OpenBCM V1.07b12 (Linux)

Packet Radio Mailbox

DB0FHN

[JN59NK Nuernberg]

 Login: GUEST





  
ZL3AI  > APRDIG   14.07.04 10:32l 735 Lines 29553 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3588-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jul 12, 2/3
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040714/0910Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:27846 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3588-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To  : APRDIG@WW

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:35:27 -0400
X-Message-Number: 21

>>>"Richard Amirault" <ramirault@erols.com> 7/12/04 1:53:07 PM >>>
>Subject: [aprssig] Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
>Everyone listens on 144.39.
>Mobiles continue to TX on 144.39
>only fixed and WX stations TX on 145.xxx
>    but their packets are digipeated over
>    to 144.39 for further routing.
>
>... so does that mean a home station will digipeat mobiles
>they hear on .39 over to the new freq?  If they don't then 
>mobiles will loose that very imports first digi (RELAY) into 
>the (main) DIGI ...

Good point.  This is true, but remember this is an *alternate* -optional-
input channel.  It would not make sense to move strategically placed home
stations serving as RELAYS over to it.

>And wll the home stations be transmiting "in the blind" 
>on a freq it is not listening to?

Yes, that is the network design to GAIN an order of magnitude  better
reliability for everyone in that area. It is just like the COMMON practice
of using PL on 2 meter voice repeaters.  Every user of such a repeater is
transmitting in the blind on the input channel...

de Wb4APR, Bob

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:39:12 -0400
X-Message-Number: 22

THe alternate INPUT channel concept for APRS has one objective.  That is to
IMPROVE the probabilty of SUCCESS for a local packet in the local area.  If
your area has no problems with local users being heard reliably then your
area does not need this option...   Bob

>>>"Larry Cerney" <lcerney@viawest.net> 7/12/04 2:12:40 PM >>>
Please help me understand this.  My station which is Fixed and WX transmits
on 145.xx in the blind to be received by a node which gathers some 5
beacons and retransmits them in bulk back onto 144.39.  Is that correct? If
so, I think I understand this is to reduce the chance of collisions with
hidden stations and to reduce the total number of packets on 144.39 for any
given time.  Is this correct?

The reason I ask is, and here on the front ranges of the Rocky Mountains we
don't seem to have a problem with an inordinate number of collisions, it
seems to me that channel utilization will not decrease that much just by
bundling up Fixed and WX station beacons, removing their headers and
retransmitting them back in bulk. 

Am I missing something here?

Larry
K0ANI

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

Subject: new terminology
From: wes@johnston.net
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 23

Just to keep our humor about us....

Transmitting in the blind onto an alternate digipeater input frequency will
result in _occasional_ doubles.  This method I would like to call DLCA
(dumb luck collision avoidance).

**********************************

Back to the serious stuff... Richard brought up a good point which needs to
be addressed... home RELAY stations TX'ing packets in the back door of the
digi. With two completely seperate TNCs at a digi site, there would be no
chance for dupe supression if the primary digi had already digipeated the
packet.  That puts us in a position of backing up to just WX stations as
Scott suggested, and home users who don't want to run as RELAY.

Of course from the practical side of things... mobiles will benefit by
relaying off the back door of a digi via a home station RELAY... and yes
there will probably be a dupe on 144.39, but the next tier out of
digipeaters will catch it in their dupe checking and that dupe won't get
far.  I guess there're pros and cons to everything.

Wes

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:43:00 -0400
X-Message-Number: 24

>>><wes@johnston.net> 7/12/04 2:24:06 PM >>>
>This idea can be sold to the locals as "their own private 
>back door" into the digi...

Yep, that is all that it is!  And it is at NO ONE's expense so everyone
gains.  This is because once the packets get there via the back door, they
take advantage of the full CSMA that the digi can hear on 144.39 and so
they are inserted seamlessly into the channel without colliding with
anyone.  And the TXD's are bundled to boot...

Everyone wins....

de WB4APR, Bob

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:47:44 -0500
X-Message-Number: 25

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Bruninga
>
>>this is of questionable legal standing which has been
>hashed over many
>>times in the past on this SIG.
>
>Hogwash... and balderdash fodder for the uninformed...

