| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 24.05.03 11:00l 273 Lines 11947 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1368-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 21, 1/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0BI<DB0NOS<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<
7M3TJZ<WB0TAX<VK3AVE<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030523/1329Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:778 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1368-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Wednesday, May 21, 2003.
1. Re: N4FCL-2 Location?
2. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
3. WX setup help needed
4. Re: Throat Mic (Was: Install on BMW Motorcycle)
5. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
6. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
7. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
8. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
9. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
10. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
11. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
12. Re: WX setup help needed
13. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
14. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
15. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
16. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
17. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
18. AVR Butterfly
19. La Crosse WX Station
20. 5v power for gps
21. Re: Throat Mic (Was: Install on BMW Motorcycle)
22. Re: WX setup help needed
23. Re: 5v power for gps
24. Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
25. WinAprs/Precision Mapping 5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: N4FCL-2 Location?
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 07:18:25 -0400
X-Message-Number: 1
On 5/20/03 at 2:01 PM desloan@earthlink.net (Dave Sloan) sent:
>I'm showing that N4FCL-2 is out west of CA. Did they move GA?
findU shows it northeast of Atlanta.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:11:10 -0400
X-Message-Number: 2
I think Voice Alert is a bad idea and bad Amateur Radio practice.
Amateur Radio Operators who are committed to good practices will adhere
to the Band Plan. If we know that a certain frequency is being used for
a certain mode or a dedicated service, then we will honor that. 144.39
originally has a space designation. I'm not sure if there's any official
recognition in the U.S. for using 144.39 as the APRS frequency, but I
hope most Amateur Radio Operators in the U.S. honor that. Now that we
have that recognition, let's not give anyone the impression that we
consider it as a frequency on which we think we can do whatever we want
to do on it. Would we think it's ok for hams who couldn't give two cents
about APRS to start talking on 144.39 or even just use it as a calling
channel (which Voice Alert is supposed to be)? Of course not.
In the past, complaints have been voices that so called interlopers were
using frequencies dedicated to the satellite service. Was it a problem
because they may not have been licensed, or was it really more of a
problem because they interfered or may interfere with the service? With
Voice Alert we are now saying that it is ok to interfere with the APRS
service, even if it's just for a few packets? And Operator wishing to
call CQ is allowed to make that decision?
Circuits and software have been build to make sure our TNCs and software
listen before they transmit. Using Voice Alert is putting voice at a
higher priority, or primary status if you will, on a de facto digital
channel. What happened to this idea to listen before transmitting? Would
one use Voice Alert only when one has established that no one else is
transmitting? And who are we kidding? (What does a TNC answer when we
ask, "is the frequency in use?"?)
I have used Voice Alert once myself while driving home from a hamfest.
We blabbed for a while and we all knew that we should QSY, but we didn't
until we got out of simplex range. Later when I thought about it, I felt
mighty stupid to even have considered using a digital channel for voice.
I'm sure we blocked a good bit of packets. For what?
The only exception I could see why Voice Alert could be allowed is in
case of an emergency. I see no other justification to block someone
else's packets, or worse, transmit on top of them, just to raise a
fellow ham to have the umpteenth conversation about the weather, or the
junk you bought at a hamfest.
Even if you would QSY after initial contact you already have done
damage. Sure the damage is limited, but it's still damage. Is it ok for
me as a voice operator on a digital channel to decide that it is ok for
me to block a packet from a fellow Amateur Radio Operator to call CQ? I
wonder what the correct answer will be if such a question would be
included in the question pool.
I do not consider a dedicated radio for APRS as a waste of a perfectly
good radio. I think that everyone who considers APRS to be a valuable
(tactical) tool should not encourage using voice on a digital channel.
The reliability of APRS and available bandwidth on APRS is already
limited. Let's not degrade it any further with cute tricks.
73,
--Alex KR1ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: WX setup help needed
From: cdapples <cdapples@cablemt.net>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 08:52:01 -0600
X-Message-Number: 3
Hi All,
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.
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?
--
Chris / KF7KN
+===============================+================================+
| Charles C. Dapples, Ph.D. | Red Lodge, Montana, USA |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| e-mail: cdapples@cablemt.net | Telephone: (406) 698-4989 |
+ or +--------------------------------+
| kf7kn@amsat.org | |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Web page: http://www.wtp.net/~ccdapple/ |
+===============================+================================+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Throat Mic (Was: Install on BMW Motorcycle)
From: "Dakota Summerhawk" <dakotas@dotorg.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:04:36 -0600
X-Message-Number: 4
We use throat mics form a dealer for the kenwoods that my company has
business band without any problems and it cuts down on the noise when woking
around big rigs. I also found out that it fits the D7 nicley as well. There
are a few companies that use throat mics to curb the noise level without to
much of a problem.
Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Voice Alert on 144.39
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:10:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 5
It was written:
>I think Voice Alert is a bad idea and bad Amateur Radio practice.
>
>Amateur Radio Operators... are committed to good practices... ...there's
>... official recognition in the U.S. for using 144.39 as the APRS
>frequency, [and] I hope most Amateur Radio Operators in the U.S. honor
>that. Now that we have that recognition, let's not give anyone the
>impression that we consider it as a frequency on which we think we can
>do whatever we want to do on it....
144.39 is the dedicated APRS channel in North America Continent. APRS is a
channel for tactical real time local digital communications to serve the
immediate needs of HAMS actually "doing something" in real time.
If you see someone in simplex range, and you need to contact him by voice
and you know he is listening on 144.39 and you do not konw what other
channel he is on, then Voice Alert makes perfect sense to me.
The issue raised above is an example of the classic miopic HAM view that
often hinders communication rather than facilitates it when HAMS man up for
public service communications. The classic example is when hams took 10
minutes to letter-by-letter pass a message form one EOC to another when
both EOC's had a perfecly good FAX machine within arms length.
>... With Voice Alert we are now saying that it is ok to interfere with
>the APRS service, even if it's just for a few packets? And Operator
>wishing to call CQ is allowed to make that decision?
Voice Alert is a local mobile, simplex effect. Most of the time there are
NO other operators in simplex range of your mobile. Sometimes there are
one or two. Thus they are the only ones that you can have any impact on,
and if they want to use 4 seconds of air time for a voice alert call
instead of taking 30 seconds to stop the car and type in a message, then I
would not begrudge them that common sense approach.
>...TNCs and software
>listen before they transmit. Using Voice Alert is putting voice at a
>higher priority, or primary status if you will, on a de facto digital
>channel. What happened to this idea to listen before transmitting? Would
>one use Voice Alert only when one has established that no one else is
>transmitting? And who are we kidding? (What does a TNC answer when we
>ask, "is the frequency in use?"?)
The APRS channel is a Time divison multiplex (TDMA) channel. That means
people share it in random time slices. I can complete a simplex voice
alert call in LESS TIME (4 seconds) than someone who transmits a typical 4
hop POSITION Packet (it bounces from digi to digi and takes up far more
air time... and QRM's dozens of times more area).
also... Only a fool would try to transmit a voice alert call while the
channel was busy.
>I have used Voice Alert once myself while driving home from a hamfest.
>We blabbed for a while and we all knew that we should QSY, but we didn't
>until we got out of simplex range. Later when I thought about it, I felt
>mighty stupid to even have considered using a digital channel for voice.
>I'm sure we blocked a good bit of packets. For what?
Yes, one should QSY. Usually, one just calls someone and tell him what
freq your VOICE radio is already tuned to and wait to see if he calls you
there for a QSO. There is nothing wrong with Voice Alert, but like anything
else, it takes common sense to use it properly.
>The only exception I could see why Voice Alert could be allowed is in
>case of an emergency. I see no other justification to block someone
>else's packets, or worse, transmit on top of them, just to raise a
>fellow ham to have the umpteenth conversation about the weather, or the
>junk you bought at a hamfest.
Use voice alert and QSY. If one has nothing important to say, then don't
push PTT.
>Even if you would QSY after initial contact you already have done
>damage. Sure the damage is limited, but it's still damage. Is it ok for
>me as a voice operator on a digital channel to decide that it is ok for
>me to block a packet from a fellow Amateur Radio Operator to call CQ? I
>wonder what the correct answer will be if such a question would be
>included in the question pool.
No one is talking about calling CQ on voice alert. Voice alert is for APRS
operators who SEE someone in simplex range and want to establish voice
communications. Not for CQ.
>I do not consider a dedicated radio for APRS as a waste of a perfectly
>good radio. I think that everyone who considers APRS to be a valuable
>(tactical) tool should not encourage using voice on a digital channel.
>The reliability of APRS and available bandwidth on APRS is already
>limited. Let's not degrade it any further with cute tricks.
HAM radio is about "communicating" not arm-chair lawyering to nitpick rules
and trying to think of ways to prohibit others use of a valulable resource
to communicate.
de WB4APR@amsat.org, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
