| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 26.07.00 02:43l 209 Lines 7531 Bytes #-9302 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_199B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/199B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8PWD<PI8CDR<
PI8AWT<PI8JYL<PI8WFL<PI8WFL<PI8HGL
Sent: 000725/1809 @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:64460 $:HD_2000_199B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 00 17:09:17 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_199B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> it out on the frequency of that grid square. Basically the digipeaters would
> run router software. Could this system work?
>
> David Findlay
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 07:34:46 -0700
From: "Dana H. Myers K6JQ" <dana@source.net>
Subject: Can Micor handle Alphanumeric paging?
A DPL Micor will probably do what you want; the standard Micor
VHF Mobiles are PM (using the Serrasoid modulator at that),
but the repeaters and DPL Micors have a different channel element
(with an additional pin for direct-FM). You can retrofit a
4-pin channel element to a PM Micor but you have to make sure to
apply the modulation to the pin (at least one person reported
success with this but said it wasn't worth the trouble).
Donald Smith wrote:
>
> I have a question and for all of your Motorola Fans. Will a VHF Micor
> be able to accept Alphanumeric paging information and transmit it
> without errors? I have been told that although it is direct fm
> modulation in the transmitter exciter, it might not be able to handle
> the Alphanumeric information. Is there any modification that can be
> done to correct the problem, if there is a problem? Please reply via
> email. Thanks Don Smith KB6GQA
--
Dana K6JQ DoD #j
Dana@Source.Net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:19:17 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
"Baldur Norddahl" <bbn@nkdev.dk> wrote in message
news:397ACB97.A0BCE601@nkdev.dk...
<deletia>
> But isn't it a fact that creating those digital gateways to internet is
> just as challenging as what you are doing? Operating them might look so
> simple from the outside, but you are forgetting all the work it took to
> get there.
<deletia>
Creating a "digital gateway" is trivial.
It always has been trivial.
The software to do it has been available since 1984.
You load the software, set your ip addresses, and
that's it ... you have a gateway!
The only "ham radio" part is connecting the radio to the
TNC and antenna. You can buy premade cables for this ...
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 02:17:28 GMT
From: Baldur Norddahl <bbn@nkdev.dk>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
Hank Oredson wrote:
>
> "Baldur Norddahl" <bbn@nkdev.dk> wrote in message
> news:397ACB97.A0BCE601@nkdev.dk...
>
> <deletia>
>
> > But isn't it a fact that creating those digital gateways to internet is
> > just as challenging as what you are doing? Operating them might look so
> > simple from the outside, but you are forgetting all the work it took to
> > get there.
>
> <deletia>
>
> Creating a "digital gateway" is trivial.
> It always has been trivial.
> The software to do it has been available since 1984.
> You load the software, set your ip addresses, and
> that's it ... you have a gateway!
Really? So what software, from 1984, allows me to setup a link that will
tunnel TCP/IP trafic seamless through a radio link just as if it had
been a DSL link? Oh and btw, even if I had a full fiber optic cable with
routers and stuff, "set your ip address and that's it" - I think you
need to read up on the IP protocol. You make it sound like the most
expose to the protocol you have experienced is the automatic setup you
get from PPP when you dial your local ISP.
1200 BPS wont even allow the normal protocols to work without
modifications. 9600 half duplex is just as much a joke. Full duplex
allows it to work in theory, but when did you last try to browse WWW at
9600 bps much less connect a full network through? ISDN speed of 64 Kbit
can carry the trafic of one user provided he isn't running any
considerable server stuff.
ISDN speed isn't fun but I will settle for that for now. Since I am
clearly overlooking something, tell me what the trivial solution is to
do that?
I can't use those part 15 microwave links everyone are boosting about,
there is no line of sight. I want a solution that works on 70 cm because
that band is almost unused in my area and it has been proven to be able
to maintain a link between the locations in question at fairly low
outputs.
> The only "ham radio" part is connecting the radio to the
> TNC and antenna. You can buy premade cables for this ...
I admit that my current plan is not to modify the radio much for now. So
am I not the most hardcore HAM ever, I don't trust that I can really
build my own 70 cm tranciver. Can you?
I will however build my own TNC and design my own protocol for it. So
far my research has shown that the protocol used for both 1200 bps and
9600 are simplistic and there seems to be no reason I can't implement a
modulation that uses the bandwidth far more efficient.
I consider that task to be much more "HAM spirit" than just going for a
HF license and see if I can blow up more money on big antennas than the
next guy in my attempts to create useless long CW connections (on my
factory build 3k$ base station with the most challenging task of a new
mode being reading about how to activate it in the manual). That has all
been done before, where is the challenge?
There is also more than enough HAM activities in building a radio based
network even if you use factory build equipment for all of it. The
digital people are just as much into the tuning the antennas, exploring
the best links possible given the limits set by the surrounding
geography and buildings, communicating with other HAMs with simelar
interrests etc. Thinking this is a "lesser" form of HAM activities than
what you are doing is silly. The interresting parts are just different
ones.
However, you can just keep that attitude. The result is obvious: The HF
people with the attitude that UHF digital is not real HAM will get all
the old retired people that just wants someone at the same age to chat
with. In the mean time we will harvest the young people which will seed
the ground for the future of HAM. As I said in my original mail, you
will not succeed in scaring us away, you will only disconnect yourself
from us so you have no change in turning some people over to play with
HF also.
Baldur
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 03:01:35 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
"Baldur Norddahl" <bbn@nkdev.dk> wrote in message
news:397BA7DB.15F88860@nkdev.dk...
> Hank Oredson wrote:
> >
> > "Baldur Norddahl" <bbn@nkdev.dk> wrote in message
> > news:397ACB97.A0BCE601@nkdev.dk...
> >
> > <deletia>
> >
> > > But isn't it a fact that creating those digital gateways to internet is
> > > just as challenging as what you are doing? Operating them might look so
> > > simple from the outside, but you are forgetting all the work it took to
> > > get there.
> >
> > <deletia>
> >
> > Creating a "digital gateway" is trivial.
> > It always has been trivial.
> > The software to do it has been available since 1984.
> > You load the software, set your ip addresses, and
> > that's it ... you have a gateway!
>
> Really? So what software, from 1984, allows me to setup a link that will
> tunnel TCP/IP trafic seamless through a radio link just as if it had
> been a DSL link
KA9Q "NET" or any of it's follow-on variations.
There are other obvious ways to do this as well, see for example,
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_199C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