Ahh, then you work for the FCC enforcement division!  Bob, it is too bad
that when presented with well thought out arguments your move is to
attempt to justify your position with baseless statements and insults.
I am very well informed, far more experienced than you in network
design, and am very sorry that I presented my statements to such a
closed and mindlessly defensive person.

Rant away.  I am done.

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL

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

Subject: Re: new terminology
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:11:40 -0400
X-Message-Number: 26

>>><wes@johnston.net> 7/12/04 2:38:52 PM >>>
>home RELAY stations TX'ing packets in the back door
>of the digi. ... mobiles will benefit by relaying off the back 
>door of a digi via a home station RELAY... and yes there will
>probably be a dupe on 144.39, ....

But it is no different from now. If a home and a digi both hear the
original RELAY packet, both will also now digipeat it.  SO there is no
added problem here.  In fact, there is a slight advantage to the mobile,
becasue the RELAY via the home station will now get a backdoor free ride to
the digi..

But in general, remember that these days, we hopefully have been SMART at
our assignments of home RELAYS and we no longer make "every" home station a
relay.  Only those that are on the fringes...

Bob

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

Subject: RE: new terminology
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:26:35 -0500
X-Message-Number: 27

I find it interesting that so much effort is being put forth to reduce,
and I quote Bob, "3% possibility of collisions".  This while removing
the RELAY capability of fixed stations, using the questionable
transmission technique of "transmitting in the blind", potentially
adding duplicate packets to 144.39, potentially adding multiple packets
carrying the same information (wx reformatting), ensuring multiple
IGates in an area becoming useless as they will not be able to see other
IGates transmitting, ...

A much simpler solution which would only lose the RELAY capability of
fixed stations is to move the fixed and wx stations to 440 and use a
dual port TNC (or 2 TNC's) as a dual port digi where everything from
144.39 shows up on 440 and vice versa.  No 2m cavities, no transmitting
"in the blind", no duplicate packets (if the digi software is doing full
dupe checking, not just the limited WIDEn-n dupe checking in the
Kantronics), no converting of packets from one format to another, true
CSMA on both 144.39 and 440, IGates on 440 at least stand a chance to
see each other, ...

I am sorry, I said I was done before.  I hope this post doesn't fall on
deaf ears even though, as previously pointed out, I am terribly
"uninformed".

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL

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

Subject: does anyone see me??
From: "JBCrafts" <jbcraft@adelphia.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:27:29 -0400
X-Message-Number: 28

I am trying to set up APRSPoint, I THINK that I have the data inout correct,
that help file is so helpful (HEEHEEHEE - insert belly laugh here)...

I see myself on my map, I see others out there too, I hear myself transmit
when I "send position", but I do not see myself on FINDU.COM

Bob K8YS

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:10 -0400
X-Message-Number: 29

>>>this is of questionable legal standing which has been
>>>hashed over many  times in the past on this SIG.
> 
>>Hogwash... and balderdash fodder for the uninformed...
>
>Ahh, then you work for the FCC enforcement division!  
>Bob, it is too bad that when presented with well thought 
>out arguments

Sorry, as I noted in my reply, your inflamitory arguments of " bad network
design" and implied illegal operation appeared to have overlooked the very
low collision rates... and the beneificits of full 100% CSMA then beyond
that.

>your move is to attempt to justify your  position with 
>baseless statements...

Sorry Pete, every one of my arguements was backed up with a reasonable
basis of assumed numbers, and I was happy to modify my assumed numbers
based on your input.   If you want to put on labels like "baseless" then I
would think that term would not apply to my arguments but might better
apply to possibly yours...

>and insults.

Sorry Pete, my refereence to the balderdash and hogwash was referring to
the phrase referring to the endless regurgitation on this SIG that you
reffered to, not to you:

QUOTE:
>>>this is of questionable legal standing which has been
>>>hashed over many  times in the past on this SIG.
UNQUOTE:

Which disucssions were and always has been -hogwash- and -balderdash- by
those who fail to understand simple network principles..  I am sorry you
took it personally, it was not intended that way at all...

