| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 15.06.04 10:23l 809 Lines 32192 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3456-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jun 08, 2/5
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<VK6HGR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040615/0712Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:25876 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3456-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:52:25 +0300
X-Message-Number: 21
Hi Brian.
Good points. However, FCC restrictions don't influence Europe or Asia.
Warrantee issues could be managed by a "disclaimer" if you do this then
you'll have to pay to have it repaired.
User accessible firmware also gives the unit added value and a development
team of thousands rather than a few.
Best regards
Julian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Venus transit?
From: "Richard Amirault" <ramirault@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:57:04 -0400
X-Message-Number: 22
OK, anyone do any APRS for the Venus transit?
I just watched with my telescope .. untill the clouds rolled it :-(
Richard Amirault
N1JDU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Call For Papers--2004 Digital Communications Conference
From: "Ford, Steve, WB8IMY" <sford@arrl.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:11:58 -0400
X-Message-Number: 23
The 2004 TAPR/ARRL Digital Communications Conference will be held
September 10-12 at the Airport Holiday Inn in Des Moines, Iowa. You'll
find more conference information on the Web at http://www.tapr.org/dcc/.
We are now accepting papers for the conference proceedings. You do NOT
have to be present at the conference to have your paper included in the
proceedings.
Please send your submission by August 10 to:
Maty Weinberg
ARRL
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
or via e-mail to:
maty@arrl.org
73 . . . Steve Ford, WB8IMY
QST Editor
ARRL Publications Manager
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: Keith Allen <kallen2@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:22:24 -0500
X-Message-Number: 24
Danny wrote:
>The Kenwood radios are a target for many reasons. One is the argument
that APRS can't change because of the kenwoods. I realize it must be
great to have a company design a radio because of something YOU
developed, but this obsession with defending the kenwoods and making
them the holy grail of the outdated APRS 1.0 protocol is getting old.
>
Ummm Danny, I currently use a D700, and I have a fellow HAM a couple
miles down the road from me who ordered his today. In addition, as soon
as I receive a legal settlement, I intend to purchase to more D-700's
and about 4 D-7A's..all for the same reason as my friend just bought his
and I bought my first one...APRS in a box. No further equipment needed
to get on it. I don't know about this Holy Grail stuff. I do know it's
a darned useful radio!! I really don't see it as "outdated".
>We need better than "but.. but.. the kenwoods can't do that!" Maybe
you get a percentage of the sale of every kenwood?? Hmmm...
C'mon.....get real.
>The other reason is your constant unsubstantiated claims that they
make up some whopping ridiculous percentage of the APRS userbase. I
would love to see the number of kenwoods in operation.. a REAL number.
Perhaps you are basing your figures on sales numbers. I won't go into
how absurd that is.
>
Hmmm... I guess lots of folks would buy a radio to NOT use them, therefore
sales figures are inaccurate??? Please explain just how absurd that is.
>You seem to keep calling others to dig up the information, which
shows even more that you really have no idea what the figures are.
>
>I would love to see a real survey of APRS clients in use. Software
versus hardware. We can even throw out every APRS station using
software more than 3 years old and label them as part of the "userbase
that won't upgrade". Better yet, we'll give those to over to the
"hardware" list just to help the "obsolete hardware" argument.
>
Sir, your argument appears most illogical, as if the software is being used
it IS being used. for quite a while, I played with APRS in DOS version
several years old. But I still used it (until I could find the upgrades.
So, if I like a version of software whose version is 3 or more years old,
my opinion doesn't count? Hmmm. I guess we throw out the baby with the
bath water too?? :-)
73. Keith
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 25
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Brian Riley (maillist) wrote:
>Yes, its the TASCO TNC. There are several flavors of it though. The D7A and
>its upgrade D7A(G) have the crippled TNC where KISS transmit doesn't work.
>The D7E (European version) upgrade had KISS fixed. As far as I know the
>D700A and D700E have the same flavor TNC and KISS works on them and yes, ist
>essentially the same TASCO TNC in the Dr135, but I have no idea what the
>KISS Status is on that ... Curt?????
No idea on the Alinco rig, sorry. I think Henk was the source of KISS info
on the TH-D7E. I investigated the Alinco rig for my own purposes when it
first came out, and decided against it because it didn't do digipeating.
