QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/digital/940376.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 18KB

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 04:30:30 PST
From: Ham-Digital Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #376
To: Ham-Digital


Ham-Digital Digest          Fri, 11 Nov 94       Volume 94 : Issue  376

Today's Topics:
                 Good terminal program for packet???
                        MacHams/Gallery's BBS
                       Packet and Braodcasting
                            Packet group?
                            packet tnc's?
                      Packet via Soundblaster???
               Pen Pal Wanted for Packet vs. email Test
                       pk88 & windows question
                   Pulsed BPSK hoax?(???) (2 msgs)
                     TM-733A / KPC-9612  Help!!!
                      Windows Software for KAM+

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

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: 10 Nov 94 19:35:58 GMT
From: [e-mail] (david kelly)
Subject: Good terminal program for packet???

Joe Showalter asks:

> I just want a good terminal program for my kpc-3.
> Right now I'm using procomm plus on a 286 but I don't have buffers or any
> other frills.
> Let me know of a good program and where to ftp it and I'll be happy  :)

I use VersaTerm-PRO for packet, telephone modem, telnet, and ftp. But it is
commercial software, and only runs on a Macintosh.

On Unix hosts such as Linux, I use kermit, less, and jove, all at once, and
can do most of the things VersaTerm-PRO does. I used VersaTerm-PRO to ftp
Linux for the PC.

73, David N4HHE
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 1994 15:38:37 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Paulo Teixeira)
Subject: MacHams/Gallery's BBS

Attn all MacHams!
Gallery's BBS has changed telephone number,we are now at 202-333-0407.
Our board specializes in Macintosh shareware for ham radio operators as
well other miscellaneous files for the Mac in general.
We got morse code pratice programs,packet tutorials,logging programs,rig
control and more cool Mac stuff online.
No charge for 30 min of daily access,call in using your favorite comms program.
DOS/Windows is also supported,but we need more files from our users.
VT100,RipTerm and NovaTerm support,9600 baud,24 hours a day.
Call it!

73's de N3MGA,Sysop

--
Paulo A. Teixeira                  "Free speech is the right to shout
[e-mail]                    'THEATER' in a crowded fire."
Gallery's BBS 202-333-0407                   - A yippie proverb

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 94 14:26:48 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Packet and Braodcasting

Folks:

        Would you PLEASE move this thread to ham.policy where it belongs.  We
have flogged this horse long after it is dead.  Ham.policy is th appropriate
forum for continuing this fruitless debate.

        Let's leave this forum for technical, equipment, and operating
information exchange.

Ray Mack
WD5IFS
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 1994 01:15:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Packet group?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steven M. Palm) says:
>
>
>What is the name of the packet radio newsgroup?   I thought there
>was one, rec.radio.amateur.packet, but it has no articles here.
>Is this it?
>
Yes I to noticedthat there was a lack of articlesi there!

>I just built a Baycom type modem this weekend, and am trying to test
>it out, and am looking for some english docs for some software, and
>some general pointers to get me going in the right direction. :)
>
>73 de N9YTY
>
>
With the docs, well there are somefloating about here,but the translater
said that they were copyright!, this is sort of ture, I think the early version
of baycom that first came was shareware and had english docs with them,
so you need  to find someone with an early version!!, The later versions
of Baycom are copyrighted, this I know! As the german gents sometime
ago was talking about taking people to court (Shareware vendors etc) who
were giving away this software, I don't know what is happening know though
I do know people with the baycom, and I'm sure you will get lots out of this
part of the hobby.
73's de James GW4CDH

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 1994 21:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Scott Barnett)
Subject: packet tnc's?

Hi everyone,
   I am new to packet radio and am looking at purchasing a TNC.  I am
currently considering either the Kantronics KPC3, the AEA PK-12, or the
MFJ 1270C.  Any comments on these ones, or any others would be appreciated.
I will be using it with a Cushcraft Ringo Ranger AR270 2M/440 roof mounted
antenna, a Realistic HTX-202 2M FM HT (w/ plans to eventually get a
dual band radio), and either a 386sx/25 or a 486DX2/66.  Please send
all replys to my email address:  [e-mail]

73 de Scott Barnett N3OFO
--
Scott R. Barnett                         [e-mail]
Investment Accountant                    [e-mail]
PFPC, Inc.                               HAM Radio  -  N3OFO
    All opinions expressed or implied are my own and no one else's!!!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 15:26:39 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Don Woelz)
Subject: Packet via Soundblaster???

