| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 26.03.04 13:21l 248 Lines 9207 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3048-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 23, 1/2
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<IK1ZNW<IT9HZC<IT9DLN<VK6ISP<VK3TE<
ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040326/1047Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:21439 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3048-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Tuesday, March 23, 2004.
1. Re: 300 baud packet/APRS on 10 meters???
2. RE: 300 baud packet/APRS on 10 meters???
3. Re: 441.125 APRS Freq?
4. Re: APRS wx t... on aprsworld and findu
5. Re: 441.125 APRS Freq?
6. Re: 441.125 APRS Freq?
7. Olympic Tourch Run
8. Re: Walkie Talkie add needed
9. Vehicle & Traffic 397 In NY State
10. APRS Hats!
11. RE: Vehicle & Traffic 397 In NY State
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 300 baud packet/APRS on 10 meters???
From: Sean Jewett <sean@rimboy.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:16:58 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 1
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Bill Vodall - WA7NWP wrote:
>Is there any legacy 300 baud packet activity (APRS?) on
>10 meters? I have unused ports on a KAM and an unused
>HR2510 rig. Given the apartment situation, going to
>10.151 makes for more of an antenna issue.
Agreed. Given the wealth of cheap rigs it'd be nice to do something more
active (not propnet stuff either) with it CB'ers and sunspot's to be
damned.
>If so, what's the frequency?
I think it's listed in Bob's documentation. It's not a great frequency as
I recall.
Sean...
--
The punk rock will get you if the government don't get you first.
--Old 97's
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
KG4NRC http://www.rimboy.com Your source for the crap you know you need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: 300 baud packet/APRS on 10 meters???
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:17:21 -0500
X-Message-Number: 2
Bill,
Sorry, I forgot to send you this...
>From Bob's HF.TXT file:
28.187 1200 baud LSB FEED Channels every 2 KHz.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 441.125 APRS Freq?
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:26:01 -0500
X-Message-Number: 3
>>>"Chris Rose" 3/22/04 11:02:50 PM >>>
>
>OK,
>There is already a nationwide frequency for APRS.
>Why make another one?
My feeling is that 445.925 as the APRS voice coordination frequency at
events. It lets the APRS operators coordinate with each other without
interfering with their own 2m operation on 144.39.
Having it pre-determined helps operators join into the system without prior
coordination... And using PL100 allows it to be shared for APRS when not
in use for voice... just like we use Voice Alert...
de WB4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS wx t... on aprsworld and findu
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:17:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Message-Number: 4
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Matt Werner wrote:
>I am in the middle of rerouting my temp probe and ended up leaving it unplugged
>today. Xastir is correctly substituting ... for the temp in the temp field
>of the report (the station call is KB0KQA):
>
>=4659.65N/09217.93W_326/006g014t...r000P000p000b10158XU2k
>
>aprsworld.net and findu.com both are incorrectly interpreting this though.
>
>Findu's graph correctly stops drawing the temp when I quit sending it but the
>text at the top of the wxpage.cgi says my temp is 0F.
>
>Aprsworld says my temp is 32F and my wind chill is 32F. The temp graph holds
>at 32.
>
>Not really a big deal as a wx station that doesn't include the temp is probably
>pretty rare, but it's something that just "isn't right" either...
The spec requires certain fields to be present in the packet even if you
have no sensors for them. Hence the '.' or space fill characters required
by the spec in those cases. All of this is detailed on page 64 of the
spec.
--
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!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 441.125 APRS Freq?
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:24:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Message-Number: 5
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Christensen, Eric wrote:
>This is true... And maybe a UHF frequency would be a better choice for the
>future v. a VHF frequency.
>
>With the general trend of more users per digi, more digipeaters (and more
>advanced routing) will be necessary. In keeping with a
>one-frequency-for-everywhere mind set, a UHF frequency may be more
>appropriate to reduce interference between LANs.
>
>As the two meter band is VERY crowded, now may be the time to push for a
>nation-wide UHF frequency allocation for APRS before those bands (70cm at
>this time) become filled beyond capacity.
Perhaps even higher yet? What are the future plans for APRS satellites? I
know that commercial ventures are going after multiple LEO satellites to
provide connectivity for mobile/portable platforms. Are we?
I'm just wondering if we should be looking a bit further ahead than
terrestrial links. I know it would take an immense amount of
money/development time to put up our own set of satellites for such a
purpose, and would require new satellites every so often to keep the
constellation going, but is this a possibility down the road?
Thinking a bit on a less grand scale, what about 2 or 3 satellites which
provide APRS relay capability, similar in concept to PcSat?
What are the future plans, if any for APRS in space?
--
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!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 441.125 APRS Freq?
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:31:21 -0500
X-Message-Number: 6
Good forward thinking Curt. I'm not sure the $$$ involved in such a
constellation but I would imagine that it would take upwards of six or more
satellites to get acceptable coverage. It might be interesting to
investigate some of the higher frequency bands that we have available...
Do we have any other "specified" satellite windows on paper anywhere?
1.2GHz?
Eric KF4OTN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Olympic Tourch Run
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:06:31 -0500
X-Message-Number: 7
I ask again....
Is anyone in Europe coordinating the APRS tracking of the Olympic Tourch as
it is run throughout Europe?
Does it start in Utah? Do we track it here too?
Who's on first?
de Wb4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Walkie Talkie add needed
From: "KC2MMi" <kc2mmi@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:36:32 -0500
X-Message-Number: 8
Derek-
<All the people with cell phones kept having their calls dropped after
about 20 -30 seconds. However, we were able to get out with a 5W HT into a
repeater and get emergerncy
vehicles rolling.>
I think the objective translation of that should be:
"All the people with 600mW digitally encrypted ht's [digital cell phones]
couldn't reach and hold their repeaters [cell towers]. However, someone
elsse with a 5000mW ht was able to reach a repeater on a different
frequency."
That's all it comes down to. A cell phone today is a 600mW digitally
encrypted HT that is supported by, and requires the use of, an extensive
national private repeater system. That's the same thing as a ham radio, just
different technical restrictions, and the repeater operator is more
scrupulous about making sure the users pay for the repeater bill.<G>
There are places where my antique 6W cell phone will reach a tower (and at
6W, it always will knock a 600mW customer OFF the tower if it needs to)
where there is no ham repeater coverage at all. The wheel turns...this is a
matter of "different" not "better".
I suppose APRS could certainly work over those 600mW encyrpted ht's, they
could easily dial into a central server and report their positions. Oh,
wait, that's right...that system already DOES what APRS does, they are
regularly reporting in their positions to their repeaters. No APRS needed
there, it would be redundant. With AT&T's "find friends" and similar plans,
you can literally bring up a map showing the positions of other users at any
time--if they have authorized you to get that information.
I suppose there would be pros and cons to making the next generation of APRS
servers "smarter", i.e. giving out positions to authorized viewers only,
like the cell systems do. And a provision to obtain and track information
from cell phones, whether by APRS or other means, would nicely integrate the
two for users of that non-licensed 600mW band.<G>
Why fight, when you can Borg 'em?<G> Offer people more than cell does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
