| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 28.01.04 13:36l 208 Lines 7294 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2749-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jan 26, 2/2
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<7M3TJZ<LZ3NP<
WB0TAX<VE2HAR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040128/1103Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:17728 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2749-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:55:59 -0500
X-Message-Number: 10
So, when I move... Because my "house" station moved it is considered
mobile? Even though it moved once but wasn't really mobile?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
From: "Kurt O. Jauss" <kf6hjo@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:40:49 -0800
X-Message-Number: 11
And it is NOT a " Mobile" "Home", it's Manufactured Housing! ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
From: Jim Duncan <jdbandman@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:48:46 -0600
X-Message-Number: 12
So does this mean the 'politically correct' phraseology is now
"manufactured waste"????
LOL
--
73 de Jim, KU0G
Chairman/Coordinator
Kansas City APRS Working Group, W0APR
First Alert Storm Team KMBC-TV9
Mailto:ku0g@kcaprs.org
Webpage: http://www.kcaprs.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:56:50 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 13
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Henk de Groot wrote:
>>I would ask that Xastir and anyone else that "selects" only on
>>[movement], NOT CALL THAT MOBILE. Call it MOVING.
>
>No, it selects on history, the fact if the station ever changed position
>(as far as the program can know). That at some point in time the mobile
>stopped doesn't matter, it is still mobile since it was seen moving. The
>"mobile" flag is "persistent", once a mobile is discoverd, it will be a
>mobile until the station is discarded from memory due to inactivity.
>>But if its MOBILE it may not be moving. I would avoid this ambiguity.
>>In emergency work, it is important to know where your mobiles are, and
>>who is MOBILE capable.
>
>If it was ever seen moving in the past or present, it must be mobile, is
>that a more carefully worded phrase?
Ah, but this VIOLATES the fundamental principal of APRS that ALL stations
may be brought on line from ZERO with no aprior knowledge of anything and
be able to fully participate in an event or emergency. Requiring apriori
knowledge of stations or stations to have moved at some time in the past
inorder to be considered in the "MOBILE" class is a violation of that
fundamental prinicpal.
Yes, I see that your solution was a good solution in the absence of my
definition of what constitutes the "SET" of MOBILE SYMBOLS, but now that I
have published the list of the "set" of MOBILE sysmbols we should not call
your set of "any station that has moved" the same thing as the SET of
MOBILES.
Its only a name change to avoid USER ambiguity. I request that XASTIR
and any other software that attempts to identify MOBILES, NOT use the
MOVING or has-moved criteria. If you use that criteria, then call it
MOVING or HAVE-MOVED. But dont call it MOBILE. That word is reserved for
the subset of APRS symbols that represent "mobiles" whether they have
moved at your event or not...
BOb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: APRS-WG dead?, was re: Attended vs Unattended
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:42:21 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 14
I'm curious (no need to raise shields), for all intensive purposes, is the
APRS-WG, as a purality of members, now dead? I see your using the
possessive regarding the protocol and setting doctrine for client programs,
hence the question.
Personally, I think it better for APRS that you are in charge, and admit to
it, then the anarchy and confusion a non-existent standards body can bring
to the stage. It is nice to know who to go to run ideas off of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: etrex power
From: Robert W Burton <kd4ydc@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:10:18 -0500
X-Message-Number: 15
Could you not just take a cell phone 12v charger and put a diode in line
to drop the voltage? I've got a ton of those laying around. I think
many of them are in the 4.5v range (of course I would measure it).
1n4005 maybe?
Thoughts? Just get tired of paying for cheap cable I could probably make
much better! Also tired of the mess of wires too! ;-)
73,
Robert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: etrex power
From: "Mike Yetsko" <myetsko@insydesw.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:21:27 -0500
X-Message-Number: 16
When I bought my son the ETrex, I found a web site that gave hacking info
on the things.
One of the things on the web site was how to modify a popular cell phone
charger to work with the ETrex.
The info is out there...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS-WG dead?, was re: Attended vs Unattended
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:37:24 -0500
X-Message-Number: 17
this was to Bob.
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 01/26/2004
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:42:21 -0600 (CST), Jeff King wrote:
>
>I'm curious (no need to raise shields), for all intensive purposes,
>is the APRS- WG, as a purality of members, now dead? I see your
>using the possessive regarding the protocol and setting doctrine for
>client programs, hence the question.
>
>Personally, I think it better for APRS that you are in charge, and
>admit to it, then the anarchy and confusion a non-existent standards
>body can bring to the stage. It is nice to know who to go to run
>ideas off of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: etrex power
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@3xf.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:51:58 -0800
X-Message-Number: 18
Wouldn't an LM317T be more efficient? And they're cheap. What's in the
Garmin cable?
Speaking of voltage, I just pulled a really stupid stunt... I'm redoing my
Geiger counter circuit with more readily available components, and I've got
it set up on a breadboard for testing. I'd just tested the power supply
output voltage (1.1 KV) using the $1.15-each metalized polypropylene
capacitors I'd been using... I then shut it down, replaced them with
6-for-$1 ceramics (on sale at Electronic Goldmine), and checked it again.
Worked great.
Then I picked up the handful of polypropylene caps on the desk.
The ones that had been in the 1.1 KV voltage multiplier.
The ones that hadn't had a chance to discharge yet.
Reminds me a bit of my first day in electronics class. Class rule #1:
Absolutely no throwing of charged capacitors in class.
Believe it or not, this is even sort of on topic. =] Sooner or later one
of these boards is going up on a high altitude balloon, and will have
OpenTrac and maybe APRS output.
If you're interested in a cheap digital Geiger counter design with LCD
display (and soon to have RS-232 for radiation measurement and random number
generation), or know a better way to regulate a high voltage power supply
than using a shunt regulator with MOVs and zeners, or know of a stable
source of cheap Geiger-Mueller tubes, let me know.
Man, that hurt.
Scott
N1VG
---
END OF DIGEST
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
