| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 25.05.03 10:08l 399 Lines 14802 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1377-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 22, 3/7
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030524/1336Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:860 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1377-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Voice Alert 144.390 Cont'd
From: "Michael J. Wolthuis" <wolthui3@msu.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:02:32 -0400
X-Message-Number: 21
Group,
I couldn't help reply to this one since every other poster has posted they
have NOT actually used voice alert! I on the other hand also set it up
when Bob first proposed it and it has been one of the best things I have
ever used and has led to more GREAT QSOs then any other mode in Ham Radio.
First, my area of operation is Michigan State University campus which
means there are many D700s around here!
However, not all of them know of the University repeater or the tones to
get into it.
The GREAT thing about voice alert is that I know when someone else is in
their vehicle on campus without even using voice! When any of us turn
on our d700s or 7a's they open the squelch and I know that fellow user
is on our repeater most likely and make a call there! Also, if not I
have gotten a hold of many people in a few seconds and had them move to
our repeater! That is my day to day use and I think it works great, so
what if my 1 packet out of several I send every 3minutes doesn't make it
to Findu I got my ultimate mission accomplished to find someone to talk
with on our voice repeater. I understand that doesn't function the same
in an emergency situation, but it is up to the operator to simply
practice good use of amateur radio and not be stupid!
Second, unlike other posters I made probably 3 or 4 voice contacts on
146.52 facilitated by voice alert on the way to Dayton and around Dayton
in Piqua. I would hear the squelch break and call the APRS user and
advise I was monitoring 146.52. Note my status text simply said I was
on my way to Dayton with voice alert on. So how did they know I was on
146.52? They didn't.
Well, I just thought I would give a perspective from someone who uses
VoiceAlert everyday and all the time and feels it works with great
accuracy and has increased the enjoyment of the hobby for myself.
Mike Wolthuis
Kb8zgl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Install on BMW Motorcycle
From: "Alton" <n5psp@n5psp.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:05:12 -0500
X-Message-Number: 22
That's one of the things I'm looking into - the Air Force has used
them for decades. Thanks for the links.
On 20 May 2003, at 16:01, Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI wrote:
>How about a throat mic?
>
>http://www.con-space.com/products/accessories/Throat_Mic.htm
>http://www.consam.com/Throat%20mic%20page.htm
>
>Scott
>N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:20:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 23
New subject! APRS-NET concept (A-NET)
APRS does APRS locally very well. But it DOES NOT DO any other form of
digital traffic well. What we need as an adjunct to APRS is a
means to bring the Internet into the field or at the scene.
Everyone with a Kenwood APRS radio is driving around sitting on a DB-9
serial port 9600 baud data link. Why cannot we just plug in our laptop
anytime we need it, and use Internet Explorer or Netscape to access real
time info at the scene? All we need is a little software:
ANET[master].exe runs on someone's PC connected to the internet and to a
9600 baud TNC on a local digital channel. It does these things:
1) It accepts URL's from RF users
2) It sends back WEB PAGES
ANET[user].exe runs on someone's laptop or palm top (connected to their D7
or D700 radio). It does these things:
1) It captures EVERY web page it sees on the 9600 baud channel whether it
was the user that requested it or not.
2) It allows the user to request a URL. If the user already has it, then
it is passed as-is to his browser (no air time).
3) If the user hits REFRESH on his browser, then a REFRESH URL is sent to
the ANET MASTER. The ANET MASTER downloads a refreshed page, COMPARES it
to the old one it already has sent and if there are no changes, it does
NOT send the complete page, but only a single packet saying "you already have
it"..
NOTES:
1) The assumption here is that HAMS at the scene of an event or emergency
are probably accessing all kinds of data relevant to the situation at
hand. BUT EVEYEONE is probably interested in the same info! So capture
everyrhgint and don't keep cloggin up the air by resending it to every
user.
2) The D7 and D700 9600 baud modems are NOT perfect at full time 9600
baud operation, BUT they are what ALL of use already have in our vehicle.
