Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 04:30:31 PST From: Ham-Digital Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Digital-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu Precedence: List Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #366 To: Ham-Digital Ham-Digital Digest Fri, 4 Nov 94 Volume 94 : Issue 366 Today's Topics: *** Q: WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ON THE NET ? 9600bd radio's ?? NOT ! (2 msgs) Bad messages Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC IM_Mac1.0b28d.sea.hqx.text MFJ1270C vs. 1270B NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins Pactor, HF, Binary File Transfers ( CDN Question) RTTY Question unsubscribe Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Nov 1994 17:05:08 GMT From: cisitm@albert.cad.cea.fr (Pierre Didierjean) Subject: *** Q: WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ON THE NET ? I'd like to know what kind of people i find on the net. Students, Commercials, Adminitrations, Scientifics or what ?? Is anybody knows that or have statistical results ? What are YOU doing in life ? I am a system administrator. Thanks for the answers and sorry for my english ..... Bye +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pierre DIDIERJEAN | | | | Administrateur Systeme UNIX | | Cisi, Aix-en-Provence | | France | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | email : cisitm@albert.cad.cea.fr | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 1994 16:31:12 GMT From: hadleyv@et.byu.edu (Vince B. Hadley) Subject: 9600bd radio's ?? NOT ! (joopv@etprs.phys.tue.nl) wrote: : Since some time now several manufacterers of ham radio equipment offer : '9600 bd ready' vhf/uhf transceivers. I got one of these for some tests, : and was very surprised with the results. This is a brandnew mobile uhf rig, : FM only, from one of the 'big three' brands. The price is in the $500-$600 : range. : : Turnaround time : TX to RX is 120 ms. RX to TX is 140 ms : <------------------ snip snip --------------------------------------> : measurements : receiving was ok, about 98 % of all packets were decoded ok. : But the transmitter produced only 55 % readable packets !! : : This is clearly a PLL-transceiver which is modulated at the VCO from the PLL. : : How can it be that this rig is being sold as '9600bd ready' ? Do they have : different 9600bd modems in Japan? The G3RUH / K9NG modem system needs a flat : frequency response from 20 Hz to 6 kHz. : : And what about those turnaround times ? 120 ms is IMHO totally unusable : for 9600bd packet. This thing sure is going to produce lots of collisions : on busy channels ! : : Joop, PE1DNA. : I would love to see someone do as thorough a set of tests on the TH-78A to see how it performs on 440 at 9600Kbd and on 2m at the highest rate possible. I would like to know how this radio would perform. I am willing to bet, with so many of them out there, that many others would also like similar data to consider. (In other words, can the radio be used for such purposes at all, at least for those who just don't have the cash right now to buy another dedicated radio for packet. And to put it another way as well, "Is it even worth getting a 9600Kbd modem to use on it?", am I trying to do just too much? Thanks for any responses that can be given. 73, -- Vince Hadley | KA7GVQ | hadleyv@bones.et.byu.edu | ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 94 20:28:00 GMT From: joopv@etprs.phys.tue.nl () Subject: 9600bd radio's ?? NOT ! steve.diggs@totrbbs.atl.ga.us (Steve Diggs) writes: >-> From: joopv@etprs.phys.tue.nl () >-> Subject: 9600bd radio's ?? NOT ! >-> I am wondering if anybody did the same tests on so-called '9600bd >-> ready' transceivers. Especially the FM rigs, the allmode rigs should >-> be ok because they have a separate FM modulator, and don't use the >-> PLL for modulation. >Hi Joop, >The East Atlanta LAN, a packet experimenters group here in Atlanta, has >begun operations with our first general purpose 9600 digi. While we >haven't done a good statistically based RF performance test of various >transcievers yet, our experience with the "9600 ready" rigs has been >good - when used with a TNC that has a sound G3RUH implementation to >start out with. The two factors are inexorably tied; bad modem/radio >matchup; poor performance. The Paccom Sprint2 is an excellent performer >in terms of low distortion in the transmitted eye to the xcvr; so is the >PK232/TAPR 9600, KPC9612, and KPC Data engine. The MFJ1270 + their G3RUH >implementation is just terrible. I maintain that one of the sound TNC >performers noted here with a "big three" 9600 ready xcvr. will produce >better-than-acceptable performance on-air. I used original G3RUH modems for my tests. Packet controllers were 8530 ISA-PCboards. >-> And what about those turnaround times ? 