>I am very well informed, far more experienced than you 
>in network design, and am very sorry that I presented 
>my statements to such a closed and mindlessly defensive 
>person.

Well sorry you see it that way.   Please present your arguments again and
show us how a guaranteed average (estimated to be 97%) COLLISION-FREE
alternate channel input is such a "bad design" compared to the order of
magnitude worse collision situation we have now on 144.39?

There is nothing personal about this.  If there is an error in my logic, I
want to learn about it now.  But your use of inflamitory terms such as BAD
design and implied ILLEGAL operation with no supporting justification are
not condusive to good technical exchanges...

Working out technical issues via a public or group discussion should work
based on reasonable assumptions and supporting justificaiton so that the
means by which someone draws a given conclusion can be understood. We
shouldn't inflame the discussion with unsubstantiated opinions and
inflamatory words which just squanders the opportunity to make progress.

de WB4APR, Bob

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "Richard Amirault" <ramirault@erols.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:54:49 -0400
X-Message-Number: 30

Poor comparison ...(or I don't understand what PL repaters have to do with
the comparison) ... folks transmitting on the *input* of a repeater are
heard on the *output* (99% of the time) so there is no reason to monitor
the input before transmitting.

Richard in Boston, MA, USA
N1JDU

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

Subject: RE: new terminology
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:08:14 -0400
X-Message-Number: 31

Sorry, Pete, but all of these "problems" you refer to have been refuted.
They simply do not exist.  Ill take them one at a time:

>>>"AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com> 7/12/04 3:26:35 PM >>>
>I find it interesting that so much effort is being put forth 
>to reduce, and I quote Bob, "3% possibility of collisions".

You are mixing apples and oranges and apparently still not understanding
how this alt-channel works.  The probability of collison on the new ALT
channel without CSMA is about 3% , compared to what it is currently say 30%
on the main  144.39 channel (I pulled that 30% out of the air, but in any
case,  it is a value much bigger than 3%)

>This, while removing the RELAY capability of fixed stations, 

Not so.  The fixed stations are still  listening on 144.39 for all traffic
including mobiles...  And then digipeat any such mobiles back into the
system via the alt-channel. Nothing is lost.  In fact the probabilities for
that mobile and anyone with which he could colllide actually improve.

>using the questionable transmission technique of 
>"transmitting in the blind"...

There is nothing questionable about it.  Unless in  your mind all amateur
VOICE repeater users are also questionable because users transmit
*in-the-blind" on the input while only listening on the output...

>... potentially adding duplicate packets to 144.39, 

Packets going via a RELAY home station add no new dupes going via the ALT
input that would not already be there already under the existing system.

>potentially adding multiple packets carrying the same 
>information (wx reformatting)

Not true.  There is no path for the unconverted WX packets to get to the
main channel.  And besides, this is only a very minor part of the
proposal...

>, ensuring multiple IGates in an area becoming useless 
>as they will not be able to see other IGates transmitting, ...

Not true.  All IGATES will still listen on 144.39 and will still hear
everything.  What they transmit on the alternate input will still be seen
on 144.39.  No different from now.

>A much simpler solution... is to move the fixed and wx 
>stations to 440 and use a dual port TNC (or 2 TNC's) 
>as a dual port digi where everything from 144.39 shows 
>up on 440 and vice versa.  

I dont see how this "440" idea can be considered "simpler".? It requires
new radios, new antennas, and new specialized TNC's and not just at the
digi but for *everyone*.   Whereas the proposed alt-channel concept only
adds a single -any- garden-variety-TNC-will-do TNC... to an existing
digi... and nothing new for the users.

>I am sorry, I said I was done before.  I hope this post 
>doesn't fall on deaf ears...

