out to me:
"One alternative might be the OpenTrack from www.byonics.com which"
that should have said POCKET TRACKER from Byonics.

My apologies to all for the slip.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: David Rush <david@davidarush.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:30:31 -0600
X-Message-Number: 7

Scott Miller wrote:

>And it's also important to keep in mind that, were OpenTrac to go to another
>frequency, it'd have to share many of the same digi locations as APRS.  This
>means a very real possibility of mutual interference unless you invest in
>expensive filtering hardware.

Here's a crazy idea....

Assuming OpenTRAC were to really take off to the point of a widespread 
APRS-like network, do you think it would be practical to do it on 70cm 
instead of 2m?  That would make co-locating with APRS digis (or 2m voice 
repeaters) a cinch, with inexpensive duplexers readily available, not to 
mention sharing antennas.  Same thing applies to vehicles, too.

It always bugged me that, in most cases, an APRS-equipped vehicle ended 
up with two different features used on the same band (voice and APRS) 
while other bands sat idle.

Sure dual-band or single-band rigs for 440 are a bit more expensive, and 
fewer of them lying around in junk boxes, but it solves some other 
problems, too.

David, ky7dr

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Limiting the future of Mobile Computing!
From: David Rush <david@davidarush.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:34:35 -0600
X-Message-Number: 8

Robert Bruninga wrote:

>>If OpenTrac [went to] another frequency, it'd have to 
>>share many of the same digi locations as APRS and
>>would cause interference to APRS still. 
>
>If I were OPENtrack, I'd choose a different band like 
>440 MHz then the two could co-exist.  Or better yet, it 
>sounds like OPENtrack might be the way to go on 802.11...
>that makes it a $60 per repeater instead of $600 each.

Hey, good idea!  (Grrrr... hadn't read this msg yet!)

Hmmmm... dunno about the 802.11 thing.  Have to think about that.

David, ky7dr

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:  Kenwood APRS radio
From: David Rush <david@davidarush.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:35:29 -0600
X-Message-Number: 9

I suppose 222 has the same technical advantages as 440, and is less 
likely to be in use on a given vehicle.
Quick look at 222 MHz rigs, new... ADI AR-247 for $210, Alinco DR-235T 
for $250.

440 rigs new: Alinco DR-435TMKII for $270, Kenwood TM-461A for $450.

Hmmm.... 222 is starting to look more interesting....

Are you sure a single packet channel couldn't be found in the 222 
allocation???

David, ky7dr

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: question about possession of an object.
From: Curt Mills <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 10

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, db2fm wrote:

>Only difference, as I read the named part of the protocol reference,
>is, that
>Objects can have timestamps, items don't.

There are some other minor differences:

*) Items are also shorter due to the missing timestamp.

*) Items can have a variable length name from 3 chars to 9 chars.
That can make them shorter yet.

Because of the variable sized names for Items, they have a limitation of
not being able to use the '!' or '_' characters, as those define the end of
a live or killed Item name.

For an object you can use any printable ASCII character, as they have a
fixed length and there's no problem determining the end of the name.

In the first part of the chapter, it actually mentiones that Object reports
can have an optional timestamp.  Not sure whether that's an error in the
spec or not.  Seems like it might be.

One more thing for anyone considering implementing
Object/Items/Compressed Object/Compressed Items:  The names are
case-sensitive, so you can have BOB, Bob, bob, bOb, boB, and they
are all distinct Object or Item names.

-- 
Curt, WE7U.				archer at eskimo dot com
http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
  Lotto:  A tax on people who are bad at math. - unknown
Windows:  Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates. - WE7U.
The world DOES revolve around me:  I picked the coordinate system!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:  Kenwood APRS radio
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:02:54 -0700
X-Message-Number: 11

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Rush" <david@davidarush.com>

>I suppose 222 has the same technical advantages as 440, and is less
>likely to be in use on a given vehicle.
>Quick look at 222 MHz rigs, new... ADI AR-247 for $210, Alinco DR-235T
>for $250.

