| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 22.05.04 23:09l 245 Lines 9807 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3335-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 15, 2/3
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0WUE<DK0WUE<HA3PG<JK1ZRW<WB0TAX<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 040522/2029Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:24564 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3335-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: New into APRS - what to use?
From: blairhogg@comcast.net
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:30:11 +0000
X-Message-Number: 6
Hi Curt, thanks for your response. I've noted my comments below.
Blair
>On Fri, 14 May 2004 blairhogg@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>What recommendations does this group have for someone wanting to
>>get into APRS, or where on the net are good places to find info?
>>I'v etried search engines, and have seen many of the major sites
>>but am still unsure about equipment.
>
>http://www.eskimo.com/~archer/aprs_capabilities.html
>
>
>>We have been using APRS as a side activity in our fox hunts, so
>>that the fox can see some of the hunters and their locations. So
>>far we have had only one APRS station reporting during the hunt. I
>>would like to put in a semi-permanent APRS station in the car so I
>>don't have to worry about setting it up every time, but don't know
>>which way to go.
>
>Please list what operating system you intend to use. That limits
>which APRS programs will work on it.
Right now I am just looking for the equipment needed in the mobile station
to report location, not necessarily to use the APRS as part of the fox
hunt, e.g. the GPS, TNC and TX. I'd like it to be semi-permanent, that I
canm just leave it in the car, and the portable unit has to be manually
energized every time you want to use it.
I am currently considering a single board system, like the Motorola Oncore,
coupled to the TT3. Just wondering if anyone else has used one of these.
>Also, do you expect to have/need DF'ing capabilities, as in being
>able to have some/all on channel be sending DF bearings, or are you
>just interested in seeing where the mobiles/portables are as the
>search progresses? If it's a competition, I'd think the latter, as
>anyone transmitting bearings would be helping the other teams.
>
>If you're doing serious transmitter hunting work, then the
>cooperative DF'ing can really help.
>
>The answers to those questions might also affect your choice of
>program.
For the DF work we generally use the basic stuff - directional antenna and
compass, map to record bearings (I use the laptop and a mapping program).
The APRS is for amusment only - so that the fox can see where the hunters
are.
>>I have a portable GPS, an e-Trax Vista, but I'd rather not commit
>>it to APRS. I've seen non-display GPS receivers - Delorme
>>Earthmate, etc., and some assembled board units - Motorola Oncore
>>GT+. Any recommendations for a low-cost unit?
>>
>>The TinyTrak3 looks like the best solution for the TNC, are there
>>any others?
>
>That's a transmit-only TNC. If you're expecting to see positions
>from others, that one won't work. If you want one of the best
>all-around TNC's for APRS use, consider the Kantronics KPC-3+ (not
>the KPC-3, the '+' is important).
Interesting point on the TT3. That may be a concern for the future but
wouldn't be a problem for my immediate intentions.
>Other less-expensive possibilities:
>
>AGWPE, which uses the soundcard interface as your TNC.
>TNC-X, which is a TX/RX TNC kit.
>Many older TNC's will work just fine as well, if you have a computer
>connected to them in order to perform the APRS functions.
>
>
>>What about the transmitter? The TT3 also comes packaged with a
>>transmitter, which lacks a receiver to prevent transmitting when
>>the frequency is busy.
>
>No, you're thinking of the pockettracker now, which has a TT-3 and
>atransmitter built-in. The TT-3 itself is just a transmit-only
>TNC. I own some TT-2's and a PocketTracker.
Is the pockettracker a problem since it doesn't receive, and can transmit
on a busy channel?
>>Is it better to use an HT or mobile rig? Or
>>just not worry about the frequency busy status?
>
>That's almost flame-bait... ;-) We'll see what kind of responses
>you get on that one.
I guess it depends upon the location and prevalence of digipeaters. I
expect in the near future to blow the dust off the old TNC, see if it still
works, and throw up a digipeater here at the house (if that old TNC will
even support this new stuff). Might even look into connecting it to the
internet. That's another issue.
>It depends on the application. For SAR, we're considering using
>some pockettrackers. Those are low-power, but even if they were
>5W-10W, many of the areas we deal with wouldn't have the option of
>getting into a digipeater, at least not until we crested a ridge.
>If we find that we either cause a problem for others or receive too
>much interference from others, we'll just switch to an alternate
>frequency.
