| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 13.09.00 20:24l 196 Lines 7491 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_249B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/249B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<OE2XOM<OE5XBL<OE6XAR<OE3XPR<OM0PBM<SR9ZAA<RW6HQN<
UA0SNV<UT5UG<RZ6HWL<IK1ZNW<EA7URC<PE1NMB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000913/1701Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:13669 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_249B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 00 22:59:57 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_249B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> > >
> > >
> > > My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that Kenwood designed
> > > a special purpose IC containing the 1k2 and 9k6 TNC. They will
> > > now include this IC many of their radios. For example, their
> > > new radio covering HF through 1296 will utilize the same technology.
> > >
> > > No doubt, there was some significant development cost in producing
> > > this, but they are now the only one of the big three (YaeComWood)
> > > with TNC functions in the radio.
> > >
> > > I'm saying that developing this special application IC is an
> > > investment not a major scientific breakthrough.
> > >
> > > Maybe this will sell radios for them. Icom's gimmick (if you will)
> > > seems to be these large color LCD displays. Yaesu, evidently,
> > > doesn't need a gimmick.
> > >
> > > --
> > > mailto:k7on@earthlink.net >< http://home.earthlink.net/~k7on/
> > > --
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:15:17 -0700
From: "Dana H. Myers" <dana@source.net>
Subject: Broken TASCO TNC (was Re: TH-D7A secrets)
Rick Ruhl - CSS wrote:
> Dana,
>
> When I talked to Jeff Rienhart at Dayton, he said that the first version of
> firmware they had from the Tasco people did have the same problem as the
> Kenwood, it would transmit, but not receive. he said that the second
> revision fixed it.
Let's make sure we're talking about the same problem; the TNC in the
Kenwoods will not send an ACK for an I-frame until prompted (via an incoming
frame with the Poll bit set) to do so by the "remote" DXE ?
Frankly, I think it's a very bad bug. It really kills the utility of the
Kenwood
radios as client nodes. I'd like Kenwood to acknowledge the problem and
offer me a fix for my still-under-warranty radio.
> My guess is if it's in the current version of the Kenwood radios, it'll be
> in the version for the Alincos. I'll get Tim to give Naki at Alinco a call
> and see if he is aware of this.
That's very interesting. Someone actually admits this is a problem!
(it is, of course, but I get the impression Kenwood is looking the other
way). Alinco should absolutely refuse to ship radios with such broken
TNCs, or at least explicitly explain the issue to buyers.
Dana K6JQ
dana@source.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:40:53 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Broken TASCO TNC (was Re: TH-D7A secrets)
Dana H. Myers <dana@source.net> wrote:
>> My guess is if it's in the current version of the Kenwood radios, it'll be
>> in the version for the Alincos. I'll get Tim to give Naki at Alinco a call
>> and see if he is aware of this.
>That's very interesting. Someone actually admits this is a problem!
>(it is, of course, but I get the impression Kenwood is looking the other
>way). Alinco should absolutely refuse to ship radios with such broken
>TNCs, or at least explicitly explain the issue to buyers.
On the Dutch packet network, someone outlined a bug in the KISS P-Persist
mode. He claimed that the "persistance" value was implemented backwards,
i.e. a low persistence means a high probability to transmit, and a
persistance of 255 means the TNC/Transceiver will *never* transmit.
This makes it useless for Dama operation with software that sets the
persistance to 255 automatically.
Can anyone confirm that behaviour?
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:15:07 -0400
From: "Mark Erbaugh" <mark@nospam.microenh.com>
Subject: Computer and external DSP noise filter
Does an external DSP noise filter or an AF stage DSP in the rig make any
difference in copying digital modes with a computer using a soundcard? The
computer has to do DSP processing to retrieve the information anyway and I
suspect that it does a decent amount of noise reduction processing in the
process, so it would seem to me that the external DSP would be superfluous.
In fact, I could see where there might be some artifacts of the A/D and D/A
process that could even make things more difficult for the computer.
73,
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:38:30 GMT
From: "Casey" <casey@nospam.here>
Subject: Computer and external DSP noise filter
Hi Mark,
I find that using a an external DSP can be beneficial. My DSP 9+ has a fixed
audio output which I use to feed the soundcard (previously PK-232). The
filter allows me to reduce the back ground noise and/or band width. With the
soundcard software you can see the resulting changes on the waterfall
display. Also with the waterfall I can see where the filter is and move the
desired signal, even with the narrowest band width.. I never found the DSP
to be near as useful for digital mode when used with the PK-232. Being able
to see where the desired signal is on the waterfall and scope displays make
the difference in the usability
73 . . Casey
================================
"Mark Erbaugh" <mark@nospam.microenh.com> wrote in message
news:39bce022$0$35378$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com...
> Does an external DSP noise filter or an AF stage DSP in the rig make any
> difference in copying digital modes with a computer using a soundcard?
The
> computer has to do DSP processing to retrieve the information anyway and I
> suspect that it does a decent amount of noise reduction processing in the
> process, so it would seem to me that the external DSP would be
superfluous.
> In fact, I could see where there might be some artifacts of the A/D and
D/A
> process that could even make things more difficult for the computer.
>
> 73,
> Mark
>
>
------------------------------
Date: 11 Sep 2000 15:44:24 -0400
From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us (Eric S. Johansson)
Subject: internet repeater linking
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net> writes:
> I think it's important that we realize that as commercial wireless Internet
> grows, we will be seeing more and more SPAMMING by would-be (wanna-be)
> wireless Internet "professionals" in the industry. I quote the word
> "professionals", because the REAL professionals have no need or desire to
> interfere with the Amateur Radio community.
except when it comes to finding more spectrum for REAL professional uses.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:54:37 -0400
From: "Ed_Woodrick" <Ed_Woodrick@email.msn.com>
Subject: internet repeater linking
It's just so disconcerting to see conversations like this. It's pretty
obvious that the "friendship and goodwill" portions of ham radio are now
history. Why can't everyone just learn to live with others? If there's a
repeater in your vicinity that is hooked to the Internet, and you don't like
it, just don't use it. There a hundreds of different aspects of Amateur
Radio, there's no rule that says that you have to do all of them or agree
with all of them. There's many different drummers out there.
As to Internet repeater linking, lets step back a few years. There are/were
quite a few repeaters taht have been linked using non-radio links. No one
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_249C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
