| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.06.00 04:49l 249 Lines 7361 Bytes #-9439 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_167E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/167E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<OE2XOM<OE5XBL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000617/2349Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:52338 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_167E
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 00 00:19:31 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_167E>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
From: "David Findlay" <nedz@bigpond.com>
Subject: Packet Radio
> I didn't know you were in Australia. But you should still get your
> license - you will learn a lot.
I;m going to a soon as I can. Does anyone here know about the procedures to
get a liscence in Aus?
David Findlay
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:23:51 +1000
From: "David Findlay" <nedz@bigpond.com>
Subject: Packet Radio
> Look, you are starting to ask a lot of questions,
Well thats what Usenet is for...
> and that is good; but
> if you really are serious about "improving your range", you really
> would do better to get a ham radio license. Not only would you learn a
> lot of the things you are asking - but it would also help you not to
> ask silly questions.
I'm going to as soon as posible.
David Findlay
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:59:17 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Packet Radio
In article <Juc25.543$c5.3356@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
"David Findlay" <nedz@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> <horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ib3ur$597$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Bwahh-hah-hah! You're kidding, right?! 10Mb/sec - that's a HOT
one.
> >
> > Mostly 1200bps, man. Some(including me) have 9600bps equipment
> > (nowadays it is more plug and play than before).
> >
> > TAPR is working on a 100Kbps-500Kbps FHSS radio(www.tapr.org) -
> > although I haven't heard much out of them in a LONG time, so it
might
> > be vaporware.
>
> I was actually thinking of building my own gear. The 10Mb wouldn't be
> between the actual weather stations more like 1000baud. Where I want
10 Mb
> is for the rest of the network, where I would need email and HTML
content to
> be carried.
Get some old 2m radios/TNCs and antennas, it won't cost you more than
$125 for each site.
> > What is the distance between stations?
>
> Up to 5km from my location.
>
> > If it is more than a few hundred yards, and you don't want to spend
a
> > lot of money, and if 9600bps is good enough - THEN, amateur packet
> > radio is your answer!
>
> All I need on the station side is 1000baud. I will then process it on
my
> computers for rebroadcasting into a packet network using TCP/IP.
>
> > BTW, it is VERY easy to pass the test for your Amateur Radio
Technician
> > class license - no Morse code test is necessary.
>
> In Australia it is actually called a Limited liscence, but allows the
same
> thing
I didn't know you were in Australia. But you should still get your
license - you will learn a lot.
> David Findlay
Stewart - N0MHS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:56:39 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Packet Radio
In article <tnc25.537$c5.3411@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
"David Findlay" <nedz@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > More like 1200 bits/s. Or 9600 if you are living in a
techologically
> > advanced area.
> > Some people even run 56kbps.
> >
> > 10 Mbit/s only exists on some random experimental links, not in
general
> > operation.
>
> What barriers stop it from general use?
>
> > Do your weather stations collect 10 Mbit/s worth of data?
>
> No. I was actually thinking of the 10Mbit/s to use for broadcasting
the data
> to other users using TCP/IP. The data from the stations would be
processed
> before being sent out, and the network would also have to handle
email and
> rich(HTML) content.
>
> > Of course you can use license-free wireless LAN products. These
include
> > the transmitter hardware, so you don't need to fiddle with that.
You may
> > need to provide and connect an external antenna for extended range.
>
> I have a small kit for a transmitter with a 1km range. If I use a
larger
> recieving antenna and a more powerful receiver could I get better
range. For
> the link between the station and me all I need to get is about 1000
bps.
A more powerful receiver?
Look, you are starting to ask a lot of questions, and that is good; but
if you really are serious about "improving your range", you really
would do better to get a ham radio license. Not only would you learn a
lot of the things you are asking - but it would also help you not to
ask silly questions.
Try http://www.arrl.org/catalog/lm/ Get their book "Now You're
Talking".
If all you need is 1000bps - forget all the expensive garb. You can
buy an old 2m ham transceiver/TNC/antenna combo for about $150 for each
site. And your "range" would be expressed in the 10's of miles -
instead of 10ths of miles with the kind of equipment you are talking
about.
By the way - why wouldn't you want to get an amateur license anyway?
It is REALLY easy, and I gaurentee you will learn a lot. Depending on
your background, it will take you 1-3 weeks of studying a few hours a
week, in order to get your license. All you need is to get 70% on the
multiple choice test. All the possible questions and answers are also
available on the web. And there are sights that you can take practice
exams on-line, too: try www.qrz.com.
Good Luck!
> David Findlay
Stewart - N0MHS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:04:41 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Packet Radio
"David Findlay" <nedz@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:mpc25.539$c5.3401@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> "Scott Schultz" <n0iu@arrl.net> wrote in message
> news:Cr225.2751$mZ5.42991@news.corecomm.net...
> > The "standard" on VHF-FM Packet for many years was 1200 baud, but now 9600
> > is very common. Be sure to get a radio that has a 9600 baud data port on
> it
>
> Are there any circuit designs that you can build yourself? I wouldn't mind
> actually building my own packet radio(then I could have any baud rate I want
> :-) ).
As long as it is 1200 or less (one kind of hardware), 9600 or 19200 (a
different
kind of hardware), etc. You will need a good test bench to debug your
hardware (scope, counter, dvm, etc.)
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:02:31 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Packet Radio
"David Findlay" <nedz@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:tnc25.537$c5.3411@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > More like 1200 bits/s. Or 9600 if you are living in a techologically
> > advanced area.
> > Some people even run 56kbps.
> >
> > 10 Mbit/s only exists on some random experimental links, not in general
> > operation.
>
> What barriers stop it from general use?
Cost and availability. 9600 is not expensive, and is in wide use.
56k is expensive and is not in wide use.
There is no plug and play controller available, you have to build
at least portions yourself.
> > Do your weather stations collect 10 Mbit/s worth of data?
>
> No. I was actually thinking of the 10Mbit/s to use for broadcasting the data
> to other users using TCP/IP. The data from the stations would be processed
> before being sent out, and the network would also have to handle email and
> rich(HTML) content.
The Europeans have some faster (56k / 70k) networks running.
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_167F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