220 is/was an awesome band that never seemed to catch on with hams.  20
years ago I had 220 2400 baud links all over the place.  They worked great!
It's too bad 2400 baud TNC's are not readily available.

Jim, WA6OFt

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:   Kenwood APRS radio
From: Earl Needham <needhame1@plateautel.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:10:51 -0700
X-Message-Number: 12

At 10:35 AM 6/14/2004, David Rush wrote:
>I suppose 222 has the same technical advantages as 440, and is less likely 
>to be in use on a given vehicle.
>Quick look at 222 MHz rigs, new... ADI AR-247 for $210, Alinco DR-235T for 
>$250.
>
>440 rigs new: Alinco DR-435TMKII for $270, Kenwood TM-461A for $450.
>
>Hmmm.... 222 is starting to look more interesting....
>
>Are you sure a single packet channel couldn't be found in the 222 
>allocation???

I'd think it would be more likely in the 218-220 (is that right)
range.  Isn't that range actually indicated for digital signals?

Earl

Earl Needham, KD5XB, Clovis, New Mexico  DM84jk
SETI@Home:  11623WU/7.54yrs

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:  Kenwood APRS radio
From: wes@johnston.net
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:34:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 13

My d700 will RX 220 on the 2m side, but you cannot program a simple TX/RX
split across bands (used to do a 2m/70cm split on my old ft530 ht for full
duplex autopatches).

So that leaves the only option to use 220 to split the TNC between the left
and right halves of the radio and no voice operation (TNC A=rx 1.25m + B=tx
70cm).

Wes

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:   Kenwood APRS radio
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:39:46 -0400
X-Message-Number: 14

Yeah, but thats limited and mainly for high speed stuff.

There are standard packet channels allocated on 220 which would work just
fine.

I think ONE of the problems with 220 is the lack of old used commercial
gear laying around.  Getting on 220 isn't as easy as modding an old Micor
and dropping some crystals in.

220 is really stuck between a rock and hard place.

Danny
KE4RAP

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:  Kenwood APRS radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:52:29 +0300
X-Message-Number: 15

222 is not a valid band in Europe?
think globally act locally :)

Julian
OH8GEJ

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
From: David Rush <david@davidarush.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:36:28 -0600
X-Message-Number: 16

Julian:

Doh!  Didn't think about that.  Of course, Europe is on a different APRS 
frequency already.  Same band, different freq, so it's not like you can 
stick your gear on a plane, fly to North America, and turn it on.  Of 
course spinning the dial from 144.800 to 144.390 is a bit simpler than 
carrying a different radio.

Also, it's not like I think this idea has a snowball's chance in heck of 
getting anywhere.  Would be nice to think about, though.  How about a 
non-2m VHF or UHF band network for UI-frames in general, at 9.6 kbps?  
Are there issues with mobile 9.6k, any more so than with fixed stations?

David, ky7dr

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:47:25 +0300
X-Message-Number: 17

Actually you're right.
220 would be great and it seems like the entire planet is missing good
9k6 packet anywhere. The last time I tried, we were bogged down by a
lack of good equipment which lacked 9k6 capability without modification.
In the end it was to difficult. We tried in 70cm band. When that failed
we also thought about going straight to 23cm. The problem was then a
lack of low cost equipment for Hams to use.
Its a shame when you think about it. Would be nice to get people
building again or getting clubs to spring for the test equipment
required to homebrew 9k6 or higher packet on UHF-SHF.

73s
Julian

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[duplicate]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:31:28 -0700
X-Message-Number: 19

>non-2m VHF or UHF band network for UI-frames in general, at 9.6 kbps?
>Are there issues with mobile 9.6k, any more so than with fixed stations?

