| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 24.05.03 10:59l 254 Lines 9784 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1369-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 21, 2/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0BI<DB0NOS<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<
7M3TJZ<HA3PG<VK3AVE<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030523/1334Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:779 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1369-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:23:09 -0400
X-Message-Number: 6
Actually, I could have stated it much simpler.
Wes Johnston wrote:
>Voice alert is intended for a short alert... It's not voice QSO mode...
>it's voice ALERT mode.
Voice Alert is intentional interference. (dare I say "harmful
interference")
>I have used voice alert mode only to facilitate a QSY.
Intent. Intentional.
>(Although the presence of my carrier at 50w may prevent it from hearing
>a packet which is eligible for digipeating)
Interference.
>Now, let me extend this again.... what do you think (along the lines of
>mixing data) with a)packet repeaters in the voice subbands, and b)packet
>after voice bursts?
Fine with me, as long as there's no interference with other services. a)
Does a well coordinated packet repeater cause interference to other
services? b) Does a packet burst after voice cause interference to other
service? My point is not that you can not mix voice with data, the
interference potential of different services on the same frequency is my
concern.
A trunked system is an excellent example of a system where voice and
data live together rather well on the same set of frequencies. A
truncked system (and probably many other type of circuits too) even
combines voice and data on the same frequency in an elegant manner. The
big difference is of course that a truncked system was designed to
handle different types services on the same set of frequencies. APRS is
not.
73,
--Alex KR1ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
From: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI <Scott.Miller@vandenberg.af.mil>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:29:26 -0000
X-Message-Number: 7
One of the goals in OpenTrac is to provide the ability to announce what
other frequencies and modes you're running. With a good radio
implementation, you'd be able to just hit a button when the other party's
callsign is shown and automatically QSY to their calling frequency. Or
locate a BBS, SSTV station, etc.
That's not to say voice alert is a bad thing. I think it's a clever use of
existing hardware, and if it's useful and non-destructive, great.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:00:44 -0400
X-Message-Number: 8
Bob Bruninga wrote:
I will not even comment on your individual arguments because of the
silly accusations on my so called "myopic HAM view that often hinders
communication rather than facilitates it when HAMS man up for public
service communications", accusations on apparently not having a "common
sense", nitpicking, being the typical "armchair lawyer" etc.
I find your accusatory reply in rather poor taste, Bob, and frankly, it
discredits your arguments more than it supports. I expressed my opinion
and I used sound arguments to support my view. I am sorry you feel that
you can not do the same. Perhaps you should not enter into a discussion
at all if you can not argue without an accusatory tone, or use
commentaries like the ones above to somehow argue your point.
Please don't argue by using "It was written" that it was not meant as a
personal attack or to prevent the original author from feeling bad, or
whatever the intention of that was. You can use my name if you have to
say something which applies to something I have said.
I think my point is still valid, Voice Alert is a bad idea and bad
Amateur Radio practice, perhaps even more so after your reply.
73,
--Alex KR1ST (Back to picking nits.....CQ Common Sense, CQ Common Sense)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP <wa7nwp@jnos.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 9
>Voice Alert is intentional interference. (dare I say "harmful
>interference")
Definitely not harmful. The data flow recovers. Nobody notices a couple
more lost packets. Far more are lost all the time due to hidden
transmitters.
Not too long ago I heard a phrase that really made sense.
"Expectation of interference is a source of invention and technological
advancement."
The "toned voice" calling on the APRS channel is a prime example. We're
expecting lots of interference from all the data station. So we use a
technological trick, CTCSS, to avoid the interference while still providing
the voice calling functionality.
The Wi-Fi world is another terrific example. There are few rules and
everybody expects interference. As a result, the technology is improving
at an incredible rate. It's probably getting better much much faster
because of the expectation of interference. If they didn't have to worry
about the interference, there would be less need to improve and things
would stagnate.
Hmmm. That sounds like another Radio Service I know of. Lots of talk of
band plans and expectations of clear channels for repeaters that are seldom
used.
There's no "technical" reason that we don't have data (legacy AX25 packet
or even FHSS) on every channel in the VHF/UHF bands. If nobody is using it
for voice -- let the data flow. If voice comes on, the data stops until
it's gone. A quiet frequency is a wasted frequency.
One channel could be Firenet data, another could distribute megabytes
of local maps every day, another could be new updates of WinAPRS. Some
many opportunities for doing neat stuff. Some many quiet frequencies
to do it on. So many "bandplans" slowing us down.
73,
Bill - WA7NWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 10
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Alex wrote about his anti-voice alert position:
>Please don't argue by using "It was written" that it was not meant as a
>personal attack or to prevent the original author from feeling bad, or
>whatever the intention of that was.
Correct. I was trying not to direct my response at the author. I was
trying to keep my focus on the content. Sorry if it came across as an
attack.
But the bottom line is that I think the philosophy of your post
prevents much more meaningful real-time tactical useful communications
than any possible use of Voice Alert would.
de WB4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
From: "B. Hildebrand" <bhildebrand@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:56:54 -0700
X-Message-Number: 11
Voice alert is a very good idea, and can be very useful in mobile
operations. It provides a mechanism to quickly and effectively establish
direct communications and you might not be able to do via digital. Make
contact, then QSY. Voice is simplex and won't propagate via the digipeaters
like the much more damaging WIDE,WIDE,WIDE, or WID7-7,TRACE7-7, and similar
packets. Voice Alert is a valuable asset, should be encouraged and used as
good amateur practice. It probably should be included in the APRS
specification.
Brent KH2Z
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WX setup help needed
From: "Curt Mills, WE7U" <hacker@tc.fluke.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 12
On Wed, 21 May 2003, cdapples wrote:
>I am trying to get my Ultimeter 2000 to talk to Xastir on a
>different computer but don't seem to have the right combination of
>programs/parameters.
Two problems right off:
Xastir questions really belong on the Xastir list, so as not to
confuse/raise the ire of the unwashed masses.
You posted to a high-traffic list but didn't put "Xastir" in the subject
line, so you're lucky that any of the Xastir crowd caught it. ;-)
> Here is the current setup:
> -small computer network (ethernet) with 3 Linux (SuSE 7.3) and 3
>Windows (XP-pro and W2000-Pro)
> -web page server running Linux
> -Xastir running on another Linux box, using ax25 to communicate
>with TNC and radios
> -weather station on W2000 box with Weather Outlook software
>sending FTP file (weather data) to web page server via network
>
> What I would like to do is get Xastir to recognize the weather data
>being sent out to the network so it can be reported to APRS too.
>
>Anyone have any ideas on how to get this working OR an alternative
>configuration that will supply the wx data to both xastir and the web
>page server?
We don't read files from weather station software. We connect to
the weather station using serial ports, or connect to weather
station software over network ports. If Weather Outlook provides a
listening socket and the data is in a format that we already decode,
you're in business. If not, you'll have to put in a feature request
on SourceForge.
Another possibility would be to create an RS-232 Y-cable and feed
the weather station data to the Linux/Xastir box. That should work.
Just make sure to disconnect the data line out of the Xastir box
heading towards the weather station (only one RS-232 transmitter per
signal line).
You could also 'Y' the data via software on the W2000 box, if you're
programming-inclined, then provide your own listening socket for
Xastir to connect to.
--
Curt Mills, WE7U hacker_NO_SPAM_@tc.fluke.com
Senior Methods Engineer/SysAdmin
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math!"
"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
| |
