| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 28.10.03 15:21l 255 Lines 9609 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2224-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Oct 26, 3/5
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<IW8PGT<IK1ZNW<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 031028/1248Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:11458 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2224-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Whoa, wait a minute [was: A Low-Tech APRSteward Proposal]
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:42:19 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 15
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
>>>This is not a one-size-fit's-all
>>>proposal. It allows for LAN's to setup their APRSteward to TX only as
>>>often as it makes sense in the LAN. Geez, this is much too simple.
>>
>>Transmit it only once during the day, and my radio captures it and that
>>is one less message I can get from anyone else. Once my memory is full,
>>then I cannot receive any other messages from anyone.
>
>No kidding? You have 10 slots for BLN's and when you've received 10,
>you can get no more? Maybe someone should be keeping a list of the
>stuff that Kenwood needs to change in their next ROM so that it doesn't
>keep the state of the APRS art from advancing. :)
I dont want ANY advancement if it means ADDING more room for more SPAM.
Say you had a 100 message memory. Do you want to have to read all 100 of
them every time you get in the car to see if you have any REAL mail?
Its not a hardware limitation its information overload on the part of
mobile APRS operators that I am trying to avoid.
>I understand your predicament now.
>
>Maybe the BLN: mode is the wrong one. Maybe a simple MSG, then? The
>concept of user education is a good one...maybe the mode is all that
>needs to be changed?
Yes, a personal message to the offender. AND an email...
>Maybe it's time for you to define the next generation of digipeater ROM
>characteristics. We seem to have reached that point. Once an "openly
>developed" and "flash upgradable" stand-alone network control appliance
>exists, such advancements can come along more readily.
We already have over 1000 existing digis many of who's settings in most
cases can be improved drsatically. Im trying to get people to undrestand
that and to do sometihng about it. Chasing off on neat little ideas of
what we need in the future when we aren't even using what we have properly
just detracts from the need and blurs the focus...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Whoa, wait a minute [was: A Low-Tech APRSteward Proposal]
From: Tim Schall <grover@fortgirlfriend.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:57:06 -0800
X-Message-Number: 16
And I suppose that if 80% of the people on this list jumped off a bridge
the rest of us would be expected to follow them. Refusing a good idea,
like transmitting 'good' local paths as a bulletin simply because the
Kenwood is gonna keep ten copies of it and, apparently, doesn't do dupe
checking on the messages is generally poor management. Not to mention
extremly poorly designed hardware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: San Diego firestorm
From: "Mark Fellhauer" <sparkfel@qwest.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:31:13 -0800
X-Message-Number: 17
Anyone got any good scanner frequenices to listen to? I'm stuck at home
'cause I-15 is closed...
VHF APRS doen't work in my valley/neighborhood - I-15 Pala Road exit...
Mark
KC7BXS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Whoa, wait a minute [was: A Low-Tech APRSteward Proposal]
From: Steve Jones <s.jones@rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:26:47 -0500
X-Message-Number: 18
on 10/26/03 2:35 PM, Bob Bruninga at bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
>>IIRC, this only affects the people running Kenwood equipment?
>
>Yes, all X,000 of them... And since it is the only fully integrated APRS
>radio and it represents 80% of everyone mobile, and APRS is supposed to
>serve the mobile community... It makes sense to me to make sure we dont
>do anything stupid to mess up a good thing...
And you have the stats to back up your claim?
Around here Kenwood mobiles are not the choice of most mobile aprs'ers. I'd
say they may run about 20%. Most are running a dumb tracker or a laptop
based system.
--
Steve <s.jones@rogers.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Whoa, wait a minute [was: A Low-Tech APRSteward Proposal]
From: James Smith <k9apr@tawg.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:54:46 -0500
X-Message-Number: 19
Same here, there might 6 users in whole state of Indiana that use
Kenwoods most use dumb trackers.... So the % is probably 7-8%.