What about 2400 bps MSK?  Does it survive pre/de-emphasis?  I've seen it
used on commercial AVL systems, but I've never looked into running it
through normal audio inputs.  And for re-using old equipment, that's a big
requirement.

Scott
N1VG

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: 70cm APRS frequency?
From: Jason Winningham <jdw@eng.uah.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:17:22 -0500
X-Message-Number: 20

Is there a standard frequency for APRS on the 440MHz band?  The band 
plan at arrl.org doesn't even show digital for 70cm.

Is there even any APRS on 70cm?

-Jason
kg4wsv

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:   Kenwood APRS radio
From: Mark Earle <wa2mct@mearle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:31:35 -0500
X-Message-Number: 21

True. but in most parts or Europe, neither is 440-449.999

In most of the US we have 420 - 449.999, with a few areas excluded from the 
lower frequcies because of military use.

So we'd need to pick a 430-439.999 frequency to be global, I suppose.

At 21:52 06/14/2004 +0300, DG2JW wrote:
>222 is not a valid band in Europe?
>think globally act locally :)
>
>Julian
>OH8GEJ

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:    Kenwood APRS radio
From: Earl Needham <needhame1@plateautel.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:43:48 -0700
X-Message-Number: 22

At 11:39 AM 6/14/2004, Danny wrote:
>Yeah, but thats limited and mainly for high speed stuff.

Isn't that what we WANT?  Surely we're not going to stay at 1200 BPS
forever?

>There are standard packet channels allocated on 220 which would work just 
>fine.
>
>I think ONE of the problems with 220 is the lack of old used commercial 
>gear laying around.  Getting on 220 isn't as easy as modding an old Micor 
>and dropping some crystals in.
>
>220 is really stuck between a rock and hard place.

Sure is.  Too bad, too.  But there is hope -- all you have to do
is look around for equipment that people quit using when the bottom 2/3 of 
the band was reallocated to -- uh -- who?  I haven't been able to hear 
anybody on it...

7 3
Earl

Earl Needham, KD5XB, Clovis, New Mexico  DM84jk
SETI@Home:  11623WU/7.54yrs

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 70cm APRS frequency?
From: Gary Hinton <ghinton@eng.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:53:14 -0700
X-Message-Number: 23

The state of Arizona has the frequency 445.925 assigned for APRS.
We use it every year for the MS-150 and other special events.

Gary Hinton
AC7R

Jason Winningham wrote:
> 
>Is there a standard frequency for APRS on the 440MHz band?  The band
>plan at arrl.org doesn't even show digital for 70cm.
> 
>Is there even any APRS on 70cm?
> 
>-Jason
>kg4wsv

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: 70cm APRS frequency?
From: "Eric H. Christensen" <kf4otn@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:49:30 -0400
X-Message-Number: 24

Jason,
I think I have asked this before but was told that the 70cm band is broken
up differently in different parts of the nation.  There are people that are
using 70cm for APRS, though, but they are isolated networks with gateways to
either 144.390 or the APRS-IS.

I can't find the link, now, but there is a guy near the Puget Sound that is
using 2m, 1.25m, and 70cm for APRS at various baud rates.  

73s,
Eric KF4OTN
kf4otn@amsat.org

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-aprssig-36602@lists.tapr.org

Is there a standard frequency for APRS on the 440MHz band?  The band 
plan at arrl.org doesn't even show digital for 70cm.

Is there even any APRS on 70cm?

-Jason
kg4wsv

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ATTN K6GEK!!!
From: "Eric H. Christensen" <kf4otn@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:49:46 -0400
X-Message-Number: 25

K6GEK,
Check your Tinytrak III...  It is throwing out packets at a very high rate
with a position of zeroes!  To see this data, please see:
http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/errorlist.cgi?call=K6GEK-15&last=24.

73s,
Eric KF4OTN
kf4otn@amsat.org
kf4otn@w4ral.#rtp.nc.usa.noam

ARRL Member
AMSAT Member: 35360 (I gave ECHO a lift...  Did you???)
TAPR Member: 8869
Support your Hobby!  Join a club.

