| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 04.10.99 20:35l 223 Lines 7203 Bytes #-9731 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_248A
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/248A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<OE2XOM<OE5XBL<DB0RGB<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0EAM<DB0KH<
DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991004/1439Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5641 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_248
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20487 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 14:11:14 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016176 ; Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:20:11 MET
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:09:13 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_248A>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/248A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Ham-Digital Digest Sat, 2 Oct 99 Volume 99 : Issue 248
Today's Topics:
"Data" Column in RadCom (4 msgs)
56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W (8 msgs)
Caldera 2.3 and AX.25 Set-up
Connectors for Blaupunkt "Gamma" radio/cassette ???
Is a TM-241 ready for 9k6???
Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales (3 msgs)
List of the rec.radio newsgroups
MFJ-1278
Packet modems and Windows CE portables
Packet with an HT
RTTY Term Program
WTD Kenwood VC-H1 SSTV Communicator (2 msgs)
WTD PTC-II Pactor Controller
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Ham-Digital-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
Loop-Detect: Ham-Digital:99/248
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:29:22 +0100
From: "Andy McMullin" <Andy.McMullin@pbs.plym.ac.uk>
Subject: "Data" Column in RadCom
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:39:56 +0100, Ian Wade <ian@dowrmain.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>Yes, it's true! In this month's RSGB RadCom there's an announcement
>saying that yours truly is taking over the "Data" column again, starting
>in December.
>
>I need input, lots of it. Please email me (g3nrw@arrl.net) if you have
>any points for discussion, any news of groups/individuals/products etc
>in the world of amateur radio data comms. Pictures (GIF/JPG) also very
>welcome.
How about a bit on APRS -- especially as UI-View version 2 has now been
released?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 15:26:48 +0100
From: Ian Wade <ian@dowrmain.demon.co.uk>
Subject: "Data" Column in RadCom
In article <37f38f5f@palantir.pbs.plym.ac.uk>, Andy McMullin
<Andy.McMullin@pbs.plym.ac.uk> writes
>
>How about a bit on APRS -- especially as UI-View version 2 has now been
>released?
I was beginning to think that *nobody* would ever ask .... :-))
Yes, there will be plenty about APRS.
73
Ian, G3NRW
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Editor: RSGB's RadCom "Data" column. |
| email: g3nrw@arrl.net |
| AX.25: G3NRW @ GB7ZPU.#21.GBR.EU |
| |
| INTRODUCTION TO APRS: http://www.netro.co.uk/whitepaper.htm |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:05:33 +0100
From: "Mike" <m.j.willis@rl.ac.uk>
Subject: "Data" Column in RadCom
> I was beginning to think that *nobody* would ever ask .... :-))
>
> Yes, there will be plenty about APRS.
What about DBRS ?
Mike
(Decent baud rate systems)
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 07:11:31 +0100
From: Ian Wade <ian@dowrmain.demon.co.uk>
Subject: "Data" Column in RadCom
In article <7t2m4e$15g8@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>, Mike <m.j.willis@rl.ac.uk>
writes
>What about DBRS ?
>(Decent baud rate systems)
There'll be nothing indecent about my column, I'll have you know sir!
But there may be info on 9600 up when I can lay my hands on it.
73
Ian, G3NRW
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Editor: RSGB's RadCom "Data" column. |
| email: g3nrw@arrl.net |
| AX.25: G3NRW @ GB7ZPU.#21.GBR.EU |
| |
| INTRODUCTION TO APRS: http://www.netro.co.uk/whitepaper.htm |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 22:41:06 +0000
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Mike Wiley wrote:
> Maybe my power levels are to high for a populated area.
I agree. There is nothing that prevents someone from adding an external power
amplifier if it's needed.
Something in the 10-25w range would probably be much better. Lower power
design, less heat sink, etc., would reduce the cost too.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:37:13 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:wUf0N06UQFUNMI+raj2EedkntYL5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:29:45 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> The dedicated links do not require 100w.
> >
> >Why?
>
> As this was about dedicated links, there are usually directional
> antennas at least at one end, so we are talking about ERPs over 1 kW.
>
> There are only a few situations I can think of, in which this makes
> sense.
>
> 1. The receiver bandwidth is very large, e.g. in ATV or multi-megabit
> data links.
>
> 2. In troposcatter links up to 400 km, but in this case more ERP would
> be preferable.
>
> 3. Meteor scatter links using random meteors at lower VHF, possibly
> sufficient for distributing DX-spots or other low data volume
> messages.
>
> In all other cases if the link really needs 1 kW or more ERP, this is
> clearly overstretching the link. Broadcasters have measured their
> signal strengths for decades even on VHF/UHF and there are quite large
> signal strength variations from day to day or even from one hour to
> the next due to varying weather conditions. If you need nearly the
> full power most of the time, there are going to be quite long times
> when the receiving signal is below minimum, thus the link usability
> time might be well below 90 %.
Which is MUCH better than having no link at all, where the usability
time is exactly zero.
> On the other hand, if the link would normally operate at 10 W and it
> is constantly running at 100 W, it is causing much interference to
> other distant links running on the same channel.
If there were such links. In this area the problem does not exist.
The problem that spawned this discussion involved creating
links where none exist.
> The only justification for 100 W equipment in data links is that it is
> under automatic power control. If the link normally runs with 10 W and
To be continued in digest: hd_99_248B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
