| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 27.02.00 21:50l 195 Lines 6511 Bytes #-9565 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_57C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/57C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0ROF<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<
PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000227/1705Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:54704 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31036 ; Sat, 26 Feb 00 19:13:31 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018138 ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 15:33:50 MET
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 00 15:33:02 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_57C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/57C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
of seriously trying to make something more out of it, or try to make
sense of it - you would go MAD. And when it comes to turf wars, amateur
radio is nothing - if you want a total free for all, try youth sports!
For most hams, it is just a big sandbox to play around in and have fun.
Nothing more, nothing less.
> --
> Dale Skiba
> W0BOT
73, Stewart
N0MHS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:26:59 -0800
From: Stewart Teaze <stewart.teaze@gat.com>
Subject: Internet over packet?
Mooneer Salem wrote:
> While browsing information about packet radio, I found a site at
> http://www.wa4dsy.radio.org/. This site was connected to the Internet
> at 56k.
I remember these modems back in the early '90s. I was all kind of
experimental back then, and kit based - came out of Georgia(GRAPES), I
think. I live in SoCal, and the problem back then was that there wasn't a
critical mass of folks using this stuff. In fact nobody was using it - it
was hard enough to get people to go to 9600bps back then(it probably still
is, I would guess).
I'd be interested in hearing from people in the Southern California area who
are/have experimented with wa4dsy technology.
Also, the powers that be here in SoCal are redistributing the 440-band
frequency allocations to 20khz spacing from 25khz spacing. I would like to
know what bandwidth the wa4dsy modems take up.
73, Stewart - N0MHS
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:55:51 -0800
From: root <nl7iy@asat.org>
Subject: KENWD TR-8400 mod 9600bd?
Hello All,
I have a Kenwood TR-8400 UHF rig and I would like to convert this rig
for 9600 baud ops. I was unable to locate any mods for this rig on the
internet. Does anyone have any idea where I may locate such mods?
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Mark
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 03:59:32 GMT
From: "john" <w9jcm@.reno.quik.com>
Subject: MFJ 1278B INFO PLEASE
DONT BUY IT!! I HAD ONE IT WAS HORRIBLE.. YES I COPIED AND SENT GOOD BUT IT
THROWS HASH INTO YOUR RADIO.. REALLY BAD.. MFJ DIDNT DO TO GOOD OF A JOB IN
IT.. BUY A 232 AGAIN OR KAM..
genno wrote in message <38b582b3$0$1399@news.execpc.com>...
>Can anyone give me an opinion on the 1278b MFJ tnc. My pk232 died and got
to
>get another tnc.
>
>thanks..
>
>gene/wm9h
>
>wm9h@execpc.comzz
>
>drop the zz.
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 07:18:39 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
I don't care. Pick one. Hell, pick both of them.
Now, tell me what you could use it for? Is this wonderful new protocol
going to transport out-of-band mods? WW filler? Dogma? What?
Tell me what I'm going to do with this new infrastructure, or tell me
what problem requires a solution. I don't see a need for host to host
communications in Ham radio anymore. I see only add-on features,
like digital data between radios (position, callsign, etc). This can be
done with a preamble burst just before you begin talking.
I say that, because Part-15 radios have surpassed Part-97 radios,
and have an Ethernet card form-factor, with speeds 10,000+ times
faster than what Hams are fighting and jamming each other over.
Netrom, Rose, Flexnet, Jimmy-net, Bobby-net, him-nos, she-nos,
give me a break...
HF protocols are good enough for the limited channel they have to
operate in. Bits, bytes, who really cares anymore?
Rob Janssen wrote
> Paul Keinanen wrote:
> >I much rather use byte oriented protocols to transfer octet aligned
> >data, since much less processing have to be done in software (the
> >situation may be different e.g. when transferring 11 bit image samples
> >or other variable bit length data, in which case a bit oriented
> >protocol is referable).
>
> In reality, there is usually no difference. Bit-oriented protocols are
> usually handled by communication controller chips (like the SCC) that
> internally handle 8 bits at a time, and store the bits as bytes in memory.
> The only viewable difference is that the last byte stored need not have 8
> bits actually valid, so there should be a "bit count in last byte" dragged
> along with the data through all subroutine interfaces. This is normally
> not done, and an 8-bit multiple is implicitly assumed.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:07:09 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Steve Sampson <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
news:sbd07rtar2a114@corp.supernews.com...
> I don't care. Pick one. Hell, pick both of them.
>
> Now, tell me what you could use it for? Is this wonderful new protocol
> going to transport out-of-band mods? WW filler? Dogma? What?
Steve appears to believe that Ham-to-Ham communications are useless because
he doesn't approve of what Hams tend to say to each other. "Why have a
packet network?" Steve seems to be saying... It'll just be Hams using it,
and Steve has trouble understanding why Hams would want to communicate with
each other. If it's not what he is personally doing or saying, then of
course it has no relevance and should be supressed, downgraded, denigrated.
> Tell me what I'm going to do with this new infrastructure, or tell me
> what problem requires a solution. I don't see a need for host to host
> communications in Ham radio anymore. I see only add-on features,
> like digital data between radios (position, callsign, etc). This can be
> done with a preamble burst just before you begin talking.
Here Steve describes (in part) the limits of his vision.
>
> I say that, because Part-15 radios have surpassed Part-97 radios,
> and have an Ethernet card form-factor, with speeds 10,000+ times
> faster than what Hams are fighting and jamming each other over.
> Netrom, Rose, Flexnet, Jimmy-net, Bobby-net, him-nos, she-nos,
> give me a break...
And here Steve expresses the opinion commonly held among LandLine Lids that
if digital Ham communications do not go at a great rate of speed, then of
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_57D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
