OpenBCM V1.07b12 (Linux)

Packet Radio Mailbox

DB0FHN

[JN59NK Nuernberg]

 Login: GUEST





  
ZL3AI  > APRDIG   22.06.04 09:55l 886 Lines 29206 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3502-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jun 16, 2/3
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<7M3TJZ<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040622/0712Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:26410 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3502-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To  : APRDIG@WW

Subject: Re: PSK31 APRS
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:24:32 -0400
X-Message-Number: 14

That's slick.. I like that. Sometime I'll actually take tests and get a
General or something.. As long as the radio gear costs ridiculous for HF 
though, it's really moot for me.

My grandfather offered up his KWS-1 and 75A-4 Collins gear if I made 
General... Like I have room for THAT beast here, but the offer was quite nice.

--Droo, K1XVM

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: Dale Blanchard <wa7ixk@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:28:41 -0700
X-Message-Number: 15

PSK 31 will get you thru when CW will not.. It will decode stuff you 
cannot hear thru the noise.

James Smith wrote:

>Well you might want to get studying CW then huh? Since you opened the
>door..........
>
>-.- ----. .- .--. .-.
>
>>CW is the only thing that will get through.
>
>>Danny
>>KE4RAP

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:34:25 -0400
X-Message-Number: 16

You're right..

Gotta get working on that spark gap transmitter too.. Maybe I can find some
plans for one on THE INTERNET.

Danny
KE4RAP

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: James Smith <k9apr@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:42:39 -0500
X-Message-Number: 17

Here you go scroll down about midway and you'll see the plans... enjoy!!!!!

http://www.qsl.net/g4rfr/marconi.htm

Danny wrote:

>You're right..
>
>Gotta get working on that spark gap transmitter too.. Maybe I can find
>some plans for one on THE INTERNET.
>
>Danny
>KE4RAP

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

Subject: Re[2]: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:50:56 -0400
X-Message-Number: 18

Hmm..

1 problem.. I need something to generate the 12kv secondary volatge from a
12 volt gel cell.

Danny
KE4RAP

Wednesday, June 16, 2004, 2:42:39 AM, you wrote:

JS> Here you go scroll down about midway and you'll see the plans... enjoy!!!!!

JS> http://www.qsl.net/g4rfr/marconi.htm

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

Subject: Let me TRY to clear this up.. (Proposal for: What about the 1.25m
band?)From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:55:33 -0400
X-Message-Number: 19

I'm going to (ONCE AGAIN) try to clear this up.

Earlier in the day - The argument was that the 220mhz band was just sitting 
there and no-one was using it. This made me think of this idea. Again,
this has NOTHING to do with the APRS-IS and NOTHING to do with APRS 
directly. Although a technology platform like this could be used to
enhance APRS very nicely. APRS works out very well here in the areas where
it serves. APRS is the reason why I became a licensed Technician-class
operator, and APRS is the reason why I put up an IGate to serve the area, 
because the previously existing one crashed and was lower in elevation. I
believe strongly in APRS as a technology, and want to see it continue to do 
what it does best, which is encompassing LOCAL operations and traffic.

We have no high-speed digital backbone for amateur radio at all. My
suggestion was that we CREATE a high speed digital backbone (actually, to 
entertain the idea) on the 220mhz band to help fulfill the high speed 
digital needs of ANYONE who had interest. This could be as simple as
offloading some APRS traffic from the 144.39 or more importantly to use for 
netting repeaters, providing limited Internet access for special events, 
relay video, the sky is the limit.

I was NOT saying that the APRS-IS was garbage. I was not saying that it
serves no purpose, should be replaced, etc. I am, however, saying that
there are conditions in which the Internet will not exist for anyone in a 
certain region because of MAJOR fiber outage within a region, lack of 
power, etc. If there is no power or phone, there is no Internet
connection, try as you might. Much of this country is rural, which means
this problem is VERY realistic. Also, the APRS-IS encompasses the entire 
world, or in most cases at least the US. While that is very important to
other people with access to the IS, or to fill in gaps since we do not have 
national APRS networks to (tower hop), it still has the requirement of the 
Internet.

