| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 08:38l 193 Lines 7328 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_244I
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/244I
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0ROF<DB0CWS<DB0ZDF<DB0HOM<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<
ON0RAT<ON0LVN<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000911/0117Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12400 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_244I
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:34:36 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_244I>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
multipath problem. Are they just covering their asses for choosing
900Mhz for the FHSS radio project, or is this a legitimate concern?
------- Stewart - N0MHS --------
Wireless High-Speed Networking and
Public Radio Services Information(MURS,FRS,GMRS,ARS,CB):
http://www.pubcel.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:58:52 -0500
From: "J. Hoffa" <J.Hoffa@underground.net>
Subject: MURS potential
> Hank Oredson wrote
>
> Like the tcp/ip folks.
> 16 years of hype, almost zero progress beyond the original code Phil wrote.
What? You mean SNOS didn't expand the art :-)
Actually though, most of the people in this group wouldn't know what Linux
was,
and would miss the fact that anything Phil wrote is ancient history.
The "tcp/ip folks" have left 1200 baud for good. The problem wasn't the
technology;
indeed, once they saw what the payload was, they just lost interest. Who the
hell
wants to transport out of band mods, and WW scrotum scratching from Brazil or
West Africa. If you took all of what Hams exchanged on their BBS and TCP/IP
networks, and weighed it, it would be 1/2 Ton of shit.
What has really taken off in Ham radio, is the old RTTY in a new form called
PSK31,
MFSK16, PSK125F, etc, where people can talk about substantive topics.
Jimmy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:30:35 -0400
From: "Ed Hare, W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.net>
Subject: MURS potential
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I heard somewhere(I think it was on TAPR's Spread Spectrum mail list)
> that 900Mhz devices "do better" than 2.4Ghz devices, as far as
> propagation is concerned. I think someone mentioned an "evil"
> multipath problem. Are they just covering their asses for choosing
> 900Mhz for the FHSS radio project, or is this a legitimate concern?
Do you really think that the fine folks at TAPR would put all the work they
do into promoting digital radio, then promote 900 MHz if it was second best
because one TAPR project uses 900 MHz? The leadership at TAPR cares very
much about what they are doing and I have confidence that if they are
recommending 900 MHz, it is not to cover their butts over the 900 MHz FH
project.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:10:04 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: MURS potential
In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009071947220.9921-100000@exp.bde-
arc.ampr.org>,
kd6lvw@att.net wrote:
> > However, I've got both 2m and 70cm amateur radios(lots of 'em), and
a
> > bunch of UHF-based FRS/GMRS stuff too. In general, I prefer the
> > propagation characteristics and reduced feedline loss of VHF vs.
UHF.
> > The main reason that I even started using 70cm was because 439.025
> > was/is the defacto 9k6 standard channel is SoCal.
>
> It's NOT the only 9k6 channel in 70cm. 438.950 - 439.075 (in .25
steps) are
> all 9k6. There are also a handful of 9k6 allocations at 431 MHz. If
you prefer
> 2m, then why didn't you go with 9k6 on 144.99 MHz?
Back in '92-'93, when I was hacking with 9k6, 2m was my last choice. I
first went with 70cm because TEKK radios were $70. The idea was to get
a cheap solution, so lot's of people would convert from their 1200bps
boat anchor systems:) Problem was that they only put out 1 or 2W.
This was perfect for LA county but wasn't so good for Riverside County
(when I was the only one out there doing it!).
I eventually got N6KZB to let me put up a Kantronics Data Engine/D4-
10/Midland 144.93/439.025 TCP/IP gateway on Box Springs Mountain in
Riverside City(it could "see" into LA). When it worked, it was COOL -
but I had lots of problems with the "experimental" English TCP/IP
software, and the thing had to come down fairly quickly. At that time,
that English s/w was crap - but I think someone in the LA area finally
got that English stuff running reliably since then(C0LEGE I believe).
Having another brainstorm, I decided to figure out another way to
reliably get into Los Angeles at high speed. "I know", I said; "if 2m
is better than 70cm, then 6m will be even BETTER". So, I bought a few
old VHF Mocom-70s and put them on 50.13(I think), with the idea of
hooking them up to a few of the TAPR 9k6 Modem kits I had built. The
problem with those things was that they had reed relays, and needed a
TXDelay of about 5 seconds :) They also disrupted TV reception for 5
miles around, putting out the equivalent of what a modern 5W radio
does, while requiring a Nuclear power plant to run them :)
In '94, I decided to move the D4-10/DE/Midland setup to TRW in San
Diego. I had finagled a office with rooftop and Internet access, and
briefly set up my station to be an Internet gateway with the Data
Engine running in KISS mode(as they used to say in the Western Airlines
ads - the ONLY way to fly!) to a Linux box. At that time, Linux was
TOTALLY experimental, and getting the Linux and the AX.25 software
drivers working reliably was also a challange. About this time, I got
a new job, put all my radios in a foot locker, and took a 5 year hiatus
from ham radio(I figured digital ham radio was a lost cause). But when
I heard about restructuring, I thought I'd give digital radio a second
look.
Anyway - THAT'S why I never got on 144.99! Besides, in the early '90s
Kenwood TH-D7As didn't exist yet, Kantronics didn't make a 2m D4-10, I
couldn't find a decent Mid-band VHF Mitrek to convert, and WD6EHR was
pushing to standardize with TEKKs on 439.025, big-time. Also, I don't
think 144.99 even BECAME a coordinated frequency for 9k6 until '94!
For YEARS many old-time hams argued against coordinating a 9k6 channel
on 2m, based on the fact that they were CONVINCED the signal would take
up more than the allocated bandwidth - when it actually took up LESS
space than the existing 1200bps AFSK signal! Typical. At least Mike
(WD6EHR) was able to convince folks to set up a number of 9k6 channels
on 70cm(I think there are at least 4 or 5 up there for the LA area).
------- Stewart - N0MHS --------
Wireless High-Speed Networking and
Public Radio Services Information(MURS,FRS,GMRS,ARS,CB):
http://www.pubcel.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:54:44 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: MURS potential
"J. Hoffa" <J.Hoffa@underground.net> wrote in message
news:srgeccetljn93@corp.supernews.com...
> > Hank Oredson wrote
> >
> > Like the tcp/ip folks.
> > 16 years of hype, almost zero progress beyond the original code Phil
wrote.
>
> What? You mean SNOS didn't expand the art :-)
Of course not!
Thus it's name (Simple Network Operating System).
As in K.I.S.S.
The goal was to give me a platform to play with various protocol ideas.
Which is what I'm doing right now.
> Actually though, most of the people in this group wouldn't know what Linux
was,
> and would miss the fact that anything Phil wrote is ancient history.
Circa about 1984. I was able to connect to Phil's system now and again
from where I lived up near Boston.
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_244J
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
