| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 12.02.04 13:04l 218 Lines 9098 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2830-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Feb 10, 4/8
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 040212/1045Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:18933 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2830-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Has any one talked to Microsoft ?
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:11:43 -0500
X-Message-Number: 20
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:03:03 -0500, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>>>>Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net> 2/10/04 1:03:41 AM >>>
>
>I truly do think APRS could be applied for more real public
>service... ....the new MURS radio service could be applied to a low
>cost AVL network using APRS like techniques....
>
>COMMENT: I was amazed when I got my new HT that the Marine Band now
>has over 200 channels. Somehow I missed that happening. Does this
>mean there is now room for APRS on a Marine Channel?
Some years back, the coast guard was developing a APRS like marine system...
DCS or something like that.... I think it is deployed now. I think Wes knows
a bit about it, or at least someone on this SIG as we had a discussion about
it a year or so ago.
But this actually highlights my point.... you didn't quote me in my entirety,
and I'm not picking on you here at all, but it shows how we as hams largely
think. I was suggesting that APRS needed to be applied to more then rich old
white men who like to play with radios, if we hope to attract charity funds.
But what is being suggested.... applying APRS to rich old white men who like
to play with boats. A good application no doubt, but not the way we need to
be thinking if we want to attract charity funds for technology.
>I woiuld have never considered it before in the small number of
>channels available, But shucks, if there are 200+, there outta be
>room for one for APRS. Problem is how could we ever get it
>legal....
I'm fairly sure tone burst has always been legal on the marine channels, but
you'd need to look at the specific rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tweak your TXD!
From: "Tim Schall" <grover@fortgirlfriend.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:13:04 -0800
X-Message-Number: 21
My digipeaters are digi_ned systems running with MFJ-1270B TNC's. The
radios, a Yaseu FT-2600 and a Kenwood TW-4000 both run with their Squelch
set wide open. The TNC's have hardware DCD boards in them. That way I
don't have to wait around for the radio to figure out that their is
something there. I do have to sit there and have a couple cold ones while
the squelch on the other end wake up though. You're absolutly correct. We
tested against a wide variety of TNC/radio combinations out here in Seattle
and discovered that if we got below about 110 - 130 we started losing
packets out the other end. For whatever its worth, about the worst radio as
far as the squelch waking up was an old IC-2AT handheld where we had to get
up into the 250 range for the thing to work reliably everytime.
So unless you're interested in getting packets through only to other
optimally equipped stations (squelch wide open and some sort of hardware or
HDLC system) then getting below about 130 is only gonna make the network,
effectively, non-existant for some users. Don't forget, a vast majority of
the radios in use on this network ARE NOT data grade radios. They are voice
radios. 250ms of squelch time is fine in most voice applications.
Tim Schall
KA7PBI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tweak your TXD!
From: "Tim Schall" <grover@fortgirlfriend.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:16:06 -0800
X-Message-Number: 22
You preach it Brother Jeff!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff King" <jeff@aerodata.net>
>Hold on now...... squelch time? We are looking 15+ years after a series of
>circuits and articles on the wonders of open squelch operation, you mean to
>tell me their are still folks that are running closed squelch on packet
>radio? Naww..... you have to be kidding me, right? The only legitimate use
>of squelch in packet/aprs I can see is for dumb trackers like the Tiny3 where
>the sole purpose is for hold off.
>
>Not every radio created is a good choice to use on packet radio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Has any one talked to Microsoft ?
From: Derek Koonce <redderek@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:36:14 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
X-Message-Number: 23
Coming from the Search and Rescue (SAR) world, where volunteers are a large
part of the service, this might be a good approach to Microsoft. Searches
can encompass large area and across many states. Having a mapping system
could provide additional information that a basic mapping program could not
cover. In addition, not all SAR teams can afford mapping programs.
Derek
KE6JTP
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
I'd suspect anything like this would be filtered through the Bill and Melinda
gates foundation. See:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/LetterFromBillMelindaGates/default.htm
and it appears they do not accept unsolicited proposals, so you might need a
insider as you suggested.
It also appears Ham Radio (primarily rich old white men) are really not a
target market of this foundation. That is not to say APRS couldn't change,
but APRS and APRS like systems would need to expand beyond a ham only
audience IMHO.
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 02/09/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tweak your TXD!
From: "Laurie - g6isy" <g6isy@dsl.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:37:29 -0000
X-Message-Number: 24
Jeff King wrote:
>Hold on now...... squelch time? We are looking 15+ years after a
>series of circuits and articles on the wonders of open squelch
>operation, you mean to tell me their are still folks that are running
>closed squelch on packet radio?
It's been about the same time since there have been circuits and articles to
achieve 9600bd but it would seem that some people are still using 1200bd for
packet radio :-)
Actually, several modern (and expensive) radios with built in TNCs operate
closed squelch.
In fact, I suspect there are more stations using squelch than not.
73 Laurie - G6ISY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kantronics Packet Controller Chip Placement
From: "David Thege" <dthege@conpoint.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:47:23 -0600
X-Message-Number: 25
If you can read the numbers on the chips here are the numbers for the parts
that go into those sockets for a KPC-3. U4=63B03X, U5=74HC14, U6=TCM3105NL.
These are out of a KPC3 manual's parts list. The manual is for version 5
dated July 1, 1992. According to this manual RAM is in socket U9. Hope
this helps.
Dave N0XBN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Has any one talked to Microsoft ?
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:57:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Message-Number: 26
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Derek Koonce wrote:
>Coming from the Search and Rescue (SAR) world, where volunteers
>are a large part of the service, this might be a good approach to
>Microsoft. Searches can encompass large area and across many
>states.
As in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster...
>Having a mapping system could provide additional
>information that a basic mapping program could not cover. In
>addition, not all SAR teams can afford mapping programs.
Our county's SAR group is all volunteer, except for a few county sheriff's
running the show. Money is a major issue and one of the main reasons I've
been adding SAR and topo features to Xastir. I prefer having choices,
particularly inexpensive/free choices. I'd also like some features that
the lesser-cost mapping programs just don't have. Features that can be
used to speed up a search, reduce a search area, save lives.
You don't have to have money to buy the latest laptops, OS, or mapping
programs. Xastir on Linux or Windows is a viable alternative, and the maps
are free or almost so. You'll need a bit more horsepower/memory to run it
under Windows as opposed to one of the Unix variants, but it does work. If
you want the most bang for your buck, run old laptops using Linux/Xastir.
You can probably pull together a free mapping station for SAR using donated
laptops, free OS (Linux), free Xastir, and free maps. You can also
duplicate the system without fear of anyone coming after you.
Someone is working on a much cleaner/fewer-steps install of Xastir/Windows,
for those of you that had difficulty with the longer procedure. That
should be ready soon and more Windows folk can try it out.
No, this isn't an advertisement. Nobody makes a dime off Xastir.
We do it because we love it!
Curt, WE7U
Snohomish County Volunteer Search and Rescue, Washington.
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