Meanwhile, people have said time and time again that it would be nice to be 
able to explore high speed digital, which (as far as I know) is what the 
HSMM is trying to do. What I'm suggesting is that we discuss creating a
next generation spread spectrum digital network to encompass the digital 
needs of the Amateur Radio community. To discuss a platform in which we
could make use of the 220mhz band, so we don't lose it, or to even use this 
elsewhere on the radio service, preferably not microwave where we have 
OTHER factors to contend with.

The idea is that people are GENERALLY self-serving. I realize that the
Amateur Radio Service is comprised of a lot of people who put their own 
interests aside, but if people have a REASON to utilize a high speed 
digital network, they would be more likely to contribute resources for 
it. This means the people who do not use APRS now, would potentially be
able to help increase the quality of the infrastructure, for those of us 
who NEED or WANT alternative means to gate local and regional APRS 
traffic. We have control of OUR infrastructure, meanwhile we have NO
control over the Internet infrastructure. I don't like the idea that I
have to trust a router sitting in Connecticut to ensure delivery of my 
traffic that's only REALLY important to someone 2 hours away in the same 
state. That means if I can't get to CT, NOONE wins. I feel this defeats
the purpose of radio entirely. I'm NOT saying people HAVE to do this, but
I am suggesting that a capable high speed digital backbone would allow 
people the POSSIBILITY.

Lets be realistic here: We're using 1200bps still and it's 2004. It's time
to look to the future of radio communications and consider ways to 
encompass the brand new methods and solutions available to us. There are a
LIMITLESS amount of possibilities for having such a network, even just in 
specific areas. Such as: We could use a high speed digital network to
provide download-able maps to supplement an APRS station, or to bridge two 
repeaters together, or to inject an Internet connection for a field day or 
special event.

This is an opportunity to reinvent digital communications in the hobby and 
make use of spectrum we already have that most people aren't using.

Lastly, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to do ANYTHING. I am suggesting
a discussion on a new capable high speed digital network to increase the 
possibilities and maybe reduce some of the "I CAN'T".

Again - I am NOT suggesting replacing or destroying the APRS-IS, or 
replacing/destroying APRS 1200bps on 144.39. I am suggesting an
opportunity to enhance ALL digital communications on Amateur Radio, as well 
as open the doors for new ones using a band with little/no traffic.

I hope this clarifies my thoughts and opinions on the topic.

---Droo, K1XVM 

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

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:00:28 -0400
X-Message-Number: 20

http://www.ee.washington.edu/circuit_archive/circuits/F_ASCII_Schem.html#ASCIISE
CHM_018

Try there... Not sure if it's what you want or not..

--Droo, K1XVM

At 02:50 AM 6/16/2004, Danny wrote:
>Hmm..
>
>1 problem.. I need something to generate the 12kv secondary volatge from a 
>12 volt gel cell.
>
>Danny
>KE4RAP

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: James Smith <k9apr@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:04:27 -0500
X-Message-Number: 21

See if this would suit you...
http://www.ee.washington.edu/circuit_archive/circuits/F_ASCII_Schem.html#ASCIISE
CHM_018

Now back to our regular schedule conversation which/was APRS-IS....... 
And you learning the code.... Hi Hi

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

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS
radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:42:26 +0300
X-Message-Number: 22

Scot.
How about some pictures and comments about your solar powered igate?

Julian

>My new IGate test box has been running on solar/battery power for 9 days
>now, but it doesn't do me a dang bit of good without something to plug in
>to.
>
>Scott
>N1VG

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: "WA8LMF@aol.com" <WA8LMF2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:18:12 -0700
X-Message-Number: 23

Danny wrote on 6/15/2004, 11:50 PM:

>1 problem.. I need something to generate the 12kv secondary volatge
>from a 12 volt gel cell.

Try an automotive ignition coil....