The TH-D7 doesn't either, but the D700A does. If the Alinco would have had
that one feature, I probably would have bought a couple of them back then.
Is the KISS mode in the D700A capable of 1024 byte packets? As I recall,
the TH-D7A was capable of KISS as long as you kept to very short packets.
If you overran the buffer, that's when you ran into problems. I'd have to
re-read the stuff that Henk sent out a while ago regarding this, but that's
what I recall.
TCP/IP'ers like to do 1024 byte packets. The TH-D7A doesn't work for that.
If the D700A and the TH-D7E do, that's great.
--
Curt, WE7U 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: [ "Curt, WE7U" ] RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:39:48 -0500
X-Message-Number: 26
>Is the KISS mode in the D700A capable of 1024 byte packets? As I
>recall, the TH-D7A was capable of KISS as long as you kept to very
>short packets. If you overran the buffer, that's when you ran into
>problems. I'd have to re-read the stuff that Henk sent out a while
>ago regarding this, but that's what I recall.
>
>TCP/IP'ers like to do 1024 byte packets. The TH-D7A doesn't work
>for that. If the D700A and the TH-D7E do, that's great.
I experimented with KISS on my TH-D7A(G) for some time. It would receive
in KISS mode just fine. When transmitting, it keyed the transmitter, and
emitted modulation, but none of the local TNCs could decode it. I never
had a chance to look at it with a scope to see what was wrong with the
packet. But, it apparently is transmitting something wrong. I had quite
an exchange with Henk here on the format of the packet that I was sending.
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 27
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>Wow, please explain this OPENtrck attitude to
>OBSOLETE the one radio we have that does all of
>APRS and which represents almost 50% of the
>packets on the air most of the working day?
Real data: 10% to 15%, by counting packets off the internet feeds using a
Perl script. I can't separate out the TH-D7E's or perhaps the TH-D7A(G)'s
as Kenwoods directly, as they get put into the Standard Mic-E bin. I added
the Kenwood and the Std Mic-E categories together to compute the range of
10-15%. It's somewhere in the middle of that range.
--
Curt, WE7U 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: [ "Curt, WE7U" ] RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:13:11 +0300
X-Message-Number: 28
Hi Gregg.
The TH-D7E(G2.0) was marketed by kenwood as having Kiss mode built-in.
Im sure you have seen this.
Have alook at this
privateasylum.com/TH-D7E(G2.0).pdf
A little more searching came up with Henks original text on the D7
privateasylum.com/henk-TH-D7EG20.txt
Best regards
Julian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 29
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Scott Miller wrote:
>I don't think we've had any commitment from handheld developers yet on
>supporting any new protocol. OpenTRAC, at any rate, should be easier to
>implement on small devices than APRS.
I could add the protocol to the SmartPalm project. I'm a developer there
too. There hasn't been a lot of activity/interest in it, but it could be
started up again. This program has no mapping capability.
I probably have enough projects already to keep me busy for ten years.
--
Curt, WE7U 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: USB TNC challenge
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:17:25 -0700
X-Message-Number: 30
>Modem + micro could be built with Motorola's (Freescale) 56F8xx hybrid
Don't have time to learn the DSP programming, personally...
>controllers ( DSP + MCU), but no USB.
>Motorola (Freescale) is advertising new HCS12U... device(s) with USB.
I've got an HCS08 development board. It'd have more than enough horsepower
and RAM for this application, but the GT60 doesn't get any smaller than a
QFP44. It's what I'm using for my (larger) TNC project, but it'll use a
separate USB interface. Not sure if they've got any in that series witih
on-board interfaces yet.
I think Baycom's already got some 1200 baud modem DSP code, but I don't
remember what platform it was written for.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "Ben Acton" <bacton@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:24:15 -0400
X-Message-Number: 31
I have a Kenwood D7A(G) & a D700 for about a year. I use them mainly for
APRS. They perform flawlessly & are easy to use.
