| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 04.07.03 09:11l 112 Lines 4409 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1565-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jul 01, 4/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0BEL<VK7AX<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030703/1332Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:3660 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1565-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: MObile APRS services
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 04:58:38 -0400
X-Message-Number: 25
"Ev Tupis (W2EV)" wrote:
>I can't help but wonder about the long threads that spoke of the need to
>offload APRS traffic to a faster backbone because of congestion on
>144.39. Is having voice traffic on the APRS frequency really congruant
>with that line of thought?
Darn it, Ev! I was just going to suggest adding Echolink to the mixed
mode of operations on 144.39. I guess that's not going to happen now.
Thanks! ;)
>After all...all of the WIDE's in range would hear that voice
>conversation's carriers...further complicating the whole picture.
Bob said that the radius of interference is only 5 miles which is not
correct of course. Like you said, if the WIDEs are being prevented to
hear anything else because of your voice transmission, then *everyone*
in the coverage areas of all those digis is affected. That's quite a bit
more than just 5 miles. How much do these Kenwoods run? 50 Watts? I'd
say there's a good interference potential there.
I really like Dave's suggestion. If you hear a packet breaking your tone
squelch, simply go call/talk on .52 (the whole point was that you wanted
to know if a fellow APRSer is in *simplex* range!!). No need for a voice
exchange at all; you can simply do it by convention. 'sides, you may
even run the risk to catch a QSO with a no-APRSer. Doubling your
chances! Now if we could just come up with a cute name for it, it would
sell a helluvalot easier. :)
73,
--Alex KR1ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MObile APRS services
From: Roger Grady <k9opo@comteck.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:50:52 -0500
X-Message-Number: 26
Thanks guys for making it so easy to read my APRSSIG mail today. 4 or 5
real posts and another p***ing match.
Roger Grady K9OPO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: voice alert system solution.
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:54:01 -0500
X-Message-Number: 27
>Kenwood needs to add a software function which will list the B side
>frequency to your status on aprs... that way we can know what freq the voice
>side of the radio is on.. and avoid using 144.39 for voice traffic. Of
>course this option should be ON/OFF selectable via menu.
....and it should be possible to designate the APRS transmit frequency, and
then be able to scan VHF with it switching to the APRS frequency to
transmit packets as it needs to. That way if you want a tiny track like
tracker, you can have that and just ignore received data on APRS, and have
the A and the B side for phone...
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MObile APRS services
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:57:40 -0500
X-Message-Number: 28
"Alex" said...
>Bob said that the radius of interference is only 5 miles which is not
>correct of course. Like you said, if the WIDEs are being prevented to
>hear anything else because of your voice transmission, then *everyone*
>in the coverage areas of all those digis is affected. That's quite a bit
>more than just 5 miles. How much do these Kenwoods run? 50 Watts? I'd
>say there's a good interference potential there.
If people are running more than 5 watts for APRS in any particular place
where voice ops would adversely affect APRS operations, then yeah voice ops
is going to be a problem...
>I really like Dave's suggestion. If you hear a packet breaking your tone
>squelch, simply go call/talk on .52 (the whole point was that you wanted
>to know if a fellow APRSer is in *simplex* range!!). No need for a voice
>exchange at all; you can simply do it by convention. 'sides, you may
>even run the risk to catch a QSO with a no-APRSer. Doubling your
>chances! Now if we could just come up with a cute name for it, it would
>sell a helluvalot easier. :)
This is one of the suggestions bob made related to putting your B side freq in
your status packet and then when someone hears the sequelch break, and sees
your packet, they can navigate to your status and see the freq.
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
---
END OF DIGEST
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
