| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 31.08.03 10:23l 173 Lines 5631 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1850-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Aug 28, 3/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 030830/1026Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:7362 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1850-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: MIM modules - still available?
From: "Rochte, Robert" <rrochte@gpacademy.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:38:31 -0400
X-Message-Number: 15
Are MIM modules still available from any source?
73,
Robert
KC8UCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Highley WIDE paths
From: Gonzales Andy <agonzales@arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:44:15 -0700
X-Message-Number: 16
Why not treat paths with multiple WIDES, over say 3-3, on a deferred basis.
The "WIDER" the path, the more delay. By the time a WIDE7-7 got all the way
through to being a WIDE7-1, it might be a couple of hours.
Another way to do this would be to defer "highly WIDE" traffic to off-peak
hours, based on historical useage records. The messages would get though,
just not real soon.
My early reasons for going to WIDE3-3 was to make sure I got to an IGAT. I
have seen stdueis that suggest the in CA it should take no more than
WIDE2-2. Perhaps a periodic beacon from each digi as to how far away the
IGATES are would be useful.
Another point on highly WIDE paths is that it seems to me that this is sort
of like using more tan the minimum required transmit power.
--
Andy Gonzales NASA / Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
Bldg. N-244, Rm. 240
MS 244-19
agonzales@arc.nasa.gov
650-604-0309
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: EEPROM Burners/Syntor Upgrades
From: "Pat Barthelow" <aa6eg@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:48:17 -0700
X-Message-Number: 17
The Syntors are really bulletproof rigs with ancient freq control
technology. I found a company, PIEXX http://www.piexx.com that has
quite a few great hardware/software mods that bring the Syntor line into
modern, even powerful usability, including scanning control heads, PC
controllable frequency, etc. check out the piexx website.
73 de:
Pat aa6eg@hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Highley WIDE paths
From: "Daniel H. Brown" <brown@brauhausdc.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:03:51 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 18
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Gonzales Andy wrote:
>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:44:15 -0700
>From: Gonzales Andy <agonzales@arc.nasa.gov>
>To: TAPR APRS Special Interest Group <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
>Subject: [aprssig] Highley WIDE paths
>
>Why not treat paths with multiple WIDES, over say 3-3, on a deferred
>basis. The "WIDER" the path, the more delay. By the time a WIDE7-7
>got all the way through to being a WIDE7-1, it might be a couple of
>hours.
Am I the only one here who has a feeling that anything like this --
either dropping the WIDE-7's or delaying them, etc isn't going to
do anything other than encourage people to put out more packets
and or to crank the power, in hopes that, eventually, something
will get through? This seems, to me, counterproductive.
N8YSZ.
--
Dan Brown
brown@brauhausdc.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Pleasantville, revisited...
From: Jim Duncan <jdbandman@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:21:15 -0500
X-Message-Number: 19
Well, now THIS is something we agree on. That's precisely the point
I've been trying to make...
JD
Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
>>"Friends, I need help. The same guy... using the path WIDE,WIDE,WIDE3-3
>>has put up another weather station... using the same path. When I
>>asked him what his purpose of the path was, he said "Just Because".
>>This is getting rediculous. Can someone PLEASE try to talk to this guy?
>
>I think once personal contact has been made and the person does not see
>the light, then that is the situation that Jim Duncan is concerned about.
>That is, more pressure only creates discord and problems. In HAM radio we
>can only suggest improved operating techniques and lead by example, we can
>usually not create change in someone's determined habits.
>
>Best to figure out workarounds than confrontation...
>
>Good luck.
>
>BOb, WB4APR
--
73 de Jim, KU0G
Chairman/Coordinator
Kansas City APRS Working Group, W0APR
First Alert Storm Team KMBC-TV9
Mailto:ku0g@kcaprs.org
Webpage: http://www.kcaprs.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Pleasantville (WAS: Path Police Idea)
From: "Mark Fellhauer" <sparkfel@qwest.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:32:34 -0500
X-Message-Number: 20
At 04:03 PM 8/27/2003, Jim Duncan wrote:
>After looking at your website, Sean, I'm not EVEN going to dignify you
>with a response. I don't normally address issues brought up by someone
>with so little respect for themselves than to post photos of themselves
>standing on the toilet.
Just to clarify a point, Jim. Those are urinals, not toilets... :)
Mark
KC7BXS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: APRS Point?
From: "Bob & Janet" <jbcraft@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:06:50 -0400
X-Message-Number: 21
Does anyone know if APRS Point is still supported?
I Am trying to get my APRS station back on the air, so I downloaded the
lastest version of APRS Pckets
will be picked up by the UHF side of the hilltop digis and sent out on
144.39 for folks in the WIDEer area to hear. This two-tier frequency
arrangement gets APRS services into the valleys but spares the folks in the
wider area having the limited 144.39 bandwidth chewed up by yet another
plain 144.39 digipeater. Does this idea make any sense??
Dan AG4YU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