Ben, AA3XH
-----Original Message-----
Bob requested:
>PLEASE everyone that owns a Kenwood and USES it
>for APRS, should speak up and resist this total
>uninformed, and hypocritical Jeff King propoganda...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tetroon collateral damage report, revision1
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:29:55 -0700
X-Message-Number: 32
>add, to say there was none! EVERY packet which got stomped was collateral
>damage if the stomp-er was not useable for anything. So in my opinion a
>guestimate of hundreds, if not thousands, maybe 10's of thousands of
I don't dispute the fact that the balloon caused a lot of congestion on the
network. Having the OpenTRAC protocol option turned on certainly added to
the airtime, though I think it's demonstrably less than 50% - the added
airtime because of the concatenated packet is considerably less than what a
second transmission would have added. I think adding another few seconds
between transmissions would have made up the difference. Certainly the path
was much wider than it needed to be, and the packet size could have been
trimmed a lot - I don't think there was a need for the timestamp, but that
wasn't my decision. If I get a chance to add a periodic status text
feature, maybe that'll let Robert put the email address where it'll take up
less airtime in the future.
I did give Robert the go-ahead to turn on dual protocol some time back when
he asked me about it. I don't recall what my reasoning was - that might
have been at the time the telemetry was still only available in that mode.
You make a valid point about impact to the network, but the fact is it was a
load issue, not a protocol problem.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:32:34 +0300
X-Message-Number: 33
What is the Smartpalm project Curt?
Julian
>I could add the protocol to the SmartPalm project. I'm a developer
>there too. There hasn't been a lot of activity/interest in it, but
>it could be started up again. This program has no mapping
>capability.
>--
>Curt, WE7U
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: USB TNC challenge
From: "Jordi Costa" <bvjordi@bitsnvolts.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:34:42 +0200
X-Message-Number: 34
DSP programming tools in C for 56F8xx are available from www.metrowerks.com
(Codewarrior) and some examples on home power line modems from Motorola.
In case of separate USB interface I think FTDI chip, as in TNC-X
www.john.hansen.net/PICTNC.htm , is best option.
I have some experience in HCS12 development but no spare time for ham
projects.
Jordi - EA3CIU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:38:47 -0700
X-Message-Number: 35
And of course, the easy solution for satisfying the FCC would be to keep all
of the RF-related back-end code in a separate processor, linked to the user
processor with an I2C or CAN bus or something. You'd be able to load your
own programs in the user processor, but you'd be limited to asking the RF
processor to do what it's designed to do - no out-of-band transmissions or
anything.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:43:29 -0700
X-Message-Number: 36
> Hmmm... I guess lots of folks would buy a radio to NOT use them,
>therefore sales figures are inaccurate??? Please explain just how
>absurd that is.
Well... to be honest, a lot of people buy the top-of-the-line radio just
because - not for any one particular feature, APRS included. I'm sure you
could find quite a lot of people who have never hooked a GPS up to their
radio, and who don't monitor 144.39.
I'm not denying that there are a lot of Kenwood users out there. A quick
query on the aprsworld database will show you that. But it's perfectly
reasonable to assume that a significant number of owners don't take
advantage of the APRS features of these radios.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: wes@johnston.net
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:51:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 37
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:54:35 -0400, "Robert Bruninga" wrote:
>COMPLAINT I HAVE EVER SEEN IS THAT IT
>CANNOT DISPLAY POSITIONS TO BETTER
>than 60 feet. And look how Jeff King and the OPENtrack
Well, the other complaint is that it can't show compressed object postions
either. I'm not taking sides with this statement... I pointed out that the
"short" open trac packet the other day needed to be longer still to comply
with the OT spec... so I call 'em as I see 'em. Just the facts. It is a
fine rig. If I needed another rig, I would definitely buy one. If my wife
would get her ham ticket, I would buy her one. It does have limits though
- any product does.
>And notice that Jeff does not have one, and does
>not know what they do or how they work, yet
>he is one of the primary spokesman for their "obsolescence!!!!!
>See his post below:
Ian Wade said the same of the radio in 1999. I don't mean to give you too
much of a dose of reality, but my PC is obsolete before I get it home from
the store. It is a fact of life when dealing with electronics. Problem is,
these facts are hurting your feelings when that is not the intent. The
intent is to get a radio we can upgrade to do the Next Big Thing (whatever
that may be).
>the KENWOODS and their obsolescence and how they
>are HOLDING BACK APRS is the one
>who JUST SAID HE has never owned one and doesn't
>really know anything about them. How can he then
>be such an expert on their capabilities to justify his
>condemnation...???
