| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 05.07.03 10:07l 248 Lines 9474 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1570-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jul 02, 2/5
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PCC<OK0PPR<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<VK7AX<
VK3AC<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030704/1340Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:3725 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1570-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: CTCSS & CU2QSO (simplex APRS for contesters)
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 8
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
>>AH, but Ev, remember, the only reason this works is because the Kenwood
>>TNC is tapped off the discriminator before the CTCSS and Squelch circuits,
>
>Aren't the FT-1500m and FT-2600m transceivers configured in a way to allow a
TNC>to be connected, while keeping the microphone attached for voice QSO's? (I
ask
>out of ignorance).
Actually good point! The external data connection on most radios these
days probably also is prior to the voice squelch. I was thinking old
mobiles...
So just hook any APRS TNC to the data port and you have it..
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MObile APRS services
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:24:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 9
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Alex wrote:
>Yes, you can give it a cute name like "voice packet" to make it sound
>more acceptable, it's still wrong. The problem in this whole scheme is
>that you, Bob Bruninga, have declared that it is OK to QRM a digital
>signal on a de facto digital frequency with a voice mode. That is what
>makes it it bad amateur radio practice. Intentional interference is
>never ok unless perhaps in an emergency situation, no matter how long
>the interference lasts.
Well, first of all, it is not intentinoal interference. The mobile, just
like his TNC does not key up when the channel is busy.
Further, your argument fails to understand the mobile environment on
144.39. 144.39 is a TDMA channel shared among a few dozen local users.
Each user taking a random time slot. Users take time slots poportional to
their need. Home stations take one second every 30 minutes or so.
Mobiles doing something of interest, take one second every 60 or so. I
see nothing wrong with someone once in a blue moon, taking a 4 second time
slot if his immediate need is to contact someone nearby for which he has
no other means to do so.
>>One has to keep things in persepective. The concept is... "W3ABC,
>>voice-alert. What freq U on?" and the "ack" is "146.94 QSY!"
>
>Aconversation is not ok, but a call to QSY is, according to the
>concept. Why is another operator allowed to make the decision that it is
>perfectly fine to intentionally QRM my telemetry packet on a digital
>frequency with a voice transmission?
Its not intentional QRM. The channel is clear when I decide to transmit.
>What gives this operator that right? Bob Bruninga's blessing?
Common sense. Sharing of a valuable resource.. And weighing the need
against the best means available to communicate.
>The question is simple and fundamental, why would intentional QRM be
>allowed at all? This needs to be put in the *right* perspective, not
>just *a* perspective that only serves the purpose of supporting a
>desired effect or goal.
It is not intentional QRM. It is using common sense to comunicate.
>Let's try it the other way around. I mean, if you want a nice radar
>system, then why not simply move mobile APRS operations to 146.52? As
>soon as your squelch breaks (not even a PL is needed!) with some packet
>racket you know that a fellow ham is nearby. Not only would this
>attract the attention of fellow APRSers, but any other ham that may be
>monitoring this frequency. The QRM would only last for about half a
>second and only within 5 miles. No-one could object to such a use of
>146.52 I would think.
It fails the test of common sense. In fact, it would be quite a stupid
thing to do...
I guess I have made a voice call about 3 times in the last month. That
equates to 0.000005 of channel capacity shared by the other 30 APRS users
in my county. Whereas a typical home station uses about .001. And a
mobile in motion at 1 minute rate uses about .02.
Establishing communication with the fellow I needed to talk to at the time
was in my mind well worth that 0.000005 use of the channel. And I dont
think there are any crumudgeons in my county that would begrudge me that.
de WB4APR@amsat.org, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CTCSS & CU2QSO (simplex APRS for contesters)
From: Dave VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:32:42 -0500
X-Message-Number: 10
>>Aren't the FT-1500m and FT-2600m transceivers configured in a way to
>allow a TNC
>>to be connected, while keeping the microphone attached for voice QSO's?
>(I ask
>>out of ignorance).
the 1500 does indeed.
There's a menu option that makes the mic open when the packet interface
keys, which I don't see as a good idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Radio Mounting Consoles??
From: Dave VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:34:12 -0500
X-Message-Number: 11
At 06:15 AM 7/2/2003 -0500, tvsjr wrote:
>Martin-
>
>There are a few contenders out there:
>
>Gamber-Johnson - www.gamberjohnson.com
>I'm running two Gamber consoles (an 18" and a 14") back to back in my
>Expedition,
Do you have pix/part#s?
I also have an expedition, using scientific dimensions gear now, but not
exactly satisfied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MObile APRS services
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 12
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Mark Earle wrote:
>Another aspect of this discussion is, it seems to be geared to Kenwood D700
>users. There are a lot of us who do not use this particular radio....
>
>I prefer just to listen on 156.52 for voice calls...
Any mobile, with any radio, can listen on 144.39 with CTCSS set to 100.
He wont hear anything. Unless an APRS voice alert station drives within
say 5 miles of him. THen he will hear The Voice Alert Mobile's packets
and be alerted to his presence.
And then he also knows the mobile is listening for a CTCSS 100 call as
well and can call him.
146.52 doesnt work as well for making contact with other mobiles on the
interstate for several reasons:
1) For comparable success every mobile would have to be calling CQ on 52
at least every 2 minutes or so... Else they miss each other
2) EVERY APRS mobile is guaranteed to be on 144.39 ALL the time. Not
everyone is on 146.52, and even then, not all the time.
Remember, on a busy interstate, statistically you may be passing another
HAM about once every 5 minutes or so. But normally, using the 52 method,
you may have success a few times a day maybe at best.. I'm not saying
Voice Alert will be any better in the short term (Afterall, there arent
that many of us out there on the open road)...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: voice alert system solution.
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:40:57 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 13
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Now that there are two other mobiles in my town running voice alert, I find
>it V.A. very useful to see when another guy is in his car. Since we usualy
>frequent one or two local repeaters, it's an easy job to find the other
>guy... just a matter of knowing he's in his car.
Actually, that is a good point. Most of the tiem when I hear one of the
other voice alert mobiles packets, I see who it is on the Kenwod front
panel, and since I suspect he is already monitoring our commuter repeater,
I dont bother calling him on 144.39 Voice Alert, I just call him on the
repeater. His PL 100 packets just let me know he is underway.
That is the"radar" side of APRS Voice Alert. AND it does not QRM anyone
whatsoever.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: voice alert system solution.
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:53:44 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 14
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Wes Johnston wrote:
>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...
Yes, but until Kenwood does, someone needs to build the 2 button device I
posted on 13 June. The size of a matchbox, it sits on your dashboard
and plugs into the serial port of the Kenwood and does this:
Button 1. [UPDATE] Press it and it instanly reads what is in BAND-B and
WRITES it into your beacon text. This is exactly what we need here.
Button 2. [QSY] Press this button and it reads the frequency in the
position text of the last station heard and then QSY's your own BAND-B
to that frequency (as well as updating your own status text).
BEEPER: This device will BEEP whenever it receives a packet from another
APRS mobile with a course and speed that will intersect your path. The
beep could even send morse code as:
dit You wont pass each other for an hour or more
dit dit You will pass within 30 minutes
dididit You will pass within 10 minutes
didididit you will pass within 5 minutes
It should be easy to do and fit in a tiny box and probably even be self
powered by the signals avaialbe on the serial port.
Then EVERYONE with a D700 would have this capability now, and not wait on
Kenwood.
de WB4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