Does anyone know of software that will allow one to use a
Soundblaster card on a PC to send and receive packet?  I'm not even
sure if this can be done, but suspect it is possible.  I would
think it would be something on the order of the Baycom stuff.

   Donald D. Woelz, K9GR              Office Phone: [phone]
   GENROCO, Inc.                      K9GR @WB9TYT.#MKE.WI.USA.NOAM
   205 Kettle Moraine Drive North     [e-mail] [44.92.1.48]
   Slinger, WI 53086   U.S.A.         [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 10:34:13 +0000
From: [e-mail] ("Anthony R. Gold")
Subject: Pen Pal Wanted for Packet vs. email Test

Hi,

I recently registered at a packet/internet gateway and tried it out. The
messages which I dispatched via email arrived at the packet stations, but
their appearance has been altered. All blank lines had been filtered out
somewhere along the way.

The gateway operator says he had not seen that before and guessed that is
was something that AMSAT was doing. Anyone know whether this is a feature,
a bug or even something happening somewhere else in the path?

Anyway, may I send the test message to others OUTSIDE the UK and receive
back a report on how the test message arrives.

This is the original test message I sent out:

------------------------------------------------

Test starts here:

This is Tony's keyboard:

  `   !  @  #  $  %  ^  &  *  (  )  _  +
  ~   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  -  =

       q  w  e  r  t  y  u  i  o  p  [  ]
       Q  W  E  R  T  Y  U  I  O  P  {  }

        a  s  d  f  g  h  j  k  l  ;  '  \
        A  S  D  F  G  H  J  K  L  :  "  |

      \  z  x  c  v  b  n  m  ,  .  /
      |  Z  X  C  V  B  N  M  <  >  ?


That's all there were.


--

Tony - G3SKR / AA2PM / [e-mail]
End of my packet test.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Now here is the body of what was received. The received packet message
was indeed far longer as the routing information appended at the head was
far longer than the message itself!

Packet message as was receive by 2 amateurs in the UK:
------------------------------------------------

This is Tony's keyboard:
  `   !  @  #  $  %  ^  &  *  (  )  _  +
  ~   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  -  =
       q  w  e  r  t  y  u  i  o  p  [  ]
       Q  W  E  R  T  Y  U  I  O  P  {  }
        a  s  d  f  g  h  j  k  l  ;  '  \
        A  S  D  F  G  H  J  K  L  :  "  |
      \  z  x  c  v  b  n  m  ,  .  /
      |  Z  X  C  V  B  N  M  <  >  ?
That's all there were.
Tony
G3SKR & AA2PM



      +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      | *** Message via SATGATE through Amateur Packet satellites. *** |
      | AMSAT needs your help to keep the satellite service operating. |
      | Check your BBS files for info on AMSAT or REQFIL the file      |
      |               C:\GB7LAN\AMSAT.DOC from GB7LAN.                 |
      +----------------------------------------------------------------+

----------------------------------------------

If any-one will help, please post or email your packet address. Then when
you get the packet message, simply email me whether the message was intact or
compressed of blank lines. If anything else odd happened, forwarding it
back via email would save trying to describe the results.

Thanks for any help.

73.

----------
Tony Gold

G3SKR & AA2PM

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 1994 23:20:19 -0500
From: [e-mail] (ChuckORL)
Subject: pk88 & windows question

In article <39hqr8$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne
Barnhart) writes:

Take a look at PacketPeT Lite For Windows. This is a shareware / demo
version of the commerical packet windows program PacketPeT For Windows,
and supports many TNCs including the PK88. It is available on CIS in the
Hamnet, on Genie int Radio-Electronics sig, and on AOL in the Ham club.

73 Chuck
Chuck Harrington Software, Inc.
PacketPeT For Windows

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 15:22:41 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Zack Lau (KH6CP))
Subject: Pulsed BPSK hoax?(???)

