| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 09.03.03 09:46l 266 Lines 11323 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 992-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 7/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE3XSR<OK0PCC<OK0PAD<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<WB0TAX<
W7NTF<VK3TE<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030307/1113Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:61139 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:992-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:30:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 46
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:02:44 -0500, David VanHorn wrote:
>>But can you change the TYPE accceptance parameters? THe Bandwidth, the
>>Modulation limiting Deviation? I doubt it. In the D700, they can...
>>because it only has one CPU and so FIRMWARE can destroy the type
>>accceptance of the radio..
>
>They could have designed it so those constants and routines were in a
section of the flash that can't be altered, like where the loader code should
be sitting.
Which I believe is exactly what the ICOM PCR-1000 does, or something very
similar (they had a update to personalize the units with country codes). It
is from around the same time period as the radios in question.
-Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: "Mike Yetsko" <myetsko@insydesw.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:08:56 -0500
X-Message-Number: 47
>But can you change the TYPE accceptance parameters? THe Bandwidth, the
>Modulation limiting Deviation? I doubt it. In the D700, they can...
>because it only has one CPU and so FIRMWARE can destroy the type
>accceptance of the radio..
>
>Bob
Actually, the CPU has nothing to do with it. Well, the fact that it's
'one'
CPU. What is called 'Boot Block' technology has been around since the
early 90's, and segmented architecture as well.
It we want to get down to technologies, and how primitive a radio is,
regardless of what it does for the user, let's dive right in! Radio
manufacturers seem to be concerned with the 'cheapest now' construction,
not the cheapest in the long run. Not having an easy upgrade path is
shortsighted and, in my opinion, is NOT conducive to customer needs.
How SHOULD they do it? Just create s segmented structure where the radios
operational parameters for 'restricted' issues are in a separate area.
Maybe put the I2C or serial communications routines between the CPU and the
PLL in one section that never changes, and put a 'range check' on the data
being passed. Then they could send out even the source to users to write
their own updates and they still couldn't get around the limitations 'hard
coded' into the system.
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Henk de Groot <henk.de.groot@hetnet.nl>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 23:12:58 +0100
X-Message-Number: 48
At 11:28 4-3-03 -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:25:53 +0100, henk.de.groot@hetnet.nl wrote:
>>My suggestion is to close this thread and stop beating the dead horse, its
>>useless and will not change Kenwoods policy.
>
>It is not useless, it saved me from purchasing one of their radio's in the
>past and pointing their flaws out in public allows the amateur radio public
>to be better informed in their buying decisions.
There is more than enough information now on the web and in the archives by
now, when somebody wants to make an informed choice, there is nothing to
stop him or her to find it. Hence I see no reason to have another
discussion about this here.
Hopefully the basic-stamp translator can do the trick in this case. I still
want to dive into Basic-stamp and Pic programming myself just to make a
converter between NMEA and Garmin protocol. My basic yellow eTrex does
support NMEA in (GPWPL sentence from the TH-D7) so this way I can have it.
In this case its the Garmin unit that does not provide NMEA in, so you see
even companies like Garmin, who have a great upgrade policy, ommit things
in their units that I realy wanted to have. I would gladly drop some other
feature to make space for it... But also here it looks like the only way I
can have it is either buy a new one or make some glue electronics myself.
Making glue electronics also aids the experimental nature of Ham radio, so
maybe its not so bad that some things do not work out of the box...
I see the dead horse-beating taking off anyway, hopefully Stan will put an
end to it fast!
Kind regards,
Henk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: SAR_pursuit_APRS
From: Kevin Deckert <kdeckert@mercuryspeed.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:21:20 -0800
X-Message-Number: 49
SAR exercise held for our group to introduce them to the capabilities of
APRS.
With group interaction.
It involved myself heading out on a mobile jaunt of a few kilometers.
Introducing the team to some of the Basics of winaprs and having a chase
team with a tracker on board try to find me.
The chase team had to Rely on the base team giving them directions from
the computer display. as this was a small area to work the transmit
rates were set very fast...40 secs or so.
It proved a great success indeed! Initially I parked and remained so
until found. Second phase was mobile. They even ascertained that I made
a "controversial" left hand turn. So the hands on experience was great
fun. It was also a test of the THD7 which updated me when the pursuit
team was closing in on me.