--
73, James, K9APR
Chairman \ Coordinator
Tri-State APRS Working Group
http://www.tawg.org
mailto:k9apr@tawg.org
Run a APRS Website? Why not join the APRS Webring. http://www.tawg.org/join.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Whoa, wait a minute [was: A Low-Tech APRSteward Proposal]
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@3xf.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:13:52 -0800
X-Message-Number: 20
Yeah, this part of California too... I don't know any Kenwood mobile users,
but there are plenty of TinyTraks out there...
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Whoa, wait a minute [was: A Low-Tech APRSteward Proposal]
From: KC7ZRU <kc7zru@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:34:42 -0700
X-Message-Number: 21
Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
>Yes, all X,000 of them... And since it is the only fully integrated APRS
>radio and it represents 80% of everyone mobile, and APRS is supposed to
>serve the mobile community... It makes sense to me to make sure we dont
>do anything stupid to mess up a good thing...
>
>de WB4APR, Bob
<rant>
Ah, so it's official then.
APRS is no longer a ham radio project - but a marketing device for
Kenwood products.
Let's formalize the 'evolution' and just call it KRAPS then. Yes, that'd
be the "Kenwood Radio Ametuer Purchasing System".
</rant>
Now for an attempt at something a bit less emotional. We'll see how
successful I am:
I'm sick and tired of our efforts here constrined, hamstrung and
corraled by a commercial venture. If folks bought a Kenwoos Wunder rig
and enjoy it - great, more power to them. But, I don't care if everyone
on the air is running spark gap and belly aches at the thought of
developing, let alone implimenting something better and technicly
superior. Kenwood products are NOT the definition of what APRS is. Even
Bob's said that - now, let's live it. Maybe if the system actually grew,
improved and developed along logical lines and the Kenwood Wunder rigs
showed even further their lack of compliance - maybe, just maybe,
someone would be motivated to find a way to upgrade all those rigs. Man,
what a thought - an upgardeable applicance. Let's not allow the current
lack of this feature in an applicance to cripple APRS.
You want an example of how it *can* be? Just take a look at the APRS-IS
development. Like it or not - things're happening. Often inspite of some
of us clinging so tightly to what we already have. New software, new
ideas - and most importantly, new implimentations. They'll either stand
or fall under their own merits.
Bob'd done a great thing in giving us APRS and ironicly has crippled his
child by allowing the limitations of the Kenwood products to limit his
efforts and the development of APRS.
Enough's enough.
Let's continue being what we are. Radio Amateurs, not "Circuit City"
customers - let's experiment, design and impliment improvements and
inovation. If an applicance product can't keep up - well, that's
evolution baby.
If I've offended anyone - sorry. Just figured it was time for someone to
once again, stand up and become the target and say what so many are
thinking.
73
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The real problem.
From: James Jefferson <jj@aprsworld.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:42:43 -0500
X-Message-Number: 22
>Oh yeah, this is an RF network guys, things like igates and findu, while
>awesome efforts, are not what it's all about. We heap lots of work on
>findu and things like it but there's no substitute for putting a lot of
>this sort of stuff at the local levels and basing it on monitored RF
>traffic.
Out of curiosity how are igates and findu (I'm assuming aprsworld.net is
lumped into this generalization as well) failing at that they are supposed to
be doing? Or are you implying that they are not nescessary or useful?
Please elaborate.
-Jim KB0THN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 48V Powerpoles?
From: matthew.cook@tekelek.com.au
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:22:50 +1030
X-Message-Number: 23
Actually its been chosen to reduce the likely hood of electrocution of car
owners should they get themselves hooked up across the battery.
All current UL/AS/NZ/IEC/EU electrical safety standards define 50Vdc as the
highest potential where electrocution is considered unlikely with dry skin
contact across the supply. That being said you will get a rather nice boot
from 25-30Vdc if contact is made under the skin...
I'm sure many people have gotten small slivers wire under their skin
twisting stranded wire together... All I can say is with 36V battery
systems its going to get exciting being a automotive electrician, these
systems definitely have the potential (no pun intended) to start to killing
the unwary.
I also saw somewhere that the weight advantage of reducing the wireloom
diameter in 36V system is in the order of 200kg, this will have an impact
on fuel consumption.
Cheers
Matthew
VK5ZMC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