Also, we know what they can do well and what they cannot do well. The
ANET Master also understands these things and simply avoids the TOO-LONG
packet and the througput issue. Thus it works perfectly.
Probably it is best to use a full-function 9600 baud TNC at the ANET
MASETER station, so that it can keep well ahead of the data stream.
And only the RX quirks of the Kenwoods need to be accounted for in the
process.
SUMMARY:
APRS does APRS well. But with all this technology in our vehicles we also
need to be able to bring OTHER amateur digital to the scene. And I think
bringing a BROWSER to the scene might be a darn good second choice. Its
only software. GOod project for a new author who wants to contribute to
APRS.
I think this is in general the concept proposed by John Hanson years ago.
But no one ever did anything. But NOW we all have 9600 baud in our cars
that we are not using... Maybe its time to do this?
de WB4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: KPC3+ on a Balloon
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 24
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Rochte, Robert asked about configuring a KPC3+ for a
ballooon:
>The only problem is that I haven't a clue how the KPC-3+ should be
>configured to do this -- wondering if you know of a site, person, etc., that
>might have something of a "how-to" on this.
Here is my first guess at a KPC-3+ Balloon digi:
1) Give it the RESTORE D command to get to factory defaults.
2) Set the MYCALL
3) Set UIDIGI ON RELAY <it supports only those that need it
4) CD EXTERNAL <it ignores CC, else it would never transmit
That is all you have to do. Since it only digipeats "RELAY" (and its own
call), then it will only digipeat MOBILES and HT's and people that need
the extra help from your new (very temporary) digi.
5) BT >brag text goes here (notice it MUST begin with a ">" if you
want Kenwoods or AP be
distributing ad-hoc forms, sitreps, and so on.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: 22 May 2003 16:21:32 -0400
X-Message-Number: 36
Why use a packet frequency.... use the input of your local repeater
<ducking>... it will have an antenna tall enough to permit reliable
reception at 9600 bauds.
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultra simple MIC-e repeater
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:24:06 -0500
X-Message-Number: 37
At 04:09 PM 5/22/2003 -0400, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Here's the plan yall..(Trying to sound like Dr Evil in Austin
>Powers)....
>********************************************
>Simple dual baud rate MIC-E for voice repeaters.
>
>1)A 9600 TNC in kiss mode hooked to the discriminator out of your local
>voice repeater. Any packets heard @9600 on your local repeater input
>frequency will be send out it's serial port via a diode to 1200 baud
>TNC. The serial OUTPUT is run thru a diode to another TNC (see step 3)
Whenever talk of diodes and serial ports arises, so do my hackles. If
you're meaning to mix two 232 transmitters into one 232 receiver this way,
you'll end up with corrupted data.
To do this right, you need two uart receivers, feeding one transmitter. To
keep things relatively simple, one uart runs twice the speed of the other,
or in this case 4x. You receive at 9600 on uart A, and at 1200 on uart B.
You send both streams on UART A's transmit side, to the TNC. You send
packets as packets, you don't interleave the bytes.
You still have to deal with times when the TNC can't accept the data.
You either buffer packets, or drop them on the floor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultra simple MIC-e repeater
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: 22 May 2003 16:32:52 -0400
X-Message-Number: 38
Good eye Dave, but this won't be a problem... since both TNCs hear the
same audio souce, and they decode 2 different signals which are mutually
exclusive, both TNCs will never talk at the same time. There will not
ever be a collision on the serial port in this setup.
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Rich Garcia <k4gps@bellsouth.net>
Date: 22 May 2003 16:40:09 -0400
X-Message-Number: 39
Was there not a QST article a year or so back on this topic ? I am thinking
that maybe W2FS wrote it but I may very well be wrong on the author.
Rich
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 16:05, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
>The way I see it, we have the TNC's.
>They can do 9600 baud (with proper planning)
>We have the need for linking the internet
>out to the field...
>
>Maybe its time for someone to take this on.