120 ms is IMHO totally >-> unusable for 9600bd packet. This thing sure is going to produce lots >-> of collisions on busy channels ! >Boy, are we really operating in the blind! We operate with TXD set to 22 >and it performs beautifully! Based on what you say here, I'm going to >cut it down to 13-15 and see how it does! What SLOTTIME is being used by the 9600bd users ? When the SLOTTIME of someone who is going to transmit a packet is smaller than the PTT-to-RF_OUT time of someone who just started to key the PTT, a collision is the result. (when the p-persist falls through) So as far as i can see it, the PTT-to-RF_OUT time should be at least several times smaller than de SLOTTIME being used on a certain channel. The shortest packet is about 160 bits, or (including bit stuffing etc) about 25 ms data length. Adding 120 ms txdelay gives a very bad efficiency.. Of course there are a lot of the longer packets, but real-life packet situations don't have a very high average transmission length. >results. About 3 months ago, James Miller suggested a new approach to >me: try a "two point modulation" approach, wherein both the VCO AND the >master reference oscillator are modulated with the 9600 audio. In this >manner, the cancellation effect of the PLL is eliminated. I have even >found a company, MX*COM, which makes a chipset to facilitate this >approach. I haven't had time to try it, but it's on this winter's list >of projects. If such an approach were to work, it would open 9600 packet >to MANY, MANY hams who own run-of-the-mill FM only rigs. Any ideas here? Two point modulation is a well known technique (exept appearently in Japan :-( ) but the technical impact is of course much bigger than just finding 2 points for direct fm on a rf board. I have only one (1) modification for a PLL rig which is done with 2-point modulation. All the others just inject the lf into the VCO. >I look forward to your feedback, hoping that we can open this field up a >lot of creative work! >Regards, >Steve Diggs, President >East Atlanta LAN ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 00:57:43 GMT From: sww@csuohio.edu (Steve Wolf) Subject: Bad messages : I am W5/F6CNB (not F6FNB) and i run a forwarding only BBS in Texas. : This BBS has forwarding with 15 BBS in North America and also with 15 BBS : outside the USA/CANADA. THIS BBS IS NEVER THE FIRST FORWARDER because : it has no users. (I run a separate BBS for the Houston area users.) : According to the present FCC rules, it cannot be responsible for bad messages. : The message has been written by somebody with an usurpated callsign. : Rejecting this callsign is not a solution. : : For your information, the BBS handles more than 1000 messages per day. : The total daily traffic is around 10 Megabytes. Most of the messages are : forwarded within 15mn. : : 73s Remi W5/F6CNB Sugar Land Texas : : PS: I am not portable but i own a reciprocal FCC license Yeah, yeah, yeah ... you and grumpy old W0RLI seem intent on reminding the net of your 100 zillion message a year service. Many of the readers here are doing the exact same thing. Don't pat a hole in your back. Yes, you are the first forwarder in the United States. Yes, you should trap message with bad language. YES, YOU DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO AMATEUR RADIO. Irregardless of what the FCC Part 97 says, it is trivial to stop this from happening. Like Hank said, if your software doesn't do what you need it to do, change software. What software are you running? Can you trap bad language? What you are saying above is that you have no intention of doing anything. We can expect further problems. How many times do you think it will take before the FCC does codify "the first forwarder in the United States or its possessions"? 73, Steve Internet : no8m@hamnet.wariat.org Amateur Radio : no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na (at 100k in '94, too!) MSYS Mail List : msys-request@hamnet.wariat.org ("info" in subject) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 1994 04:16:10 GMT From: bd27015@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (David J. Graff) Subject: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC Jeff Okleberry (jeffo@syseng.slc.unisysgsg.com) wrote: : `? : I have a couple questions about using modems to commuicate between : computers that I hope somebody on the net can help me with. : Here is my problem. I have a ham radio TNC which runs on a RS-232 port : (Figure 1). : ____________ _______ : | | RS-232 | | : | Computer |-----------------------------------------------| TNC | : |____________| |_______| : Figure 1 ok Jeff...this TNC is used with a com port (usually com1-com4) now you should have at the least 2 com ports (both female) usually one is a 9-pin (usually com1) and one 25 pin (usually com2) : I have a new computer which does not have any free modem ports, but does : have an internal modem. I have an extra stand alone modem and I was : wondering if it is possible to use the modems so I can commuicate with : my TNC (Figure 2). as for what you are suggesting you'd need a computer on the other end to run the second modem then the TNC.....the TNC cannot control the modem... : ____________ _____ _____ _______ : | | RS-232 | | Telephone | | RS-232 | | : | Computer |----------|Modem|-------------|Modem|----------| TNC | : |____________| |_____| |_____| |_______| : Figure 2 : My second question is it possible to do the same thing in