It is a good input and we do like to hear other opinions. But when you
subtract out all the wrong assumptions, it doesn't appear to me how there
are any advantages to your 440 approach which requires just about all new
hardware for everyone, compared to the simplicity of the alt-channel input
concept which simply adds a single any-old-TNC to an existing DIGI and gain
so much and the users only have to turn their TX knob.

de Wb4APR, Bob

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:16:12 -0400
X-Message-Number: 32

>>>"Richard Amirault" 7/12/04 3:54:49 PM >>>
>Poor comparison ...(or I don't understand what PL repeaters 
>have to do with the comparison) ... folks transmitting on 
>the *input* of a repeater are heard on the *output* (99% 
>of the time) so there is no reason to monitor the input before 
>transmitting.

Two points:
1)  Same goes here.  The alt-input channel is a locally coordinated  INPUT
    channel for the local APRS digi. That is what the channel is
    coordinated for.

2)  Most repeaters are PL.  This is because there are other users apparenly
    on the same channel that are NOT intended for "this" repeater.  Thus,
    users who do transmit on the  input also have NO WAY to know if they
    are colliding with someone or not. This is common practice and logical
    for the intent of the repeater.  No need to get into an arm-chair legal
    issue over...

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: Robbie - WA9INF <mwrobertson@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:48 -0500
X-Message-Number: 33

Bob,

You're missing something in your analogy here.. If some one is already 
using the repeater's input, everyone listening to the repeater will wait 
til that station is finished transmitting, (CMSA?) On your ALT channel 
method, I would not honor that person already using the repeater's input, I
would just start transmitting right on top of him, hoping to "capture" the
repeater's receiver.

I think this is not the answer to a problem we all know too well to be 
nothing but lack of understanding of the purpose of APRS. EDUCATION and 
guidance will do more good than grabbing more frequencies across the nation
and using them without listening, which is illegal to start with... Now to
be legal, you want everyone to go and buy more receivers and modify tncs.<g>

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: John Kraus <jfkraus3@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:28:10 -0400
X-Message-Number: 34

A station that is not using PL will not be heard on the output.  Therefore 
all stations using a PL closed repeater are defacto transmitting in the 
blind since they cannot hear these stations.

Whether or not they should be transmitting there is beside the point.

I see the argument as one of what type of interference is being caused.

I see these basic types of interference:

incidental (repeater or simplex doubles)
deliberate (Malicious)
planned    (anticipated as part of the system and you can attempt to reduce it)

I believe Bob's plan falls under types 1 and 3. Type one is a fact of life 
on any ALOHA channel. Bob's proposal exchanges massive type 1 on 144.390 
for potentially less on an alt input.

Let's get back to the concept of experimentation that is at the core of Ham 
radio. As long as any interference is either incidental or planned I don't 
see the problem.

And please leave BPL out of the discussion as I see it as type 2 with legal 
sanction but that is another topic altogether.

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

Subject: THD7A(G) 2mtr brick gone?
From: Robert W Burton <kd4ydc@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:28:56 -0400
X-Message-Number: 35

Curious if anyone on the list has had this problem and what Kenwood
charged to fix it?

The output on my 2mtr side has gone away.  The 440 side has output.  I
have tried a full reset and still nothing (hoping it was the cpu or
something).  Has anyone else this problem and was Kenwood (or anyone else
for that matter) able to fix it?  

Thanks,
Robert

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: wes@johnston.net
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 36

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:48 -0500, Robbie - WA9INF wrote:

>You're missing something in your analogy here.. If some one is already
>using the repeater's input, everyone listening to the repeater will wait

Yes, repeaters are "real time" and digpeaters are not.  It is entirely
possible that the output frequency of the digi (144.39) is not in use, and
two stations simulatneously try for the input frequency.  This however is
no different that what currently goes on when the two stations are on
opposite sides of town from each other and can't hear one another.  One
solution to this was /is DAMA.

>til that station is finished transmitting, (CMSA?) On your ALT channel
>method, I would not honor that person already using the repeater's
>input, I would just start transmitting right on top of him, hoping to
>"capture" the repeater's receiver.

The practical side of this whole "tx in the blind issue" is that most of
the time, you do transmit without knowing that a distant station is on the
air. Anytime you TX a packet which should have been heard but wasn't
digipeated for some odd reason.... well that reason is that another station
who didn't hear you talked over the top of you.  It happens lots of times
per day per digipeater.