>
>de WB4APR, Bob
--
Rich Garcia K4GPS
Jupiter Farms FL.
www.richgarcia.net
Jupiter Farms Community Emergency Response Team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: "Gap Filler" digipeaters
From: "Joseph C. Bender" <n8xre@benderhome.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 16:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 40
Say I've got a 5-10 watt transmitter with an antenna setup that can "hear"
most stations within a 20 mile radius. Say I can reliably (> 90% of
attempts) hit a WIDE that might be able to hear most of what I can hear,
but low-powered mobiles or portables may not be able to get out in my
immediate area. Add on top of that other fairly close RELAY capable
stations that may or may not operate all the time, while my station would.
Now, as it's a station slightly on the low-powered side, should I go
ahead and accept and digi RELAY packets outward, to get them to the WIDE?
Or, am I wasting my time and everyone else's by setting this up and
potentially causing network confusion or congestion?
The obvious answer is "coodination", but seeing how much that really
happens, I'd really rather not step on anybody's toes, if I can help it.
Okay, this may have been beaten to death before, but the mail archives
aren't terribly easy to search, and I've read postings and google hits
that support either "Yay or Nay".
--
Joseph C. Bender
n8xre at benderhome net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultra simple MIC-e repeater
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:39:32 -0500
X-Message-Number: 41
At 04:32 PM 5/22/2003 -0400, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Good eye Dave, but this won't be a problem... since both TNCs hear the
>same audio souce, and they decode 2 different signals which are mutually
>exclusive, both TNCs will never talk at the same time. There will not
>ever be a collision on the serial port in this setup.
I wouldn't be so sure.
There's delays between the audio and the output, and I wouldn't bet on them
being the same in both cases. I also wouldn't bet on either detecting the
other's carrier.
Call me suspicious, but I'm used to moving money in modem packets.
They get upset when you drop their money..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI <Scott.Miller@vandenberg.af.mil>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 20:49:50 -0000
X-Message-Number: 42
That's true, but too often these days you can't get around without being
able to see the images. People do stupid tricks with graphics-only
navigation, or worse, flash-only. I really feel sorry for blind folks using
screen-scraping readers. My general rule for web design is that if I can't
use it in Lynx, it needs to be fixed.
Also, things like frames are going to result in multiple requests. Having
all of the components returned as a single tarball would save a lot of back
and forth.
Scott
N1VG
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Garcia [mailto:k4gps@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 11:43 AM
To: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI
Cc: TAPR APRS Special Interest Group
Subject: Re: [aprssig] RE: APRS-NET COncept!
Most browsers will allow you to block web images.I guess it is a thing
from back in the dialup days. I have used it on occasion when using a
CDMA modem. They are fast but I am spoiled with DSL and it makes surfing
some things much more plesant.
Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 43
On 22 May 2003, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Why use a packet frequency.... use the input of your local repeater
><ducking>... it will have an antenna tall enough to permit reliable
>reception at 9600 bauds.
Yes, entirly possible, but these days, there are so many unused packet
channels, why bother with the added complexity...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS-NET COncept!
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:03:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 44
On 22 May 2003, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Doesn't AMSAT already have a protocol (WISP?) which harvests data from
>other users passively and requests fills as needed? DOn't wanna
>reinvent the wheel..
But onlf for the PACSAT BBS protocol. WOuld be a kludge to apply that to
the internet, I think.
de WB4APR@amsat.org, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultra simple MIC-e repeater
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:15:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 45
On Thu, 22 May 2003, David VanHorn wrote:
>Whenever talk of diodes and serial ports arises, so do my hackles. If
>you're meaning to mix two 232 transmitters into one 232 receiver this
>way, you'll end up with corrupted data.
I do it all the time as long as you dont have simultaneous data. In this
case, there can be only one Packet at a time heard on the Voice repeater.
So both a 1200 and 9600 baud packets cannot possibly occcur at the same
time.
de WB4APR@amsat.org, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
