| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 19.09.06 22:24l 297 Lines 10331 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 8764-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: [APRSSIG] Vol 27 #13, 1/2
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<I0TVL<VE2RXY<IW8PGT<VK4TRS<ZL2BAU
Sent: 060915/2158Z @:ZL2BAU.#87.NZL.OC #:4521 [Waimate] $:8764-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL2BAU.#87.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (KA8VIT)
2. RE: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (wa7nwp_at_jnos.org)
3. RE: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (Robert Bruninga)
4. garmin gpsmap 76 question (Wes Johnston, AI4PX)
5. RE: garmin gpsmap 76 question (Amir's email)
6. RE: garmin gpsmap 76 question (scott_at_opentrac.org)
7. RE: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (Cap Pennell)
8. APRS Intro Presentation (Darryl Smith)
9. Re: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (Ray McKnight)
10. Re: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (wa7nwp)
11. Re: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (Steve Huston)
12. Odd TinyTrak II bahviour (Andrew Rich)
13. RE: APRS Intro Presentation (Edwards, Chris)
14. RE: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (Robert Bruninga)
15. Re: Packet Node on 144.390 ? (wa7nwp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:14:06 -0400
From: KA8VIT <ka8vit_at_ka8vit.com>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
Winlink ??? arrrggghhhh !
Bill KA8VIT
Robert Bruninga wrote:
>I agree completely. If one is going to have a "BBS",
>Make it part of the WinLINK system so that it can
>Do everything, not just ham packet mail. Bob
--
Bill Chaikin, KA8VIT
USS COD Amateur Radio Club - W8COD
WW2 Submarine USS COD SS-224 (NECO)
ka8vit_at_ka8vit.com
http://ka8vit.com
http://www.usscod.org
QRP-L NBR: 2596
FP#-1043
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:04:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: wa7nwp_at_jnos.org
Subject: RE: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
>>... Keep nodes where they belong, 145.01/03/05 etc.
On the air...
>>With the advent of WinLink which offers far superior
>>performance, and can be used on either HF or VHF
>>and/or internet and email, effecitively and MUCH
>>faster, why bother?
>
>I agree completely. If one is going to have a "BBS",
>Make it part of the WinLINK system so that it can
>Do everything, not just ham packet mail. Bob
You got that backwards Bob. Winlink Email is just a part of what we can do
with Packet and other Amateur Data modes...
And no - it doesn't offer far superior performance either. So many urban
legends about Winlink.
Bill - WA7NWP
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:59:27 -0400
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga_at_usna.edu>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
Bill, thanks.
Yes, I thought ARRL was endorsing it. I don't use WInLINK or AIRMAIL, but
what I like about it is that any TNC and a dumb terminal can still log onto
the packet nodes and get email or messages in and our globally. Though I
will admit I havent done this in a while.
Bob
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:01:41 -0400
From: "Wes Johnston, AI4PX" <wes_at_kd4rdb.com>
Subject: [aprssig] garmin gpsmap 76 question
Can anyone tell me how many track back (ie bread crumb) points there are in
a basic gpsmap 76? Not the Cs or Cx model... just the base model. Garmin
seems to have reorganized their site and I can't find THAT particular spec.
Also, what is the power plug on an etrex? the flat four pin one?
Wes
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:44:19 -0400
From: "Amir's email" <sarlabs_at_twcny.rr.com>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] garmin gpsmap 76 question
The eTrex takes the square flat 4 pin plug.
The specs are here: http://www.garmin.com/products/gpsmap76/spec.html
Seems to me you have ten saved tracks.
BTW, Garmin GPS units simplify tracks when you save them. They are not
exactly the track you walked. Just FYI.
Amir Findling, 73 de K9CHP, member ARRL, AMSAT #36083
Coordinator, Senior K9 Handler Western NY SearchDogs, Inc.
http://www.wnysearchdogs.org/
K9 Certification Tester, NYS Federation of SAR Teams
http://www.nysfedsar.org/
1st Special Response Group (1SRG) http://www.1srg.org/
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:11:38 -0700
From: <scott_at_opentrac.org>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] garmin gpsmap 76 question
The original eTrex units take the flat 4-pin connector [commercial content
deleted] but the newer color units are USB only, from what I've seen.
Specifically, the eTrex takes +3 volts on pin 1, which is the one by
itself, separated by a key notch. Ground is on pin 4.
Scott
N1VG
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:31:44 -0700
From: "Cap Pennell" <cap_at_cruzio.com>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
Yes. Works well (even with only plain old 2 meter packet radio using any
terminal program).
http://home.earthlink.net/~k7bfl/WL2K_FAQ.pdf
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/winlink.html
73, Cap KE6AFE
http://map.findu.com/ke6afe-WL
>-----Original Message-----
>
>Bill, thanks.
>
>Yes, I thought ARRL was endorsing it.