Has anyone looked at the numbers of packets which are really NOT local that
your local digipeater passes along each day?  I'm going to take a wild
guess and say that 9 out of every 10 packets are not of local origin on our
local digi.  Now I am interested in traffic from one town away in each
direction, but not for 2 states away.  With this alt input frequency idea,
we are giving the local users a "private" backdoor into the digipeater.
Transmitting to this backdoor will have the risk of TXing at the same time
as another local BUT there is only 10% of the traffic level on the back
door frequency as on 144.39.  Thing is, when you transmitted on 144.39, you
couldn't hear the other local guy across town AND you had 90% more traffic
to compete with.  Thing is, I just don't see how this "back door frequency"
is a bad thing.... it can be there for anyone wishing to use it... if you
don't think it's a good idea, don't set your radio to TX/RX split. It will
have zero effect on those wishing to not participate.   

>I think this is not the answer to a problem we all know too well to be
>nothing but lack of understanding of the purpose of APRS. EDUCATION and
>guidance will do more good than grabbing more frequencies across the

In Upotia, South Dakota that might work.  But we have stations (dare I name
ww1r, or whatever his callsign is _this_ week) who defies education.  It's
a great idea to educate users, but in the end, we gotta draw a line
somewhere and trust that people will do stupid/dumb/silly things and at
somepoint cut them off at the knees.  It is the congestion caused by people
running paths like RELAY RELAY RELAY WIDE7-7 RELAY that keeps me from
getting into my digipeater reliably.  I can write emails until I am blue in
the face, and the locals around ww1r can budlist him all they want... he
still gets thru and QRM's me 200 miles away.

Wes

ham callsign: kd4rdb
find me: http://wesvan.zapto.org

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

Subject: Re: does anyone see me??
From: "Keith - VE7GDH" <ve7gdh@rac.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:36:47 -0700
X-Message-Number: 37

Bob K8YS wrote 12/07/2004 12:27:29 PM

>I am trying to set up APRSPoint, I THINK that I have the data inout
>correct, that help file is so helpful. I see myself on my map, I see
>others out there too, I hear myself transmit when I "send position",
>but I do not see myself on FINDU.COM

It sounds like your beacon is not making it to an IGATE. Do you have
another radio you can listen on to see if your signal is being digipeated
when you transmit? I'm assuming that the IGATE also has digipeating
enabled. Alternatively, is there another ham nearby that is running an APRS
program so they could let you know if they copy your beacon, digipeated or
not? Also, what unproto address are you using, and what is your approximate
lat / long?

73 es cul - Keith VE7GDH
--
"I may be lost, but I know exactly where I am."

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:28:34 -0400
X-Message-Number: 38

>>>Robbie - WA9INF <mwrobertson@comcast.net> 7/12/04 4:46:48 PM >>>
>You're missing something in your analogy here.. 
>If some one is already using the repeater's input, 
>everyone listening to the repeater will wait til that station 
>is finished transmitting, (CMSA?) 

Not if the repeater is using PL.  Then you will not hear everyone else on
the channel.  Only a select few. My point is that there is nothing
"illegal" or improper for transmitting on an input of a coordinated system
without being required to listen on that input chanel first.

Bob

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

Subject: Re: APRS 144.39 dual channel upgrade
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:41:57 -0400
X-Message-Number: 39

One other thought.
At first I suggested that alt-channel inputs must avoid being in adjacent
areas on the same frequency to prevent dupes.

But then Wes pointed out the extreme advantages of 144.99 as the +600
offset from 144.39 and so the idea of using that frequency does have great
appeal if available in yoru area.

Then I realized that the boundary between one 144.99 input and another one
does not have to be precisely pure and distinct.  This is because NEITHER
one hears each other becuse they dont re-transmit on 144.99. Their only job
is to listen for fixed stations.  And fixed stations have longer ranges
anyway, so these 144.99 input channels may only need to be every 3rd digi
or so and still see MOST of the benefit.