All contact logs are uploaded to the ARRL LoTW and eQSL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: UI-Network, not on 2m?  Yeah, and monkeys might fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
From: "Eric H. Christensen" <kf4otn@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:49:30 -0400
X-Message-Number: 26

David, ky7dr Says:
Are there issues with mobile 9.6k, any more so than with fixed stations?

Eric Replies:
David, the D700 mobile works on 9.6k as well as 1.2k.  I haven't really used
it on 9.6k, though.  Heard it works well, too.

Eric KF4OTN

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:05:00 -0400
X-Message-Number: 27

Those of us near or north of Line A would be out of luck then.. The Kenwood 
D700A doesn't do 430-440 anyway here in North America (nor do most North 
American 2m/70cm or 70cm radios afaik), but we're only secondary allocation 
on 430-440 in the entire US anyway.  Secondary Allocation would prevent 
unattended or automatic operations, if memory serves.

I'm in Bangor, Maine, which is explicitly mentioned in defining where the 
line is, if I recall. :)  If I recall it's an arc that goes through 
Searsport ME, Bangor, ME etc, across the northern part of the US.

--Droo, K1XVM

At 05:31 PM 6/14/2004, Mark Earle wrote:
>True. but in most parts or Europe, neither is 440-449.999
>
>In most of the US we have 420 - 449.999, with a few areas excluded from 
>the lower frequcies because of military use.
>
>So we'd need to pick a 430-439.999 frequency to be global, I suppose.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:09:48 +0300
X-Message-Number: 28

Yeah surely the way to go it up in bands. I think American Hams are lucky
in that you have the 800 or 900 MHz band open to you as well. That's still
UHF and would make a nice band to put a hi-speed backbone for digital
packet network.

Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl Needham" <needhame1@plateautel.net>

>At 11:39 AM 6/14/2004, Danny wrote:
>>Yeah, but thats limited and mainly for high speed stuff.
>
>Isn't that what we WANT?  Surely we're not going to stay at 1200
>BPS forever?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.   was:     Kenwood APRS radio
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:13:00 -0400
X-Message-Number: 29

Well.. Wait a minute...

Isn't there a NPRM on the table to extend spread spectrum rules down into 
222mhz?  Right now it's anything above 440 if I recall.

If that were the case, perhaps we could come up with a nice solution to 
mark off a few frequencies in favor of a modified 'high speed' packet 
network.. I'm not sure if it would work but it's something that could be 
discussed anyway?

The fact few are using 222mhz (Here they use it for connection between Net 
repeaters, but that's it), would make it an ideal place to do such a 
thing.  We'd also reinvent a use for the frequency so we wont' end up 
losing it.

We haven't had new TNC technology in a long time, this could be a blessing 
in disguise to make things a little more modern without destroying existing 
infrastructure.

Just a thought anyway.

--Droo, K1XVM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:18:22 +0300
X-Message-Number: 30

That's right.
The region 1 bandplan is at website =
"home.hccnet.nl/a.dogterom/Handbook/2c.pdf"
432 - 438 MHz as the general rule I believe.

70cm network would actually have some merits :)
Equipment costs are reasonable
Higher bandwidth possibilities
Smaller equipment and antenna sizes
Old NMT phones in Europe are easily found and modified for UHF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Earle" <wa2mct@mearle.com>

>True. but in most parts or Europe, neither is 440-449.999
>
>In most of the US we have 420 - 449.999, with a few areas excluded from the
>lower frequcies because of military use.
>
>So we'd need to pick a 430-439.999 frequency to be global, I suppose.
>
>At 21:52 06/14/2004 +0300, DG2JW wrote:
>>222 is not a valid band in Europe?
>>think globally act locally :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------




Read previous mail | Read next mail


 03.12.2020 15:19:14lGo back Go up