Yes, I get irritated when Jeff throws quotes back into circulation that
just "stir the pot"... but all of this is fact - facts are neither good nor
bad... just facts. The fact of this matter is the kenwoods are _not_
holding back aprs... you are. Every time someone suggests something new
(except you of course), we get the same old line... "it will alienate the
1000's of kenwood users". And when that time comes, and the market is
there, kenwood will release new firmware. How many firmware releases are
there for KPC products? For Pacomm products? Why is kenwood any
different?
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: D700 - Yes mine has FLASH and In-Circuit Programming.
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:00:14 -0400
X-Message-Number: 38
I've seen a LOT of traffic and took the time to read all of your posts
over the last 4 or 5 days (I've been subscribed since Oct 2002 though). I
believe in Kenwood as a company, and I believe in the D7* hardware as my
ideal mobile interface for APRS. I've been up since yesterday purely
because I wanted to set things to rest and popped the lid on my radio.
Thank you all for my sleepless nights. :-)
First and foremost, I bought my radio shortly after I became a licensed
operator in MAY 2002. I bought it from Gigaparts and its SN is
31100088. It is a TM-D700A unit.
Next, the Flash chip inside the D700A is NEC Part number: D78F4218AGC .. It
is a 78K4 style microcontroller, the F is (FLASH), the type is 784218A, and
it is a GC package, which is a 100 pin LQFP. It has 256K of flash
memory. The NON-Flash version is the non-F model, and it has 192K of
MASKED ROM which can be updated only using ROM extensions (basically
writing updates into unused portions of the 192K). Since mine is the Flash
version, no problem.
More info at:
http://www.necel.com/micro/english/product/sc/78k4/78k4_general.html#218a8ay
Ok, so we have a flash chip in the D700.. BUT - How do we program it?
No problem! It just so happens to serial in-circuit flash the 78F4218A
using the 3 wire Serial I/O Flash, you need SCK2, SI2, SO2, Vpp, RESET,
Vdd, Vpp, X1, and Vss.
There's a nice 10 pin connector near the flash for this purpose on the D700
board.
D700 NEC SIGNAL
1 44 P24/BUZ
2 81 Vdd
3 94 TEST/Vpp (NOTE 2 - Vpp pin is for 78F4218A and AY)
4 15 RESET
5 39 P72/ASCK2/SCK2
6 37 P70/RxD2/SI2
7 38 P71/TxD2/SO2
8 33 AVss
9 -- NO SIGNAL
10 -- NO SIGNAL
Note that every pin needed to flash the unit is on the 10 pin connector
near the flash. It is clear to me that Kenwood knew what they were doing.
Furthermore, the Tasco radio is cabled using a flat cable and has a Kenwood
part number. This means if they really wanted to they could offer a new
TNC as a part, just in case unavoidable issues happened. The TNC also has
a Samsung flash part of its own.
If anyone has any additional questions, feel free to ask. I finally
switched out of digest mode because I feel I had something to
contribute. I e-mailed Bob yesterday and he said:
>4) When they saw APRS exploding back in 1996, they
> asked if I would help them shoehorn APRS into this
> EXISTING radio design.
>PLEASE NOTE, That is why it doesnt have FLASH,
>because the hardware was basically designed long
>before FLASH became viable. This is also why it
>only has 28 bytes of comment text, because that is
>what their entire memory structure was desigend around
>It is absolutely amazing that they got it ALL in there!
>5) Now given that it is NOT flash programmable and
>takes a FULL SHOP hour to re-burn the ROM, and this
>involves many many steps including soldering several
>wires plus a 16 wire jumper, it is very labor intensive.
That's just simply not the case for my TM-D700A. Even if some of the
D700A's came with the Masked ROM version of this package, I'd assume that
Kenwood did not revise the circuit board and the One-Time Programming
version of the chip would use the same programming connector on the circuit
board. This means that they could use a NEC FLASHPRO3 FL-PR3 programmer
along with the interface for the NEC 78F4218A and a custom cable that plugs
into their programming socket.
One last thing. The Sticker over the NEC chip says Kenwood (C) / JWKG /
1999 . I have photos of the NEC chip as well as the chip and the
programming socket on the circuit board. I have no place to host them that
wouldn't put a burden on my network here, so if you want them feel free to
e-mail me.
With all of this information and knowledge I have obtained in the last 12
hours (I started on this around 1am EDT), I respectfully disagree with the
information that I was told.