>
>Depending on what area you're in, you may have excellent coverage
>with a 5W handheld (hopefully with an external antenna). Down
>around Seattle I think that's the case. I'm north of there by one
>county, and things are different up here. In these canyons/hills I
>need high-power to get out. I started out with 25W and a mag-mount
>1/4 wave. I've since switched to 50W and a permanent-mount antenna.
>Iswitch between a 5/8 wave and a 1/4 wave depending on what I'm
>doing. 1/4 wave gets out of the canyons better due to it's higher
>radiation angle. If I'm heading down toward Seattle I try to knock
>down the power.
>
>In all fairness it may be the hidden transmitter problem that is
>affecting me more these days, at least for my normal commute. It
>could be that the higher power is just overriding others that are at
>alower strength into the repeater. We have so many blocking
>hills/mountains around here that it's a real problem. The frequency
>is awfully busy if you get to a high point where you can hear for
>some distance.
We have hills here in SE PA, but they aren't that bad. I will probably
start with a 5W unit with external antenna and see how it works.
Your web site has some interesting info that it will take a while to
digest. Thanks for your input.
Blair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Conversation with Kenwood at Dayton
From: "Ron and Val Smith" <rsmitj@tpgi.com.au>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 06:13:15 +1000
X-Message-Number: 7
Thanks, Phil.
I am just a bit far away to attend but the feedback you did is greatly
appreciated.
Cheers
Ron
vk4ags
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Conversation with Kenwood at Dayton
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 16:35:45 -0400
X-Message-Number: 8
Hi Mike:
Your comments mimic ones I recently made in the design of a new product
although eventually I changed my mind. A few comments.
On Sat, 15 May 2004 07:43:29 -0400, Mike Yetsko wrote:
>While I agree that USB is the 'way of the future', I am apprehensive
>about a change to the 'latest and greatest' without considering all
>the ramifications of that change.
>For one thing, if you have USB on a computer, you can always (and
>easily) get to a serial interface. But if you have a laptop with
>serial, you CANNOT easily or cheaply get to USB. It's just too
>advanced an animal to get to on laptops or even PCs that don't
>support it to begin with.
>So, if you were to design a 'product' and were deciding on which way
>to go, would it be USB, serial, or both?
>If you make your product serial, ANYONE can get to it.
>If you make your product USB, ONLY the people with USB can get to
>it.
As I said, these are exactly the same arguments I made (in my case, the
product was a 802.11b sign, and in REV1 we configured it over the serial
port). I even sent so far as to suggest we toss in a USB doogle in the box.
In the end, I came around that onboard USB on board was best.
And in the KISS TNC case being discussed, from a business perspective, there
is even a stronger case for USB. Why?
Simple.
Do you want to introduce a product that targets a saturated market (RS-232
tnc's) or one the is just emerging? Further, over the life of the product,
should it target folks who can't afford a new laptop, or ones that recently
have purchased a laptop? Remember, this is not ham welfare, and it can be
assumed those with new laptops have more disposable income. If I'm a
business, wanting to make money, I'm going to introduce a product that has
new features (USB TNC) and not worry about targeting folks who don't have
much disposable income and wouldn't buy my product no matter what.
>If you make your product both, then there has to be a serious
>performance issue with USB to make it worth the extra expense to do
>both.
Not in all cases. The TNC-X has capability to do both, and more to the point,
the FTDI USB uart makes it relatively easy to support both. It (the FT232BM)
is a USB to serial converter chip. To make a product support both RS-232 and
USB, one would need a way to switch serial between the two parts (a couple
jumpers) and add a National/MAX232 RS-232 level converter chip and a DB-9.
Incremental cost under $2 not including the USB hardware.
Here are some links:
http://www.ftdichip.com/FTApp.htm FT232BM USB to serial converter chip
http://johnhansen.org/media/schematic.gif shows jumper enabled USB or
RS-232
http://www.tnc-x.com
BTW, even though the above is how I feel in this narrow issue, if I was going
to introduce a "USB TNC" it wouldn't be a conventional TNC. It would be a
sound card. Why? Simple, OPL/OPT, which means, Other People's Labor, and
Other People's Time. So many programs today, including AGWPE, support sound
cards. Meaning, as a manufacturer, all I need to worry about is the hardware
and other can enhance the software/firmware. Here is one company doing this,
abet quite a bit overpriced IMHO:
http://www.mixw.net/RigExpert/readme.html
-Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
