| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 07.10.99 21:57l 210 Lines 6923 Bytes #-9727 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_249B
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/249B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0LX<DB0LEL<DB0TTM<DB0FP<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<
PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991007/1542Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5770 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_249
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20554 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 20:24:11 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016212 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 07:17:02 MET
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 99 07:06:46 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_249B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/249B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
part of the new Flex Network, and we still have both
RF forwarding and landline forwarding. Yes, the pendulum
is swinging toward radio, but only slowly. This ain't no
nirvana.
K2UL
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 20:26:18 +1700
From: k2ul <ostroyNOosSPAM@att.net.invalid>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
In article <7t3nj4$3lc$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Hank
Oredson" <horedson@att.net> 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.
> --
> ... Hank
> http://horedson.home.att.net
We have large open areas even here in New Jersey. (Hard to
believe, eh?) Hank, you are quite right. A "poor-to-fair"
radio link is better than no link at all. It is incredible
how many so-called hams don't understand the difference
between amateur RADIO and amateur telephone.
K2UL
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 21:00:09 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
k2ul <ostroyNOosSPAM@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:001e6a30.970b85b0@usw-ex0103-020.remarq.com...
> In article <7t3nj4$3lc$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Hank
> Oredson" <horedson@att.net> 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.
> > --
> > ... Hank
> > http://horedson.home.att.net
>
> We have large open areas even here in New Jersey. (Hard to
> believe, eh?) Hank, you are quite right. A "poor-to-fair"
> radio link is better than no link at all. It is incredible
> how many so-called hams don't understand the difference
> between amateur RADIO and amateur telephone.
>
> K2UL
I've been through NJ a number of times, in different directions.
There sure are some pretty empty places.
Was a surprise, expected more density.
Seems like everyone is crowded up near NYC or down near Philly <grin>.
A lot of beautiful farmland in between.
If you look at a map, you will notice that Eastern Oregon is
basically empty. Very hard to build links to the east for that reason:
ain't no people there, much less hams. So the links have to follow
the Columbia River Gorge (where there are some people and a few
hams). Some long hops through very difficult terrain (the mountains
go up 4000 or even 12,000 feet on either side of the Gorge, and the
Gorge is crooked.) But we do have links, and they do work. Scatter
is a huge problem when you have big reflectors all over the place.
We knew perfectly well that these links would be "non-optimum".
But we built them anyway, because we wanted a radio network.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 21:16:44 GMT
From: nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>> With these directional antennas you don't need 100W, because if it does
>not
>> work with about 5W on UHF it will not reasonably work with 100W either.
>Two posters have said this same thing. It is contrary to my experience,
>on HF, VHF and UHF. Why 5W? Why not .5W or 5 mw? You see the
>point? There is no magic "cutoff power level" involved. 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. 20 db more ERP
>gets you 20 db better S/N on any path with any system on any band.
100 Watts are not required to build a 200 km path that is (nearly)
line-of-sight. 5 Watts will do. Maybe 0.5W will, when enough antenna gain
is available.
Just calculate the path loss over such a distance and you will see that a
5W signal is *very much* above the noise with bandwidths typical for
today's packet radio network.
You only need a lot of power when your path is through the earth, which
means it will not be a reliable path anyway. Thus there indeed *is* a
magic "cutoff power level": the power level you need to communicate across
a path that is sufficiently open to avoid problems with propagation.
On HF it may be different because there you have more noise and a somewhat
predictable over-the-horizon propagation.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWWhome: http://www.pe1chl.demon.nl/ |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 21:24:02 GMT
From: nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>> >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?
No, I claim it is better to have NO LINK than to have a link that does
not work reasoably.
>> 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.
But, we did something about it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 02:13:19 -0700
From: "Cathryn Mataga" <cathryn@junglevision.com>
Subject: 56k UHF-100W / 19.2K VHF -50W
To be continued in digest: hd_99_249C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
