| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 28.02.00 11:36l 221 Lines 7300 Bytes #-9564 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_58E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/58E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8WNO<
PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000228/0619Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:54885 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31086 ; Mon, 28 Feb 00 03:38:37 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018159 ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:03:08 MET
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 00 14:59:27 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_58E>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/58E
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
as supervisors of robotic exploration vehicles scattered around the solar
system as these come into much wider use. (Again, this will spin off of
cheap orbital access brought on by the everyday use of RLV's.) To this end,
we will eventually see "digital repeater sats" that will propagate sigs
beyond Earth orbit to - the rest of the solar system.
Note: Anybody else remember E.E."Doc" Smith's Sci-Fi classic "Venus
Equilateral"?
8. Many Hams will install APRS equipment in their vehicles, and thus will
ALWAYS know where their teenagers are at any given moment when using the
family car, as well as how fast the vehicle is moving. ;-)
There's more, of course, but this post is getting lengthy and I've covered
what immediately occurs to me. A good general coverage statement to consider
is:
"Hams will use what works well and does what they are interested in doing."
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 07:45:02 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Steve Sampson <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
news:sbeji2efr2a128@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Blow me.
>
>> More profanity and "LandLine Lid" rationalizations snipped <<
Steve has forgotten that I'm not one of his buddies at TAPR... ;-)
Get nasty again, Steve, and I'll start talking about "your fellow Ham"
again, and we both know how uncomfortable that makes you!
Steve's juvenile fascination with "nasty language" and porno makes his
attraction to non-Ham Part15 equipment for Amateur Radio quite
understandable. As a "LandLine Lid", Steve has been involved in pathetic
attempts to use Non-Ham equipment (telephone) and PRETEND that what he is
doing was Ham Radio for quite some time. I'm surprised he hasn't pioneered
the introduction of CB radios into the Ham Packet networks as well. That's
next on his agenda, I suppose.
Common decency has always been an essential part of being a Ham, and this is
perhaps what makes Steve feel like such an outsider, compelled to attempt to
use Part15 equipment for Amateur Radio, or to pretend that the telephone is
"advanced packet radio networking".
Har Hawr! Isn't he funny?
Sweet dreams, Steve! - And keep the entertaining, informative posts that so
aptly illustrate the "LandLine Lid" mindset and general level of
intelligence coming!
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:41:26 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: What is a good TNC?
> Steve has forgotten that I'm not one of his buddies at TAPR... ;-)
I don't think you're anyone's buddy.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:32:07 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: What is a good TNC?
Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> 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.
The software that wants to send 11-bit samples usually has to put these
in memory in a contiguous fashion, and they will be sent just like any
8-bit data. No difference between bit and byte oriented protocols....
When the processing is done by software, e.g. in a Baycom modem or a
soundcard driver, the difference is that the "escaping" state machine works
at the level of bits (has a ones-counter and inserts zeroes) instead of
at the level of bytes (looks at specific byte values and inserts DLEs).
As the driver operates at the bit level as well, this actually is more
convenient than byte-level escaping. As soon as the message is completely
transferred to a buffer, there is no difference to all the upper layers.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:38:16 GMT
From: "Ron" <no-spam@no-spam.com>
Subject: X1J4 question
"Rob Dover" <rdover@bclc.stamp.out.spam.com> wrote in message
news:38B6F4AA.B03422DF@bclc.stamp.out.spam.com...
> It varies. We have MFJ1270b's and C's, MFJ1274's, PacComm Tiny 2's and
> Spirits. All exhibit the same problem. The only commonality is that they
are
> all running X1J4. I don't even know what the trigger is. The node will be
> happy as can be for weeks or months and then locks up. Strangely though,
when
> this does happen it usually happens in bunches. i.e. the network will be
fine
> for a period, then we get a bunch of nodes act up over a few days and then
> after resetting them everything goes back to normal. It is almost like
> something traveling through the network upsets the balance.
> -Rob-
I was going to guess that is was something common to a particular TNC,
however
with the variety that does not appear to be the case.
In our DX packet network in Northern Minnesota we run 14 MFJ1270C Rev 11's
with
X1J4 and I have not seen a lock up in 5 years. They have been bullet proof.
You can
lock up a node by getting it to execut a Halt instruction, however to do so
requires
the password. We use the 80 character password patch generated password
string,
and each node has a separate one. Our nodes use the default parms which you
will find on the www.sedan.org site.
Prior to using the MFJ1270C's with X1J4 we experienced considerable
difficulty
with the Kantronics Data Engine with BPQ firmware. Random disconnects under
entirely adequate signal conditions. A switch to the 1270C w/X1J4 has made
our
network 100% reliable.
Sorry I can't be of more help
Ron N5IN
--
Ron
Please reply to the group! If you wish to
respond directly unscramble: sbenjuvyr@qvtvxrl.pbz
>.
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V2000 #58
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: hd-group@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: hdaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
