| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 13.09.00 20:17l 209 Lines 7443 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_249G
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/249G
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PE1NMB<
PI8HGL
Sent: 000913/1702Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:13665 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_249G
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 00 23:00:18 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_249G>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>
> <horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8pj1vp$n6j$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > Could the YAM be used at 2400bps with unmodified commercial ham
> > radios? This would avoid the problem of having to modify radios to
> > hook directly into the varactor and discriminator.
> >
>
> 4.8kb is better.
Are you saying that 4.8Kbps will work with an unmodified radio? I
remember people running K9NGs with Mocom-70s at 4800bps - but I'm not
sure if they modified the beasties.
Anyway, the original question still stands - will 2400bps(or 4800bps)
work well with most radios, without modifications to the radio?
> There is a 4.8kb soundcard driver for FlexNet. Soundcards
> are even cheaper than YAMS, and come pre-assembled, ready to go.
Yes. But it would be pretty hard to fit a soundcard into my $150 Palm
mp100. However, you bring up a good point - I think some of these Palm
devices are starting to come with sound capabilities. But I think they
are only in the more expensive models($300+), and I'm not sure that
they have sound input capability.
> 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> n5pvl@swbell.net
> http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
BTW, thanks for your feedback.
------- 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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:48:38 -0500
From: "Steve Sampson \(K5OKC\)" <ssampson@nospam.radio-link.net>
Subject: YAM modem at 2400bps? and other YAM questions
4800 is normally run on FM with discriminator and direct FM taps.
Police departments use this on their car computers, and it works
pretty well.
> > > Could the YAM be used at 2400bps with unmodified commercial ham
> > > radios? This would avoid the problem of having to modify radios to
> > > hook directly into the varactor and discriminator.
> > >
> >
> > 4.8kb is better.
>
> Are you saying that 4.8Kbps will work with an unmodified radio? I
> remember people running K9NGs with Mocom-70s at 4800bps - but I'm not
> sure if they modified the beasties.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:16:33 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: YAM modem at 2400bps? and other YAM questions
In article <srqrokeact6127@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steve Sampson \(K5OKC\)" <ssampson@nospam.radio-link.net> wrote:
> 4800 is normally run on FM with discriminator and direct FM taps.
> Police departments use this on their car computers, and it works
> pretty well.
Thanks Steve, that's interesting.
What about 2400bps? I remember that in the early 90's, a few of the
TNC manufacturers started to market 2400bps TNCs - which pretty much
took off like a Lead Zeppelin. In particular, I remember Kantronics
had one, and it seemed to sell the most units. From what I can
remember, they worked pretty well with stock, unmodified radios - but
there was some kind of compatibility problem amongst the different TNC
manufacturers.
I suppose those early 2400bps modems were AFSK modems, though. The YAM
modem uses Manchester encoded FSK. Don't the pre-emphasis and de-
emphasis circuts wreak havoc with an FSK signal(therefore the need for
the discriminator/varactor taps)? Would it help at all that the signal
was 2400bps FSK instead of 9600bps FSK?
------- 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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:26:44 -0500
From: "Steve Sampson \(K5OKC\)" <ssampson@nospam.radio-link.net>
Subject: YAM modem at 2400bps? and other YAM questions
> What about 2400bps? I remember that in the early 90's, a few of the
> TNC manufacturers started to market 2400bps TNCs - which pretty much
> took off like a Lead Zeppelin. In particular, I remember Kantronics
> had one, and it seemed to sell the most units. From what I can
> remember, they worked pretty well with stock, unmodified radios - but
> there was some kind of compatibility problem amongst the different TNC
> manufacturers.
I had a KPC-4 back then, and it did work (I seem to recall it being
QPSK). The problem was that 2400 wasn't worth the expense. The
speed increase was offset by the long latency times (most everyone
used simplex). Maybe if they made the data rate 2400, and sent
1200 with FEC through it, it might have improved some of the
long haul links.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:18:30 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net>
Subject: YAM modem at 2400bps? and other YAM questions
"Steve Sampson (K5OKC)" <ssampson@nospam.radio-link.net> wrote in message
news:srr1gmdict6135@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I had a KPC-4 back then, and it did work (I seem to recall it being
> QPSK). The problem was that 2400 wasn't worth the expense. The
> speed increase was offset by the long latency times (most everyone
> used simplex). Maybe if they made the data rate 2400, and sent
> 1200 with FEC through it, it might have improved some of the
> long haul links.
>
..Or just run full duplex.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
n5pvl@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:18:45 -0500
From: "Steve Sampson \(K5OKC\)" <ssampson@nospam.radio-link.net>
Subject: YAM modem at 2400bps? and other YAM questions
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net> wrote
> > I had a KPC-4 back then, and it did work (I seem to recall it being
> > QPSK). The problem was that 2400 wasn't worth the expense. The
> > speed increase was offset by the long latency times (most everyone
> > used simplex). Maybe if they made the data rate 2400, and sent
> > 1200 with FEC through it, it might have improved some of the
> > long haul links.
> >
>
> ...Or just run full duplex.
Pretty expensive. Most repeaters need a club to share expenses and
get tower space donated. OKC had a non-profit corporation formed
for this purpose: (OPRA) Oklahoma Packet Radio Association. It got
about 3 members. Well anyway, money doesn't grow on trees, as
they say...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:58:09 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: YAM modem at 2400bps? and other YAM questions
In article <srrbj1njct6129@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steve Sampson \(K5OKC\)" <ssampson@nospam.radio-link.net> wrote:
> "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net> wrote
> > > I had a KPC-4 back then, and it did work (I seem to recall it
being
> > > QPSK). The problem was that 2400 wasn't worth the expense. The
> > > speed increase was offset by the long latency times (most everyone
> > > used simplex). Maybe if they made the data rate 2400, and sent
> > > 1200 with FEC through it, it might have improved some of the
> > > long haul links.
> > >
> >
> > ...Or just run full duplex.
>
> Pretty expensive. Most repeaters need a club to share expenses and
> get tower space donated. OKC had a non-profit corporation formed
> for this purpose: (OPRA) Oklahoma Packet Radio Association. It got
> about 3 members. Well anyway, money doesn't grow on trees, as
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_249H
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
