| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 15.08.00 09:20l 178 Lines 5477 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_220B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/220B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SEL<DB0ZDF<DB0CWS<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<
DB0ACH<DB0OVN<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000815/0654Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:5001 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_220B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 00 08:07:48 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_220B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
again
http://www.onlinefitnesstrainer.com
Jennifer Pena
jenniferpena24@hotmail.com
rffuduygqwetikxklyqeumtlmxdkusrxmxjjfywdeniwdpponbjfdczkngyndllzlobpnvbnoxnbyxf
flxxxqmcbpqshyxeixwwp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:10:20 GMT
From: kf4sir@earthlink.net (Dale Coleman)
Subject: New list for digital ham/public service.
Hi all, I started a new list with web viewable content at:
http://www.egroups.com/group/psk31relay
This list is for experimenting with the use of digital ham radio for
relaying messages from remote areas using ham radio to bridge the gap
in communications then the Internet to make the information available
to the public.
Lots more information at site in signature.
Thanks, Dale
Dale Coleman
kf4sir@earthlink.net
Check out my ham radio page
http://psk31relay.net
use PSK31 to relay messages.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:52:27 GMT
From: Marc Passy <laikaservices@yahoo.com>
Subject: Stupid Question
Bob Lewis wrote:
>
> > A couple of documents made a real point of differentiating
> > between the data rate between the computer/TNC and the
> > TNC to the radio, as if they could ever be effectively different
>
> They usually are different. The TNC to Radio baud rate may be 1200
> baud while the TNC to Computer (serial port) baud rate is usually much
> higher (9600, 19.2, etc). The serial port uses a handshake (hardware
> or software) to control the flow of data from the computer and prevent
> the buffers in the TNC from overflowing. A higher baud rate is used on
> the serial port in order to quickly fill up a packet during file
> transfers so it can get transmitted by the TNC. That improves the
> throughput. The total throughput is limited by the radio side though.
> The throughput for 1200 baud is less than 1200 baud because of the
> packet overhead (addressing, CRC check, etc). The more "real data" you
> can stuff into a packet, the more efficient it is.
So, in other words, the instantaneous datarate from Computer to TNC
should be higher that the radio DR, but the long term, effective
datarate will be dictated by the radio side, right?
--
To reply, remove two pounds of spam-proofing.
My Opinions are all my own. Nobody else, especially the
people I work for, wants to claim them.
"At the core of the risk-free society is a self-indulgent failure of
nerve."
Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, 1999
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:14:50 -0500
From: "K5OKC" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: Stupid Question
I don't know about instantaneous, how about average?
Yes, the TNC will drive the "system" data rate. What normally
occurs, is the RF will fail, and the TNC will retry.
The computer should transfer its data quickly to the modem.
Modern modems perform FEC and compression on the data,
and this takes time (TNC's usually don't do this), so you don't
want to dribble the data in, you want to overdrive, and let the
modem tell you when to stop sending.
"Marc Passy" wrote
> So, in other words, the instantaneous datarate from Computer to TNC
> should be higher than the radio DR, but the long term, effective
> datarate will be dictated by the radio side, right?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:32:21 -0400
From: "Bob Lewis" <rlewis@staffnet.com>
Subject: Stupid Question
> So, in other words, the instantaneous datarate from Computer to TNC
> should be higher that the radio DR, but the long term, effective
> datarate will be dictated by the radio side, right?
True. The system throughput is always limited by the slowest link
which in this case is the radio side.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:36:27 -0400
From: "Rob" <Pse@NoEmail.Com>
Subject: Trouble with KAM Allmode!
I could be wrong. But I think you may need the enhancement board to run
Pactor with the KAM. You may want to ask KANTRONICS.
73's
Rob
"Holger Korioth" <hkorioth@cityweb.de> wrote in message
news:39902A44.7DD5DDAF@cityweb.de...
> Hi Folks!
> I have here some trouble with an KAM Allmode Controller.
> The KAM with itīs original Firmware 2.85 works fine, an Update
> with v6.1 (for the KAM without Enhancement Board) produces a
> RAM error in Test mode.
>
> After an Hard-Reset (Jumper K6) this Data appers on my Terminal
>
> EEPROM INIT OK <= changed to 24c16
> CHECKSUM OK <= the Eprom, i guess
> RAM ERROR <= ?
> 32K RAM <= RAM size (correct!)
>
> After changing the RAM, the same failure comes up, the Adress- and
> Data connections on the Printed Board seems also ok.
>
> Changing to v2.85 let the KAM work fine, but i need the
> PACTOR Mode from the v6.1.
>
> Had anyone the same error on his KAM and a solution to solve
> the Problem?
>
>
> 73s from Hagen (JO31RI)
>
>
> Holger, DG 6 DBF
>
>
>
> Holger Korioth, DG 6 DBF
> QTH: D-58093 Hagen (JO31SI) SP v9.75.00
> 9k6 - DB0AFS
> MyBBS: dg6dbf @ db0sgl.#nrw.deu.eu
> email: dg6dbf @ amsat.org
> Mail gesendet am: 08.08.2000 um: 16:30
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V2000 #220
******************************
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
| |