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

Subject: What have you accomplished ?
From: "Andrew Rich" <vk4tec@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:23:42 +1000
X-Message-Number: 24

I have seen a lots of discussions lately and I am not sure what has come
about from the discussions.

Has anything been accomplished ?

What is the final result ?

Andrew Rich (VK4TEC)
www.tech-software.net
vk4tec@hotmail.com

space - electronics - radio - aviation

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

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:43:06 +0300
X-Message-Number: 25

Hello Everyone.
Just a quick observation and question.

Shouldn't we be promoting that everyone who has "always on" connections to
the internet run and igate as well? Wouldn't the answer to the redundancy
question lay in more cheap home igates than large expensive backbones?
Those Igates would fill gaps in areas poorly covered and reduce traffic as
less hops would be required to get into the network.

In September of 2003 USA reported 38.9% of US home users were enjoying a
high-speed connection. 61.1% of US home users dial into the Internet with
"narrowband" connections of 56Kbps or less. USA also reported the number of
broadband connections is growing rapidly. I think US Hams should take
advantage of this motivating hams to setup those igates contributing to the
networks well being. This would make the backbone question almost a
non-issue wouldn't it?

Julian
OH8GEJ

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

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:49:12 +0300
X-Message-Number: 26

Hi Drew.
How much bandwidth can be squeezed out of 220?
Just doing the math, moving from 70cm to 125cm would require you to use
wider bandwidth for the same bitrate.

Just a question not an argument.

best regards
Julian
OH8GEJ

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

Subject: Re: Re[4]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS
automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:11:10 +0300
X-Message-Number: 27

Sounds like a great idea Drew.
I agree totally. Once again in Finland, the ham community has been
discussing building Mb RF links of 100km or less to provide an RF
sub-net for emergency use. We think that the band for this is 23cm. The
costs however would be over the top of most club budgets. I mean
building a real RF network thanks fully redundant is a costly deal
The cost and coordination is the only thing preventing it from moving
forward.

Its a good idea Drew, and you are right in saying a multi use RF network
should be in place. One step at a time though. :)

Best regards
Julian
OH8GEJ

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

Subject: Re: Re[6]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS autom obiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:32:59 +0300
X-Message-Number: 28

>I don't understand..
>
>If no one had even had so much as a dialup connection within 120 miles,
>what good will adding more IGATES do? >You said yourself that it wont
>work, yet you are planning IGATES.

Because that same Igate could also functions as a relay station
forwarding packets along until that reached a functioning igate.

just a thought

Julian
OH8GEJ

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

Subject: Parallel Network
From: "Mike Yetsko" <myetsko@insydesw.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:45:26 -0400
X-Message-Number: 29

>Lets not enbrace the internet, lets build a parallel network to SPITE it,
>ignoring that it even exists.

In this I agree. While it's nice to use an established infrastructure, it
can't be depended on.

It's like the guys that run 'traffic nets' all the time, but they do it
over repeaters and 99% of the people have NEVER even run simplex on 2M, let
alone tried to run traffic on HF. The attitude is that when an emergency
comes, they'll be important enough to be able to grab a repeater.

Yeah, right...

>The heck with all this packet cr*p, when it REALLY counts, CW is the
>only thing that will get through.

Uh, want to send this one to myth-busters? Or snopes.com as an urban
legend?

CW is the SIMPLEST thing that will usually get through, and yes, it's
better than MOST of the existing formats up until a number of years
ago, but there's stuff now that CW just won't touch for getting through
interference and noise.

Mike

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

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: Rich Osman <Rich@osman.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:06:52 -0500
X-Message-Number: 30

DG2JW wrote:

>Hi Drew.
>How much bandwidth can be squeezed out of 220?
>Just doing the math, moving from 70cm to 125cm would require you to use wider
bandwidth for the same bitrate.
>
>Just a question not an argument.
>
>best regards
>Julian
>OH8GEJ

Eh? What effect does carrier frequncy have on information bandwidth?

-- 
mailto:Rich@Osman.com http://www.rich.osman.com
Rich Osman; POB 93167; Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport) ARS: N1OZ

If you receive something that says "Send this to everyone you know,"
 PLEASE pretend you don't know me.

