| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 10.10.99 21:38l 232 Lines 7732 Bytes #-9723 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_256A
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/256A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8WNO<
PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991010/1541Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:7123 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_256
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA21052 ; Sun, 10 Oct 99 15:05:31 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016324 ; Sun, 10 Oct 99 16:32:39 MET
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 99 16:31:57 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_256A>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/256A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Ham-Digital Digest Sun, 10 Oct 99 Volume 99 : Issue 256
Today's Topics:
ANOTHER KAM PROBLEM (PBBS)
Help with MIC-E Protocol Spec please (2 msgs)
I need help to setup my gateway...
Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales (2 msgs)
New RTTY software for Windows 95/98/NT (4 msgs)
PACTOR or AMTOR (3 msgs)
Remote dialup via ham 2m etc?
the problem of build-in ax25 on the redhat 6.0
Time signal decoder ?
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:99/256
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 17:26:32 -0400
From: "JoeB" <wd4kav@metrolink.net>
Subject: ANOTHER KAM PROBLEM (PBBS)
Hello. Thanks for reading this...
I've recently purchased a KAM Plus with version 8.2 firmware. I've opeated
many previous models of KAM's over the years, and never seen a problem like
the one I'm having now...which is:
When forwarding a message to the local FBB BBS, all the correct prompts get
exchanged, the messages gets forwarded out of the KAM, and becomes status F,
*** BUT *** when I check the BBS, the messages (and any bulletins I send
too) are GONE!!!! NOT "killed", not "rejected", not HELD...just GONE.
The SYSOP of the FBB system is as stumped as I am by this.
Anyone got any ideas??
I've loaded up paKet 6.1, and messages and bulletins I forward with it
appear on the FBB system as they should.
73
Joe
wd4kav@nonmetrolink.net
REMOVE 'NON' from the address above, to reply.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:27:25 +0100
From: Ian Wade <ian@dowrmain.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Help with MIC-E Protocol Spec please
In article <yJFgiOAURy$3Ewac@dowrmain.demon.co.uk>, Ian Wade
<ian@dowrmain.demon.co.uk> writes
>From: Ian Wade <ian@dowrmain.demon.co.uk>
>
>I've been reading through the MIC-E protocol spec (Crosswell/Parsons,
>Jun97/Dec98), and there are a few things I don't understand:
Replying to my own post, I see I was completely off the track. I think
I've cracked it now, by looking at some on-air traffic. For example, 2
packets from the same station:
N2SXJ-1>APK,APS:@091543z3947.23N/07501.98W- ....
N2SXJ-1>S9TW2S,N2SXJ,W3PHL-3,KE3XY-3*,WIDE/1:`gY~l -/>bed station
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:51:01 +0100
From: Ian Wade <ian@dowrmain.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Help with MIC-E Protocol Spec please
In article <Bc$8HoA9r3$3EwMZ@dowrmain.demon.co.uk>, Ian Wade
<ian@dowrmain.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Replying to my own post, I see I was completely off the track. I think
>I've cracked it now, by looking at some on-air traffic. For example, 2
>packets from the same station:
>
Some more evidence. Two more packets from one station:
KR4YL-7>APRS,TCPIP,KA2TOC*:@091146z2753.51N/08245.71W>180/041/Mic-E/M0/Off
duty
KR4YL-7>RWUR9S,RELAY,WIDE/1:`nIf Sl>/>PAUL pk@ij.net
The comment in the first packet says "Off duty". This is message code 0.
In the second packet, the destination is RWUR9S. Decoding the A/B/C bits:
ASCII Char: R W U
Bit: A=0 B=0 C=0
Lat Digit: 2 7 5
Inverting A/B/C per the spec, the message code is 7 (Emergency).
So I really *do* think the spec is standing on its head.
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 |
| APRS PROTOCOL SPEC: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/aprswg.html |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 12:50:25 GMT
From: kf4sir@gate.net (Dale Coleman)
Subject: I need help to setup my gateway...
On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 15:32:00 -0500, "Rodrigo E. Rodríguez R. - CE6NUG"
<rod@rdc.cl> wrote:
>'lo ppl.
>I'm working on seting up a packet <==> internet gateway.
>I'm aware it's not something new.... but there are a lot of thing I
>still can't really understand.
>I've reading about it and I've found terms like Rose, NetROM, and so on.
>
>What do I really need?? What's all that stuff???
>The only thing I'm trying to do by now is to provide internet acces to
>hams currently working over normal packet TNC's.
>Any comments and/or help???? :)
>73
>
>Rod.
Hi, The ARRL prints some paper back books that helped me a lot.
Your Packet Companion by Steve Ford and Practical Packet Radio by Stan
Horzepa.
Rose, NetROM are different network protocols.
The books listed above go into detail off the differences.
I hope this helps,
--
Dale Coleman
kf4sir@gate.net
http://www.gate.net/~kf4sir/
(>: 6unp sI 86 smopuIM
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 11:10:16 -0400
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:20:24 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
>Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:Xw34NxHJf+EF064afvXkDcnPO0tB@4ax.com...
>
>> >Gary, that is exactly what I said.
>> >"power spread":. the difference between transmit and receive
>> >power levels at the radio. ERP minus noise floor. Both in dbm.
>>
>> Ah, we appear to have a terminology problem. What you're
>> describing is called * link margin*. Power spreading is dispersion
>> of the signal over a wide area, generally an undesirable condition
>> unless you're intent on broadcasting rather than linking.
>
>Gary,
>
>Read it again. "... at THE radio ...".
>
>"Link Margin" has to do with two stations, the path between them,
>the desired S/N, the effects due to propagation, component drift, etc.
Correct.
>"Power Spread" has to do with one radio. It does not consider
>such things as the path (because there is only one radio), or
>any of the other effects that determines "Link Margin". It is a number
>which describes the capabilities of that radio.
???? Radios generally aren't used to talk to themselves (excepting
radar or EME), so this seems a particularly useless expression for
network link calculations.
>Ya wanna quibble terminology, is fine with me.
>But sure has little to do with the subject at hand: building links.
To build a link requires at least *2* radios, and the path between
them. To calculate that, you need to know the ERP of one station
versus the MDS of the other and vice versa. Numbers which only
relate a station to itself aren't of any value.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
To be continued in digest: hd_99_256B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
