| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 05.10.99 02:29l 212 Lines 6952 Bytes #-9730 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_249A
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/249A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0MW<DB0NHM<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<
PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991004/2023Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5768 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_249
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20552 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 20:04:03 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016209 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 07:16:52 MET
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 99 07:06:45 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_249A>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/249A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Ham-Digital Digest Sun, 3 Oct 99 Volume 99 : Issue 249
Today's Topics:
56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W (10 msgs)
APRS Protocol Specification Draft now available.
Help connecting TNC
info wanted (2 msgs)
Kinda spooky - Bandwidth to burn . . .
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:99/249
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 12:15:04 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:s8P1N9ofx8pGm6Z4TYP3kJ95Nhu1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:37:13 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> <Link usability times below 90 %>
>
> >Which is MUCH better than having no link at all, where the usability
> >time is exactly zero.
>
> With usability times that low, the link is usable mainly to bulletin
> forwarders, for others, such links are much less usable.
The point that I'm trying REALLY HARD to make is that a 90%
link is better than NO LINK AT ALL. With that 90% link one can
at least do some amount of playing with digital stuff, and perhaps
interest others in building a better link.
Several of the posters to this group continue to advise hams to
"just give up" if they cannot create "perfect" links. In my opinion
that is silly: if hams want to try something they should just do it.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 12:12:55 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:3bz1N7TpgqAjxYytjHzO95Z5qMeD@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:33:21 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
You simply need
> >enough power spread (ERP above receiver noise floor) to obtain the S/N
> >you need FOR THE PATH INVOLVED. Longer paths need more,
> >shorter paths need less. I do understand that you live where long paths
> >may not be required to build a network. Others live in places where
> >long paths (200 km and above) are in fact common.
>
> What ???
>
> Do you really build that long link hops ?
It is often at least 200 km. to the next ham interested in packet.
Sometimes it is at least 200 km. to the next ham!
We have a lot of "empty" in the Western US.
> The average tropospheric refraction constant must be much different
> over there. Over here, the sanity is questioned of anybody designing
> over 100 km link hops :-), since such links would work reliably only
> during some pre-dawn hours.
Tropo is different depending on the terrain, weather conditions, etc.
We don't choose to design such links, we NEED them, or we have
no connectivity at all. If you want to connect to someone using
packet radio, you have to get a signal to them!
> With such overstrething links, the link reliability is somewhere
> between 50 and 95 % and as such, the link is interesting only to
> bulletin forwarders, no wonder that the interest for packet radio is
> decaying in the US and in other places with low population (and ham)
> density.
Nonesense.
These links run at 1% or less packet loss over 95% of the time.
But you do need to have enough signal, or they work poorly.
Putting 5W transmitters and poor receivers on such a link will
fail. You need some power, high gain antenna arrays, GAAS
FET front ends, hardline, etc. It also helps to use the lowest
frequency possible, for the obvious reasons. i.e. use 2M if possible,
70 cm if 2M cannot be used due to bandwidth/data rate issues, etc.
> Paul OH3LWR
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 12:17:34 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:slrn7vbigu.d7k.nomail@linux.pe1chl.ampr.org...
> Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> This attitude has driven the users in the hands of the Internet
forwarders.
> And you still suggest it as a viable solution?
> Unbelievable.
You claim that it is better to have NO RADIO NETWORK because
having radio network will stop hams from having a radio network?
I don't think you read what you wrote.
> >Oh, more "it has to be perfect" again.
> >The justification is to link networks that otherwise CANNOT be linked
> >over ham radio. We have some long stretches of "empty" here in the
> >Western US.
>
> Covering it with "links" that only succeed in exchanging node info and
that
> break down when someone tries to use them is not going to help you.
I did not say that. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem?
> Sorry Hank, but we have passed that station some 15 years ago here. Lots
> of nodes in the table, nice to look at. Connect them and you get a
failure
> message.
Sorry to hear you had such a terrible network.
We have nodes that have no entries in their node table because there
is no link at all to them.
> Pity that you have not realized yet that no link may be better than a link
> that does not work.
Sorry, such thinking is silly.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 20:16:38 +1700
From: k2ul <ostroyNOosSPAM@att.net.invalid>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
In article <7sup3l$a9r@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Charles
Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
> Hank Oredson suggested that the best bet is to simply
> ignore the LandLine
> Lid types and start building the Packet Net despite
> their efforts. That's an
> excellent suggestion, and it is working just fine in
> the NE USA.
Well, I can tell you that I live in the NE USA, I am a
To be continued in digest: hd_99_249B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