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

Subject: Re: What have you accomplished ?
From: Ron Perry <ronk@sunlinux.com.au>
Date: 16 Jun 2004 21:26:18 +1000
X-Message-Number: 31

Thanks Andrew,

On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 19:23, Andrew Rich wrote:
>I have seen a lots of discussions lately and I am not sure what has come
>about from the discussions.

They invaded Afganistan and Iraq? :-)

>Has anything been accomplished ?

As usual, no :-)

>What is the final result ?

As usual, nothing. :-)

Regards,
Ron
vk3ecv

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

Subject: Re: Re[4]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS
automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:54:18 +0300
X-Message-Number: 32

Sorry guys my email seems to be a bit out of sync.

best regards

Julian

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

Subject: Re: What have you accomplished ?
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:58:57 +0300
X-Message-Number: 33

Don't we learn from that which is discussed?
What we learn is another question, but opening a discussion brings about
ideas.
Ideas drive action. Actions push the hobby forward.

I hope so anyway.

Julian
OH8GEJ

>I have seen a lots of discussions lately and I am not sure what has come
>about from the discussions.
>
>Has anything been accomplished ?
>
>What is the final result ?
>
>Andrew Rich (VK4TEC)

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: "Germino" <mgermino@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 05:40:18 -0700
X-Message-Number: 34

I don't find that always to be true. There has been a couple of times I was
using PSK when it wasn't solid copy and the other gentleman had a CW ID at
the end of his message and I could copy it solid by ear. Under certain
propagation conditions over the poles, even strong signals are hard to copy
with PSK31.

I have always wondered if different sound cards work better or worse on PSK?

Mike
73, AD6AA

>PSK 31 will get you thru when CW will not.. It will decode stuff you
>cannot hear thru the noise.

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: "sv1uy" <sv1uy@ham.depa.gr>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:37:13 +0300
X-Message-Number: 35

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 05:40:18 -0700, Germino wrote
>I don't find that always to be true. There has been a couple of
>times I was using PSK when it wasn't solid copy and the other
>gentleman had a CW ID at the end of his message and I could copy it
>solid by ear. Under certain propagation conditions over the poles,
> even strong signals are hard to copy with PSK31.
> 
>I have always wondered if different sound cards work better or worse
>on PSK?
> 
>Mike
>73, AD6AA
> 
>>PSK 31 will get you thru when CW will not.. It will decode stuff you
>>cannot hear thru the noise.

Hi Mike and group,

I second your opinion and I feel that I have to add the following:

If you have a crystal or DSP filter as narrow as the software filter that the
various PSK programs simulate with the decoding program, and feed it through
your headphones and listen to a CW signal, the human brain will decode it as
easy as a computer would decode a PSK signal under the same conditions. We
should not forget that the human brain is also able to correct corrupted
signals or even mistakes introduced by either bad conditions or bad sending
since our brain can also guess where the machine can only do what is being
programmed to do.

Usually people who claim that their computer can decode a PSK signal that they
cannot even hear by ear, they hear this PSK with their SSB filter and the
computer using DSP techniques usually filters the signal further. Now the
human ear cannot hear the output of this computer filtered signal and of
course the computer has an advantage over the human in this comparison, but if
one uses a 250HZ CW filter and also a DSP that can take the receiver's
bandwidth down to 50 HZ then the CW signal is perfectly decodable under the
worst conditions and in todays receivers a 250HZ filter is a must for a CW
operator.

I am not a CW fanatic, although I still enjoy a CW QSO when I go HF portable
on the mountain, I prefer PACTOR myself, I am a digital modes fanatic, but I
think that this myth about PSK can get through easier than CW is just a myth
an nothing more.

I personally do not think that we should be comparing CW with the digital
modes because really they are different modes.

