| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 01.06.00 15:19l 224 Lines 7328 Bytes #-9461 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_152I
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/152I
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0OBK<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<
PI8GCB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000601/0029Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:46289 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_152I
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 00 00:21:28 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_152I>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> > > mode, which allows cheapie PACTOR-enabled PK-232 (or the MFJ ????
> > > model) controllers to work. See:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_message&list_id=winnnet&m
> > sg_num=741&start_num=758
> > >
> > > for his announcement posted to the WinLink/NetLink mailing list
> > >
> > > Binary transfers are apparently not a requirement. I had put my old
> > > PK-232 on the shelf and obtained a KAM+ in order to use WinLink, not
> > > realizing that PK-232 support was imminent. Wish I had waited a bit!
> > >
> > > Jerry W4UK
> > >
> > > On Mon, 29 May 2000 21:23:08 -0500, Seth Miller
> > > <sethmiller73@email.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Mike,
> > > >
> > > >It was not SCS that made the decision to support only binary mode
> > transfers,
> > > >rather it was the WinLink 2000 authors.
> > > >
> > > >It is unfortunate that PacComm didn't implement a binary transfer
mode
> > (which is
> > > >the problem in your case, and not Pactor I vs. Pactor II issue).
Other
> > > >manufacturer's Pactor I TNC's (Kantronics, AEA, etc.) are supported
by
> > > >AirMail/WinLink. This issue has no relationship to SCS and/or the
> PTC-II
> > series
> > > >- if you want to be bitter at least aim it at the right manufacturer.
> > > >
> > > >- Seth
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Mike Pupeza wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Well Gang;
> > > >>
> > > >> I said it would happen! My favorite Pactor WinLink BBS N0ZO in Lady
> > Lake,
> > > >> Florida will no longer talk to me.
> > > >> Reason! I don't run the AirMail 2000 program!
> > > >> I want to, but CAN'T!
> > > >> My TNC - a PacComm PacTOR CONTROLLER, which is totally PTC-1
> > Compliant - the
> > > >> ORIGINAL and STARTER of the whole Pactor scene, is INCOMPATIBLE,
and
> > NOT
> > > >> SUPPORTED by the AirMail 2000 program!
> > > >> Guys, I bought this NEW in February of 1999 - it's not OLD!
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, I have a Mac I-book, for which there is no support! And I
know
> > people
> > > >> who run Linux!
> > > >>
> > > >> So here I go again, bitching! But, c'mon!
> > > >>
> > > >> I hope that there are some changes in PSK-31 that'll allow error
> > checking
> > > >> and correction that'll make these PTC-II and IIe controllers as
> useful
> > as
> > > >> Commodore 64's, in todays world!
> > > >>
> > > >> Off my chest! Thanks!
> > > >> --
> > > >> Mike Pupeza VE3EQP
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: 30 May 2000 09:41:12 -0600
From: nobody@nospam.org (Jeff)
Subject: PSK31 Audio Connection
I'm using the AF detector output on my Icom 756 and it is more
than adequate to drive my SoundBlaster AWE64. I use the Radio
Shack 1:1 audio transformers for both line in and line out.
I used a mono plug on my connections to the sound card, so
obviously I'm using only one channel. Haven't bothered checking
whether it's the left or right channel. Didn't have to tie
anything together. I used shielded, single conductor audio
cable for the connections between the sound card and the
audio transformers.
Here's a link to the schematic I used to build my interface:
http://www.packetradio.com/sb16rads/ic8acc.gif
It works great (on my Icom 756).
Good Luck.
Jeff
KI0RO
In article <8gj3uq$2cf$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, Bob Lewis <aa4pb@erols.com> wrote:
>> 1. Is the fixed-level (AF detector output) audio from the typical
>Icom
>> sufficient to drive a SoundBlaster for PSK31? Going to use Digipan.
>>
>No, you'll need an op-amp circuit to bring up the level. You might get
>by feeding it into the sound card's mike input. Some sound cards
>aren't real clean on the mike input. Look for noise in the tuning
>display with the rig turned off.
>
>> 2. Does it make any difference which input channel (L or R) to use
>> from the mono output of the Icom? Can I/should I tie the two inputs
>> together? Don't have a schematic of the SoundBlaster, so don't know
>> if this would do any damage.
>>
>You can tie the L and R sound card line *inputs* together. The mike
>input is mono and the signal is on the "ring" (center) connection. Tip
>is a bias output voltage.
>
>For the sound card line output, use either L or R and *do not* tie
>outputs together.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:50:27 -0700
From: "Dana H. Myers K6JQ" <Dana@Source.Net>
Subject: TCP/IP not welcome (was Re: N0ZO no longer supports Keyboard inputs!)
Hank Oredson wrote:
> Like the nodes in Southern Oregon that have an ID string that says
> something like "No TCP/IP allowed on this frequency!".
>
> Idiots.
I used to have JNOS system camped out on 145.01MHz, essentially as a
PBBS. There was no IP gateway functionality. Several years ago, shoot,
it might five or six, if not more, I noticed that someone had connected
to me apparently from the Modesto area (several hundred miles away).
Wow! Must have had some unusual 2m conditions, but they'd faded,
leaving a lingering connection. Too bad I hadn't noticed it at the time.
A few weeks later, I received a letter in the mail, with no return address
and a postmark from Stockton (if I recall correctly). The contents of the
envelope was a photocopy of the Northern California Packet Association
plan, with "145.79 TCP/IP Systems" marked in yellow highlighter.
At first I was mystified; why did someone anonymously send me the
packet bandplan for Northern California even though I'm in Los Angeles
County? Eventually, I realized that my transient visitor had noticed "TCP/IP"
was available at my station and wanted me to conform to the NCPA bandplan.
Forgive me for being so frank, but I eventually chalked it up to another
spineless
ignorant amateur radio control-freak.
--
Dana K6JQ DoD #j
dana@source.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 07:20:00 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: TCP/IP not welcome (was Re: N0ZO no longer supports Keyboard inputs!)
Dana H. Myers K6JQ <Dana@Source.Net> wrote:
>Hank Oredson wrote:
>> Like the nodes in Southern Oregon that have an ID string that says
>> something like "No TCP/IP allowed on this frequency!".
>> Idiots.
>I used to have JNOS system camped out on 145.01MHz, essentially as a
>PBBS. There was no IP gateway functionality. Several years ago, shoot,
>it might five or six, if not more, I noticed that someone had connected
>to me apparently from the Modesto area (several hundred miles away).
>Wow! Must have had some unusual 2m conditions, but they'd faded,
>leaving a lingering connection. Too bad I hadn't noticed it at the time.
>A few weeks later, I received a letter in the mail, with no return address
>and a postmark from Stockton (if I recall correctly). The contents of the
>envelope was a photocopy of the Northern California Packet Association
>plan, with "145.79 TCP/IP Systems" marked in yellow highlighter.
In the early days of packet (much longer ago than that), there were a few
guys here as well that did not get this, and wanted to setup separate
frequencies for TCP/IP. Even for the links.
But when I developed a combined TCP/IP and NET/ROM node, and showed that it
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_152J
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