Figure 2 with : two computers? A follow-on question is can I use my house's : internal telephone wiring or do : I need to run a direct link between the two modems? you just can't do it....the modems themselves need to have line voltage to "see" a carrier --Dave Graff -- This is the .sig: Dave Graff a.k.a The Phlatline address: bd27015@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Call Sign: KB2RUM Packet address: under construction =-=-=-= Without C we'd have to program in PASAL, BASI, and OBOL =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Geek - Once used to describe people who bit heads off of chickens and performed other tasteless acts for money, now a term of endearment to describe smart, socially maladjusted future millionaires. (Can you say Bill Gates?) --Link magazine, October '94 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 94 10:38:04 GMT From: adam@iag.TNO.NL (Adam van Gaalen PA2AGA) Subject: IM_Mac1.0b28d.sea.hqx.text Release Notes - IM/Mac 1.0b28d - Did not test for the availability of Desktop Manager ToolBox calls before using them. - Scanning of the 'alias' file was in error. Two or more tabs/spaces before the '#' or ';' comment character filled your hard disk with rubbish outbound mail. - The 'Remove' button in the 'Send to' dialog is changed to '<< Remove <<'. - Remembers printer settings across sessions. - When you had an 'alias' file with only one or two entries and replied to a message for which you used the return path such could generate rubbish outbound mail. - Remembers across sessions the last used folder in 'Save As...', 'Append...', 'Decode...' and 'Send File...'. Will not attempt to mount ejected volumes. - Did not restore screen copy after removing the 'Decode...' dialog. This left a locked handle that fragmented the heap. - Segment 4 was not unloaded when canceling out of the 'Send...' dialog. - Segment 17 was not unloaded when the help window was called with shift-command-?. Tuesday, November 1, 1994 - 17:51:22 UTC Best 73's, es cuagn de Ivo, ON1XK @ ON6AR.#AN.BEL.EU [44.144.8.5] On Wednesday, November 2, 1994 at 06:25:57 +0000 UTC PS (by PA2AGA) This version obsoletes all versions of info-mac/comm/radio-im-mac in the Sumex-Aim archives. The new IM/Mac has (hopefully) been uploaded to oak.oakland.edu, to the directory /pub/hamradio/mac/digital and to ftp.ucsd.edu, to directory /hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming. If it's not there (anymore), then look at /hamradio/packet/tcpip/mac. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 94 02:41:35 GMT From: pandora!daniel (W. Daniel) Subject: MFJ1270C vs. 1270B Can anyone tell me the difference between the MFJ 1270C and 1270B TNCs? I am especially interested if I can simply upgrade with a ROM change. I would be further interested if anyone can help me get a copy of the 1270C ROM code. I am also interested to know if 1.1.6 is the latest firmware version for TAPR? Thanks. 73 de 9V1ZV, Daniel -- +-------------+-------------------------------------+ | Daniel Wee | daniel%pandora@csah.com | | 9V1ZV | 9V1ZV @ 9V1VS.SGP.AS -- | | UUCP1.12b | daniel.wee@f516.n600.z6.fidonet.org | +-------------+-------------------------------------+ ** It is great wisdom not to rush into action nor obstinately hold our own opinions ** Thomas A Kempis ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 1994 18:14:40 GMT From: hanko@wv.mentorg.com (Hank Oredson) Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins In article <1994Nov2.032455.26815@news.csuohio.edu>, sww@csuohio.edu (Steve Wolf) writes: |> Hank Oredson (hanko@wv.mentorg.com) wrote: |> : Nope, because AX.25, by it's very nature, is not used for one- |> : way communications. Oh yes, you might say, it COULD be |> : (there are UI frames!), but it's not. |> : |> |> But is is broadcasting none the less. |> |> I think it was Todd Little that that quoted the definition of broadcasting. |> |> From Part 97.3(a) ... (10) ... Broadcasting - Transmissions intended for |> reception by the general public, either direct or relayed. Steve, try real hard here ... read the above ... about "transmissions" and "general public" and "intended". Give it a shot, you can probably figure out what those words mean. |> |> Clearly, a BBS phone port with a annonymous check-in allows the public access |> to relayed transmissions. There are LOTS of phone ports that allow |> anonymous check-ins. Wrong. It allows the public (if the sysop so chooses) access to some files on a computer. Has nothing (zilch, zip, nada) to do with "transmissions" or "broadcasting" or for that matter "radio", not to mention "amateur radio". Try really hard Steve, this is NOT rocket science. The words really do mean just what they say. Amazing! |> So, originators of bulletins which are sent by any means to a BBS that has |> a public phone port that are not about amateur radio would fall under |> broadcasting. Would you like to run this by me again? |> Broadcasting does not require a one-way transmission. It would appear that |> an ax.25 connection between two stations can still be use for broadcasting. Um, how could that happen? Steve, you are REAL confused here. Go