---
73 de Demetre SV1UY
e-mail sv1uy@ham.depa.gr
http://sv1uy.webhop.org
http://www.athnet.ampr.org/~sv1uy
http://www.qsl.net/sv1uy

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

Subject: Re: Parallel Network
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:40:10 -0400
X-Message-Number: 36

MY> Uh, want to send this one to myth-busters? Or snopes.com as an urban
MY> legend?

MY> CW is the SIMPLEST thing that will usually get through, and yes, it's
MY> better than MOST of the existing formats up until a number of years
MY> ago, but there's stuff now that CW just won't touch for getting through
MY> interference and noise.

That might have been sarcasm on my part....

Danny
KE4RAP

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

Subject: Re: What have you accomplished ?
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:55:33 -0400
X-Message-Number: 37

AR> I have seen a lots of discussions lately and I am not sure what has come
AR> about from the discussions.

AR> Has anything been accomplished ?

AR> What is the final result ?

1. Real hams dont use the internet.
2. APRS-IS is just a gimmick and has no real value when questioned using
the ideals of APRS.
3. There will soon be a 100 megabit 220mhz APRS/VoIP/BBS/E-mail/whatever
backbone in the US with ZERO point of failure.
4. KE4RAP has never operated APRS, nor has he ever passed the code test.
5. APRS will be there during a disaster, but due to the magnitude of said
disaster, there will be no one to operate, as we will all be KILLED
INSTANTLY.

Not sure if I missed anything there.

Danny
KE4RAP

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

Subject: Re: What have you accomplished ?
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:25:56 +0300
X-Message-Number: 38

That about covers it.

Julian
oh8gej

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

Subject: Re: What have you accomplished ?
From: "Eric H. Christensen" <kf4otn@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:30:38 -0400
X-Message-Number: 39

Heck, there was more propaganda in this email then there was on the OpenTrak
discussion! Not sure where you got any of that!!! Oh, I guess you were
trying to read between the lines... Good job, Danny!

73s,
Eric KF4OTN
kf4otn@amsat.org

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

Subject: Re: PSK31 APRS
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:35:46 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 40

Quoting Scott Miller <scott@3xf.com>:

>Tired of all the talk of 9.6k+ APRS? Want something a little more
>leisurely?

OpenTRAC
>features
>won't work because the PSK31 varicode alphabet is only 7 bits.

Scott:

You want to take a look at the selection of the varicode here. If the
archives worked (hint hint TAPR) a few years back I did a analysis of this.
The long and the short of it is, what is most "pleasing" to the eye is also
the longest, and in PSK31's case, very long. Upper case and numbers are the
"longest" varicode, which is why they call is varicode. For a Amateur AVL
use (aka "aprs") some significant compression can be had by mapping the
numbers to the smallest charaters in the PSK31 varicode table. No longer
"human readable" but there are a number of free PSK31 OCX's/source code out
there so you could write a converter. Also don't forget PSK31 is not error
free.

BTW, MFSK16 or MFSK8 might be worth looking at as well. I have had fantastic 
results with it in QSO's, much better then PSK31, in particular on 80 meters.

What kind of IMD numbers are you getting? I'm assuming this is some sort of
PWM D/A?

73

Jeff wb8wka

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:37:38 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 41

And MT63/MFSK16 is a level above even PSK31, while offering the same
throughput or better.

Quoting Dale Blanchard <wa7ixk@arrl.net>:

>PSK 31 will get you thru when CW will not.. It will decode stuff you
>cannot hear thru the noise.

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

Subject: Re: What have you accomplished ?
From: "Wilson G. Hein" <wilson.hein@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:38:42 -0400
X-Message-Number: 42

To an end for the means, I have created a group at yahoo.com to support
further discussion and possible implementation of high speed solutions over
amateur frequencies. This will remove the noise from this list, and the
negative effects we have brought here. If your interested just visit the
internet at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HS-HAMS/

and follow the normal subscription. The group will be restricted to amateur
radio operators only, and will be moderated if need be. We may make periodic
announcements if and when APRS is relative to the topic.

Regards,

Wilson G. Hein, ARS WJ3G

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:48:53 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 43

Quoting Germino <mgermino@sbcglobal.net>:

>Ihave always wondered if different sound cards work better or worse on
>PSK?