If I'm totally out in left field, and totally wrong. Please, by all means,
let me know. Open up your own units (take the two lids off and pull the
front off, it's right on the bottom side) and check the PNs of your own
flash chips in your devices.
---Droo, K1XVM
---
Dr. Droo, Consciously Unconscious at the Controls
@Network: Leading Caffeine Purchaser in the Northeast
Next To My Head: 360-207-0466 / FWDNet: 54448 / InPhoneX: 999-0000
In The Same Room: 207-942-0275 / 866-715-3311 / Cell: 207-356-9143
E-Mail: droobie(at)maine.rr.com / RTT Paging: pagedroo(at)1-X.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:02:10 -0400
X-Message-Number: 39
>>>"Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com> 6/8/04 10:46:51 AM >>>
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>Wow, please explain this OPENtrck attitude to
>OBSOLETE the one radio we have that does all of
>APRS and which represents almost 50% of the
>packets on the air most of the working day?
Real data: 10% to 15%, by counting packets off the internet feeds
using a Perl script.
I'm talking about the USA where the Kenwoods are, and
I thought I also excluded WX stations. Im talking about
50% of the packets that are providing non-static data.
I did'nt include Europe either in my claim where the kenwoods
are earlier on the growth curve.. APRS has been in the
USA since 1992. It only becaame popular in Europe after
2000. And don't exclude rush hour either, when its much higher...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: USB TNC challenge
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:05:06 -0700
X-Message-Number: 40
I'm using a National USBN9604 for my new project. It's a full-speed
interface, and it's not an RS-232 converter. It'll take more work, but at
least I'll have full access to the bus. I'd like to develop a standard USB
class driver for TNCs to let TNC builders avoid the trouble of writing their
own drivers or having to use commercially provided drivers, and provide
plug-and-plan features as well... but so far there hasn't been any interest.
People are happy just emulating serial ports.
Scott
N1VG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jordi Costa" <bvjordi@bitsnvolts.com>
To: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>; <aprssig@tapr.org>
>DSP programming tools in C for 56F8xx are available from www.metrowerks.com
>(Codewarrior) and some examples on home power line modems from Motorola.
>
>In case of separate USB interface I think FTDI chip, as in TNC-X
>www.john.hansen.net/PICTNC.htm , is best option.
>
>I have some experience in HCS12 development but no spare time for ham
>projects.
>
>Jordi - EA3CIU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: D700 - Yes mine has FLASH and In-Circuit Programming.
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:31:29 -0700
X-Message-Number: 41
>Next, the Flash chip inside the D700A is NEC Part number: D78F4218AGC .. It
>is a 78K4 style microcontroller, the F is (FLASH), the type is 784218A, and
>it is a GC package, which is a 100 pin LQFP. It has 256K of flash
Very interesting information. But I think you're still stuck with
petitioning Kenwood for the updates you want, and sending your radio in for
service to get them done. I really doubt they'd release their source,
redistributing code that included any of theirs would be a copyright
violation, and reverse-engineering that code (the hardware interface part)
would be a major undertaking and probably wouldn't make you any friends at
the FCC.
>Furthermore, the Tasco radio is cabled using a flat cable and has a Kenwood
>part number. This means if they really wanted to they could offer a new
>TNC as a part, just in case unavoidable issues happened. The TNC also has
>a Samsung flash part of its own.
Now this would be much more practical to experiment with. You might be able
to replace the entire TNC module, and add an emulation layer to translate
new formats and new protocols to dumbed-down versions the host processor can
use. It still doesn't let you improve the user interface or anything, but
you could do a lot with it. How many conductors is the cable? Got any
pictures of the TNC board?
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: D700 - Yes mine has FLASH and In-Circuit Programming.
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:43:17 -0400
X-Message-Number: 42
At 12:31 PM 6/8/2004, you wrote:
>Very interesting information. But I think you're still stuck with
>petitioning Kenwood for the updates you want, and sending your radio in for
>service to get them done. I really doubt they'd release their source,
>redistributing code that included any of theirs would be a copyright
>violation, and reverse-engineering that code (the hardware interface part)
>would be a major undertaking and probably wouldn't make you any friends at
>the FCC.