back to the definitions section of part 97, and read that first. Make some notes on what the various technical terms ("transmissions", "broadcasting", "transmitted") mean, then read the above again. |> (Bet we are going to move on and say that a bulletin about quilting was |> targeted solely at the amateur population. Let me guess ... ANY bulletin |> entered on packet is to be assumed to be aimed solely at the amateur radio |> population.) Ah! You have GOT it at last! Who ELSE would an amateur station transmit this information to? In fact, it would not be legal for an amateur station to transmit this information to anyone BUT another ham. By "targeted" you probably mean exactly the same thing that the FCC means with the term "intended" in part 97.3 Simple, isn't it? I'm still curious what you are attempting to accomplish with the arguments you are making. What's your agenda? ... Hank -- Hank Oredson @ Mentor Graphics Library Operations Internet : hank_oredson@mentorg.com "Parts 'R Us!" Amateur Radio: W0RLI@W0RLI.OR.USA.NOAM ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 1994 02:18:27 GMT From: Cecil_A_Moore@ccm.ch.intel.com Subject: Pactor, HF, Binary File Transfers ( CDN Question) In article , David Seeler wrote: > >I was wondering if anyone has come across a terminal program which permits >the transfer of binary data or 8 bit data via pactor. Does UUENCODE and UUDECODE work for amateur packet like it does for internet? Thanks in advance. -- 73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC (All my own personal fuzzy logic, not Intel's) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 1994 18:22:49 GMT From: hcheyney@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harold E Cheyney) Subject: RTTY Question Just recently started working RTTY using a Kantronics KAM TNC, a Kenwood TS-530s, and a dumb terminal. I find that I can copy rather weak signals as long as they are in the clear but QRM on nearby frequencies seems to desensitize the TNC. Will a narrow CW filter work with RTTY? How narrow? Please E-mail. Thanks ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 94 02:50:51 GMT From: Doughengst@aol.COM Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe doughengst@aol.com ham-digital ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 18:18:18 GMT From: geertj@ripe.net (Geert Jan de Groot) References<38lqunINNsmo@s850.mwc.edu> <390i5p$15l6@info2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>, <1994Oct30.230618.19254@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> Subject: Re: Multi mode VHF/UHF recommendation? In <1994Oct30.230618.19254@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article <390i5p$15l6@info2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> moritz@ipers1.e-technik.uni-stuttgart.de () writes: >>>I'm interested in recommendations for a multi mode transceiver which >>>will work at least 2m/70cm and maybe 1.2ghz. Are there any comparisons >>>around for the units sold by Icom, Kenwood and Yaesu? >Alas, aside from the SSB Electronics units imported from Germany, >which cost more than a good HF rig here, there aren't any suitable >transverters on the US market. The RSGB has a book available ('VHF/UHF DX-ing' which describes serious transverters. One of the authors G3SEK is on the net so he will probably correct it if I have the title wrong. The chapters about power amplifiers are fun to read, even if you don't want to build one. Geert Jan ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 1994 02:27:41 GMT From: pcr@ic.net (phil reed) References<395ur8$uic@snoopy.jh.org> <398, Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins In article , dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong) says: > >little@iamu.chi.dec.com (Todd Little) writes: > >>Not so. No where in Part 97 is the notion of "intent" for the content >>of a message covered. > >It would have been good if you had read the rules before making such a >statement: > > {deletia, to save bandwidth} > >Two people having an interactive conversation about the weather, about >their hamshacks, is what ham radio is all about. A thousand computers >forwarding cookie recipes to ALL@USBBS is not what ham radio is about. >You know it, I know it, and this discussion has become astoundingly >boring and tedious, so while it may sadden a great many forward- >thinkers, I'm going to terminate my participation in it. > >73, >Dave, KZ1O > >-- >Dave Bushong >OPEN/image Recognition Products Lots of verbiage, debating a relatively simple issue. Here's my take on the discussion: The problem is simple: there are two levels operating here. You are saying that the cookie recipe is the relevant part, that this is 'broadcasting' or whatever, and not true ham radio communications. Other people are saying that the station-to-station packet connection is the relevant level, and what is contained in the packet is less or not relevant. Here, I'm going to have to cast my vote with the station-to-station view. Makes more sense to me. ...phil / kb8uoy ------------------------------ End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #366 ******************************