I think PSK31 is less senstive then other modes, but I can state for a fact
on MT63, certain cards are better then others. I went to a Turtle Beach
Santa Cruz card and went to perfect copy on one program that wouldn't copy
it at all, even though it worked fine with PSK31. Now, that may have to do
with better accuracy on the crystal on the card, but others also use that
card for the SDR projects, which is where I got the recomendation.

73

-Jeff wb8wka

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

Subject: Re: What have you accomplished ?
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:54:25 -0400
X-Message-Number: 44

I should probably follow up and say I think, in all seriousness, that it
was a good discussion.

I think there are a lot of good ideas floating around. Knowing whats right
for your particular application is what makes you a good engineer. If you
did what everyone else was doing, there would be NO innovation at all.

99% of great ideas come from someone thinking everyone else was "full of
it".

Regardless of whether people agree or not, at least they are THINKING.
THINKING is GOOD.

Danny
KE4RAP

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

Subject: Re: What have you accomplished ?
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:58:59 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 45

You might also want to try:

http://www.arrl.org/hsmm

and they even have their own mailing list up. BTW, I find this discussion 
somewhat interesting here. 

Quoting "Wilson G. Hein" <wilson.hein@verizon.net>:

>To an end for the means, I have created a group at yahoo.com to support
>further discussion and possible implementation of high speed solutions over
>amateur frequencies. This will remove the noise from this list,

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

Subject: Re: PSK31 APRS
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:01:54 -0700
X-Message-Number: 46

>You want to take a look at the selection of the varicode here. If the archives
>worked (hint hint TAPR) a few years back I did a analysis of this. The long and
>the short of it is, what is most "pleasing" to the eye is also the longest, and
>in PSK31's case, very long. Upper case and numbers are the "longest" varicode,

Yeah, I know. But I understand PropNet has been using it like this, and I
think there's a way to use UI-View32 with it. And it's human-readable, of
course. It doesn't even need to be APRS to make a useful beacon device.

>What kind of IMD numbers are you getting? I'm assuming this is some sort of PWM
>D/A?

Yes, I'm using an 8-bit resolution PWM D/A. I just checked one of my test
screenshots, and WinPSKse was reporting an IMD of '--'. Not sure what I
need to do to get a real number there.

http://n1vg.net/opentracker/images/psk31-test.gif

Something with FEC and 8-bit support using BPSK would be kind of cool. For
HF use, a 6-byte, 2.5-meter resolution position report should be more than
sufficient.

What's the standard PSK31 preamble, if any? I'm just sending a bunch of
zeros for now, but it does seem to take a bit to lock on.

Scott
N1VG

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

Subject: Re: Kenwood blah blah blah
From: "J. Lance Cotton" <joe@lightningflash.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:09:19 -0500
X-Message-Number: 47

Jeff King wrote:

>And MT63/MFSK16 is a level above even PSK31, while offering the same throughput
>or better.
> 
>Quoting Dale Blanchard <wa7ixk@arrl.net>:
> 
>>PSK 31 will get you thru when CW will not.. It will decode stuff you 
>>cannot hear thru the noise.

But, can you do MFSK16 via the mic-jack with an 8-bit microcontroller? (I'm 
really asking, I don't know!)

I think it's incredible that Scott has changed only the software of his 
tracker device and enabled PSK31 output.

-- 
J. Lance Cotton, KJ5O
http://map.findu.com/kj5o-14
joe@lightningflash.net

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

Subject: Re: 9.6k Baud for APRS
From: "ROBERT M KING" <krm6@msn.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:17:21 -0700
X-Message-Number: 48

Bill, WA7NWP, asked the question "200 Milliseconds or 500 milliseconds" TXD 
for the D700A.

It is 500 milliseconds. Thanks Bill.

Also -- The IC-207 and IC-208H are ICOM transceivers. Sorry!!

Bob King

K7OFT

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




Read previous mail | Read next mail


 01.12.2020 09:49:06lGo back Go up