I don't think the FCC would have concern provided the modifications were
not to break cellular blocking and other facets, but not 100% sure. I
agree that petitioning Kenwood is still the headache. But at the very
least the hardware was designed properly in the case of my unit. Not to
say there's other versions out there that were NOT built this way, but this
unit clearly was built on the possibility that it would need to be evolved.
The hardware design appears to be pretty simple and revolves around that
microcontroller. However, I agree that it would be quite a process and
reinventing the wheel to try to design new code and dump it into the
unit. It also doesn't appear to have a SIMPLE programming platform, like
the ATMEL AVRs are notorious for.
>Now this would be much more practical to experiment with. You might be able
>to replace the entire TNC module, and add an emulation layer to translate
>new formats and new protocols to dumbed-down versions the host processor can
>use. It still doesn't let you improve the user interface or anything, but
>you could do a lot with it. How many conductors is the cable? Got any
>pictures of the TNC board?
I did take a photo of the TNC board itself. I'm pretty sure it dumps into
one of the many serial channels of the NEC microcontroller. I have sent
the links to you of photos I did take off-sig.
I have e-mailed you the link to that photo separately. I can take better
ones if need be. It appears to be a custom board by Kenwood with the Tasco
chipsets on it. The same Tasco modem for my Alinco DR-135TP is different
form factor, although the connection pinouts could very well be the same.
--Droo, K1XVM
>Scott
>N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: OPENTrack pointless demands
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:56:14 -0400
X-Message-Number: 43
For the audience, this is a good one!::::
>>><wes@johnston.net> 6/8/04 11:51:11 AM >>>
>Well, the other complaint is that it can't show
>compressed object postions either.
And why the **** does a MOBILE radio need to DISPLAY position accuracy to
1 foot for goodness sake...??????????????????????
The SAR folks asked APRS for 1 foot resolution. The APRS-WG responded
within a WEEK with the !DAO! format which gave them:
1) 1 foot resolution
2) STILL Human readable to the 6 foot range...
2) AND a datum to go with it (so that it could actually be used!)
3) AND it is 100% backwards compatible to all Kenwoods
Yet, you and Jeff, and Scott, just keep on bitching.
Now, I say again, what do YOU as a RADIO user in a vehicle with a Kenwood
need that APRS is not providing, that makes you think it is obsolete?
So far you are 0 for 2.
And if you include the bragging that OPENTrack is more efficient, make the
score 0 for 3, as we have CLEARLY shown that the OPENtrack packet is about
30% longer than the kenwood to carry the SAME INFO.
Score:
PRO - KENWOOD 3
ANTI - kenwood 0
Now some more statistics:
APRS users who dont have one and have never tried one and have no clue
about using the kenwood as a RECEPIENT of APRS data of what is on the air
around them: 16,000...
APRS users that have one and that love them: 4100
OPENTrack users that USE one and dont want it: 1
OPENtrack AUTHORS that have one. ZERO.
JEFF KING our "expert" on ALL subjects: ZERO
Wes continues:
>my PC is obsolete before I get it home from the store.
>It is a fact of life when dealing with electronics.
>The intent is to get a radio we can upgrade to do
>the Next Big Thing (whatever that may be).
The more important thing would be to STOP bitching about the NEXT BIG THING
(which is currenlty only programmer job-security, or as you indicated above
that YOU DONT KNOW) and instead to get out there and USE your RADIO now for
something USEFUL to your HAM radio community, instead of just chasing toys
or programmer nervanna....
>The fact of this matter is the kenwoods are _not_
>holding back aprs... you are. Every time someone
>suggests something new we get the same old line...
>[it is not backwards compatible and]
>"it will alienate the 1000's of kenwood users"....
No, I am fully in favor of ADDING anything to APRS and have an EXCELLENT
TRACK RECORD (see above) as long as it 1) ADDS value to the USER, and 2)
does not obsolete or deny information to existing users.
OPENTracks ONLY Stated GOAL (for the ease of programmers and 1 centimeter
resolution, etc), does not fit that goal.
I am not holding back APRS; it is the newbee, latecomer
programmer who just hasnt taken the time to
1) UNDERSTAND APRS,
2) Understand existing APRS users and applications
3) to comprehend all the details in the spec,
4) and to UNDERSTAND the kenwood,
and then has not taken that knowledge and used his excellent creative
talents to figure out how to ADD his great ideas within the bounds of the
playground so that EVERYONE WINS and no one looses.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