1) If there is a slight overlap and a fixed station does hit both, then the
onus is on that fixed station to either not use the alt-channel or to lower
his power or change his antenna to solve the problem

2)  If there is a slight gap in coverage and a few fixed stations cannot
get into the 144.99 input, again there is no great impact.  Those few
stations may not get to take advantage of this alt chnnel, but still
statistically almost everyone else does benefit even these few stations
that have to stay on 144.39.

So I suggest, start monitoring 144.99 and contacting your local digital
coordinating committee and see if it is available in your area.

I have moved the bulk of this topic over to a new WEB page that is linked
on my usual FIXING 144.39 page:

http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/aprs/fix14439.html

de Wb4APR, Bob

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

Subject: Re: does anyone see me??
From: "JBCrafts" <jbcraft@adelphia.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:20:25 -0400
X-Message-Number: 40

Keith;

I hear myself transmit and I hear a nearby digi transmit...

I have not been on APRS in some time, my unproto is RELAY and I digi via
WIDE,WIDE.

Bob K8YS

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

Subject: Re: Super Tiny DIgipeater
From: "Brian  Riley (maillist)" <n1bq_list@wulfden.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:18:39 -0400
X-Message-Number: 41

Take a look at the transmitter board for N6BG's Pocket Tracker,it may be
under powered as is, but maybe they can juice it up.

On 7/9/04 5:33 PM, "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu> wrote:

>I understand that the TNC-X pic TNC is now working?
> 
>What woiuld it take to make it a DIIGPEATER (very simple, just respond to
>WIDE)... If we can make it work, then I may have several small CUBESAT
>builders that would fly us some more digipeaters in space.
> 
>These 4" cubesat satellits have no room for a full sized TNC, and most use a
>MIM module to transmit GPS or Telemetry in APRS format, but they dont have any
>receiver.  If we could add a receiver, then we would have a SPACE
>digipeater...  And lots of them on a continuing basis...
> 
>Also we still need a TINY 1 W 2m transmitter. Has anyone tried to reverse
>engineer the old AGRELLO postage stamp APRS transmitter?

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

Subject: Re: Wanted : PIC code for NMEA bit bashing
From: "Mike Yetsko" <myetsko@insydesw.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:59:33 -0400
X-Message-Number: 42

>Is anyone willing to give up some code for decoding NMEA 4800 data stream
>using bit bash method ? I am using the MAX232 and USART method for a
>GPS display. I would rather keep the chip count down to one.
>
>http://www.tech-software.net/gpsiilcd.htm
>
>Cheer Andy VK4TEC

You mean bit-banging UART code?  At any baud rate?

I've done it for all kinds of processors.  Not that I would have direct
fit, but if you want general algorithms...

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

Subject: Re: does anyone see me??
From: "Keith - VE7GDH" <ve7gdh@rac.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:02:56 -0700
X-Message-Number: 43

Bob K8YS wrote 12/07/2004 5:20:25 PM

>I hear myself transmit and I hear a nearby digi transmit...
>
>I have not been on APRS in some time, my unproto is RELAY and I digi via
>WIDE,WIDE.

Hi Bob

Is it right after you transmit that you hear the nearby digi transmit?
If so, that is a good sign, but...

What is the callsign of the digi that is hearing you, or what is the
approximate lat / long for either yourself or the digi? I or someone else
could look and see how far the nearest IGATE was from the digi if we knew
your location. If your beacon is being digipeated, the most likely scenario
is that there is no IGATE within earshot of the digi. Just being digipeated
isn't enough if you are looking for yourself at findu.com. You have to
either be heard directly by the IGATE, or the IGATE must be able to hear
the digipeated beacon before you will make it into the APRS-IS and show up
on findu.com.

Something else to consider... you could temporarily try a longer path like
RELAY,WIDE3-3 or RELAY,WIDE4-4 and see if it makes any difference. Maybe
you are already going out by a couple of hops, but perhaps one more hop
would do it. When you get things sorted out, you could shorten the path to
RELAY,WIDE2-2 again. Do you know what others in your area are using?

73 es cul - Keith VE7GDH
--
"I may be lost but I know exactly where I am"

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




Read previous mail | Read next mail


 29.11.2020 06:10:23lGo back Go up