I am really curious to hear what those out in scanner land thought we
were doing!!!! [bearing 270' 2.2 kms, he is moving again..wait he is
coming right at you the closing 1.2kms, 800 meters...you went right
past, wait he is on the highway you are on the service road he went
right by..I think he hiding in the hotel parking lot...on the move
again...etc...}
Next event....."capture the flag" the flag being a self contained aprs
unit that will be moved by which ever team finds it..but only the base
operators will SEE it!
stay tuned!!! ve7whk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: SAR_pursuit_APRS
From: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI <Scott.Miller@vandenberg.af.mil>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:44:20 -0000
X-Message-Number: 50
Got a question for the GPS gurus out there. In SAR, absolute position
accuracy is obviously important when you're overlaying team positions on
maps and such. But I've also been thinking about another project - a
paintball version of the Army's Land Warrior system. I've already got a
head-mounted video display and gun-mountable camera, but I've been thinking
about using APRS (or OpenTRAC) between multiple units for situational
awareness.
Unlike a SAR excercise where you might have people scattered over hundreds
of square miles, we typically play in an area of about 20 acres. Anyway,
the point I'm getting at is this: What kind of RELATIVE accuracy can you
expect out of a number of similar GPS receivers? Atmospheric distortion
should be virtually identical for everyone. Is it even worth using WAAS in
this case?
Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:31:27 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 51
The last time Jeff so lambasted Kenwood, remember, that he didn't own a D7
nor a D700, and also remember that if you check on FINDU.COM, you wont
find his call, because he doesnt do APRS either. He just likes to bash
things...
And you have to go back a few hundred messages to even find his call on
Email because he never uses it. I had to go back to sept 2001 to
find his call: "73's, -Jeff wb8wka, American, Libertarian "
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>>If the user field programabilty can affect eveything about the radio
>>making it not TYPE accepted, then DUH, it cannot be user programmed.
>
>duhhhhh??? the TenTec's are user programmable.
They are not VHF/UHF radios that must meet bandwidth and deviation
requirments. And I think that becasue the same basic D700 and D7 can be
programmed to be either the european model or the USA model, and there
are different tech specs by the differeing Radio bodies that require that
these tech specs be met. I think European regulatory bodies declare
anything that works to USA specs to be illegal on the VHF ham bands in
Europe where I think it is narrower bandwodth.
Thus, I am only saying that you cannont let the end user have free run on
the programming of a radio that has to meet difffereing regulatory specs
in different countries. Yes, there are hardware differences too, like the
European models have narrower RX filters, but the TX deviation (5 KHz vs 3
KHz) is programmable and I am SURE that the regulating bodies do not want
people diddling with that in Europe...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:02:03 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 52
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>>>Flash was mainstream in the early 90's.
>>
>>Duh, but it wasnt in HAM radios.
>
>Sure it was Bob, may not have been user upgradable, but it was mainstream in
>the industry. Your trying to speak like you have technical knowledge about a
>subject when in reality you don't have a clue. I've been in the embedded
>software industry since the early 90's
Read the sentence again: "but it wasnt in HAM radios"
Show me ANY other HAM radio that was FIELD firmware upgradable that was
designed back then. Your monday-afternoon quarterbacking and
shoulda-coulda-woulda, ifffff's are just wasting our time...
>See above. My "beef", at least with regards to you and Kenwood, is you
>are a paid Kenwood consultant and anytime anyone questions the company,
>here you are defending them thru hell or high water.
That was a one-time consultation 5 years ago to tell them what APRS was
all about and give some advice as to what APRS to try to stuff into the
radio. I receive no other consideration from Kenwood, other than the
pride in seeing in the HAM radio market a darn complex radio that does
almost mircacles (think about what's in that radio)...
>But the real issue here is what is good customer support. It is my
>contention for a company not to upgrade known bugs within warranty is
>poor customer support, regardless of their reason. You can play your
>"Duh" game all you want in an effort to defend your client, but that
>fact remains.
Not my client. Just a good HAM radio company responding to the APRS
concept and trying to give us all something useful. And actually taking
quite a risk in putting so much stuff inside a radio. Rember, everything
has risk. And everything costs.
And is it really a bug? or just an inconvience on some GPS units, that you
have to tell them to output in version 2.2 NMEA (I think). If I were in
the business of selling radios, and trying to keep alive in today's dying
HAM radio market, It would not make sense to me to recall 10,000 radios
for a rare quirk that has a workaround...
Have you ever looked at the BUG list in some of the other Ham company
Satellite Radios? As long as your arm.. and they dont even offer an
upgrade
>Whatever. I'm not acting as a shill here. My views are my own and no-one
>is paying me to defend their products.. I happen to have a TS-430's and
>Ilike it..
I see, but you dont own a D7 or a D700...
Hummh...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