>I don't use WInLINK or AIRMAIL, but what I like about it is that
>any TNC and a dumb terminal can still log onto the packet nodes
>and get email or messages in and our globally. Though I will
>admit I havent done this in a while.
>
>Bob
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:34:18 +1000
From: "Darryl Smith" <Darryl_at_Radio-active.net.au>
Subject: [aprssig] APRS Intro Presentation
People
Does anyone have a decent Introduction to APRS powerpoint that I could
steal? Or Introduction to UI View? I have some stuff, but they are a tiny
bit old and I would like to have something updated. Emailing me direct is
probably the way to do this
Thanks
Darryl
In Tucson
---------
Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia
Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 Int] - 02 9618 6459
www.radio-active.net.au/blog/ - www.radio-active.net.au/web/tracking/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:09:05 -0700
From: "Ray McKnight" <shortsheep_at_worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
Bill, please explain your last comment.
With a Pactor-II or III modem, capable of up to something like 33kbaud
throughput (due to sophisticated compression and transport protocols) how
is WinLink less efficient than 1200 baud connected mode packet ack'ing
individual packets and waiting for ack's etc through several layers of
nodes and BBS's? Not to mention Pactor's ability to pass data effectively
up to -18db BELOW the noise floor. Most packet modems require tons of
clean strong audio or else they go stupid and can't decode. But let's not
open that whole decade+ long debate over pre-emphasis, proper tone levels,
etc ad nauseum. WinLink *is* far superior simply because it generally
relies on Pactor which is several magnitudes more efficient than packet.
For the poor bloke who can't enter via HF and accesses WinLink from a
packet front end, well maybe there's an arguement there. I never think in
terms of VHF/Packet and WinLink in the same sentance, because I will always
choose the HF route because it is far superior and just plain more fun. VHF
WinLink for me is merely a backup method in case there's nothing else
available. But now we're getting a bit off topic.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:44:54 -0700
From: wa7nwp <wa7nwp_at_jnos.org>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
Ray McKnight wrote:
>With a Pactor-II or III modem, capable of up to something like 33kbaud
>throughput (due to sophisticated compression and transport protocols)
>how is WinLink less efficient than 1200 baud connected mode packet
>ack'ing individual packets and waiting for ack's etc through several layers
>of nodes and BBS's? Not to mention Pactor's ability to pass data
>effectively up to -18db BELOW the noise floor. Most packet modems
>require tons of clean strong audio or else they go stupid and can't decode.
>But let's not open that whole decade+ long debate over pre-emphasis,
>proper tone levels, etc ad nauseum. WinLink *is* far superior simply
>because it generally relies on Pactor which is several magnitudes more
>efficient than packet.
>>You got that backwards Bob. Winlink Email is just a part of what we
can do with Packet and other Amateur Data modes...
>>
>>And no - it doesn't offer far superior performance either. So many
urban legends about Winlink.
>Bill, please explain your last comment.
Your posting proves my point. Urban legends.. Check your figures. If
they can get 33kbaud into less then a 3 KHz HF channel - they're on to a
breakthrough in communications technology. Pactor 3 is better then 1200
baud packet - but then again so is almost everything else. Pactor 1 is
about 200 bps raw, AFSK packet is 1200 and Pactor 3 gets up to about 3300
bps under the best conditions. So best to best -- you'll get about 3x the
speed of "packet" with Pactor 3. That's not quite several orders of
magnitudes.
Add a digipeater or two and packet is down to Pactor 1 speed (200 bps).
Digipeaters give coverage at the cost of speed. Add that noisy HF band
and your Pactor 3 is also down to Pactor 1 speed...
On the other hand, the 9600 baud "repeaters" we had/have in the Puget Sound
area will give that coverage and about 3 times the speed of Pactor 3 -- at
the expense of a second channel.
No question that Pactor 3 is the hottest thing going on HF. It's great
technology and the designers deserve the price tag they put on it.
Likewise Winlink2k is great technology. Still it's only one facet of what
we can do with packet and digital modes and it's not necessarily the best
even for Email.
The folks that built the 56K repeater systems and 2 megabit links are off
playing with IPV6 or unwiring islands or raising babies.. Our "current"
packet technology is not what it once was. That doesn't mean it won't be
that - or much better - in the near future. (The Europeans here are
probably laughing at my use of the term "our".. They've never stopped
doing great technology and making progress... Notice where the Pactor 3
comes from...)
I stand by my assertion that Winlink2k is only a portion of what we can do
with packet and that it's not "far" superior performance. The "superior"
rating is even at risk.. Stay tuned. :-)
73
Bill - WA7NWP
Has anybody here transfered a 3+ MByte .mp3 file by Pactor 3? A 2MB
ampr.org domain file? Even a 350K Seti workunit? How about just a
plain old 200K JNOS.exe file?
------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