System Bartender kb8uox ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Ok, this seems physically feasible... but his performance claims for
: the circuit, namely 19.2kbit/s in < 3kHz bandwidth, seem fishy at
: best.  The attempt at a theoretical explanation fails outright, and
: the experimental data is IMHO inconclusive at best. Thus my questions

Claude Shannon's famous theory showed that as you narrowed the bandwidth
for a given data rate, you needed a better carrier to noise ratio.  Thus,
there isn't a theoretical limitation on how much data you can stuff
through a noiseless channel, though there obviously is for real channels.

Unfortunately, his theorem only indicates limits--it doesn't offer a clue
as to how you can achieve them.

Practically, it is tough to get 40 dB signal to noise ratio over many
of the radio channels used by amateurs.  60 dB is nearly impossible.

--
Zack Lau  KH6CP/1           2 way QRP WAS
                           8 States on 10 GHz
Internet: [e-mail]   10 grids on 2304 MHz

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 1994 22:24:25 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Phil Karn)
Subject: Pulsed BPSK hoax?(???)

I just came up with an another analysis of K6HH's scheme that shows
that even his bandwidth claim is bogus.

You can model his "narrow shift" BPSK as the sum of an ordinary
antipodal (0/180 degree) BPSK signal plus a much stronger unmodulated
carrier component that is in quadrature (90 degrees) to both BPSK
phases. In his case, the amplitude ("voltage") of the carrier is
approximately 1/.01=100 times that of the BPSK component. That's a
carrier/information power ratio of 10000:1 or 40 dB, with all of that
carrier power going to waste because it doesn't carry any information.
This means a 40 dB power loss vs ordinary BPSK, which is the same
result I got last night.

It's obvious that the bandwidth required by the tiny BPSK signal is
not reduced at all by the addition of the strong carrier component.
It still requires 2 Hz per bit per second, as for standard BPSK. But
look at how the FCC defines "bandwidth" in 97.3(a)(8):

"The width of a frequency band outside of which the mean power of the
total emission is attenuated at least 26dB below the mean power of the
total emission, including allowances for transmitter drift or Doppler
shift."

By this definition, K6HH can claim that his system has *zero*
bandwidth, because all of his sideband energy (the only
information-carrying part) is 40 dB down from his useless
carrier-on-steroids. That puts all of the sidebands outside of the
FCC-defined bandwidth. All that's left is the carrier, which has zero
bandwidth and carries zero information.  The sidebands don't count in
the bandwidth measurement, even though they're still absolutely
necessary to demodulate the signal.

Again, this is a pretty good example of why minimizing transmitter
*power* is so much more important than bandwidth. Not only should the
FCC get rid of bandwidth limits in favor of automatic power control,
there should also be an upper limit on the Eb/N0 that may be required
by any particular modulation technique. This will avoid the gratuitous
interference that could otherwise be caused by using a highly
power-inefficient modulation method and cranking up the wick to
compensate.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 1994 05:59:30 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Craig Setzer)
Subject: TM-733A / KPC-9612  Help!!!

Is there anyone who has the Kenwood TM-733A and the Kamtronics
KPC-9612?  I have some problems...

1)  The KPC-9612 XCD (external carrier detect) pin requires a ground to
indicate carrier, yet the TM-733A SQC (squelch control output) pin
sends +5 Volts on open squelch (carrier) and 0 Volts on closed squelch
(no carrier).  So the KPC only transmits when there is data coming in...
which is backwords.

2)  When the KPC is in software mode (ignors XCD and SQC) I can only
pick up the strongest stations (S8+) and then only part time.

Is there someone who is running this radio and TNC who is not
having problems, please email me at [e-mail]

Thanks,

Craig
--
**************************************
Craig Setzer

Internet:  [e-mail]
HAM Radio:  KB0MXQ

--You'll find me in the bear's cage...
**************************************

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 1994 23:10:21 -0500
From: [e-mail] (ChuckORL)
Subject: Windows Software for KAM+

Check out the program 'PacketPeT Lite For Windows'. This is a shareware /
demo version of a commercial Windows program that supports the KAM and
KPC3, along with a variety of other packet TNCS. It is a product with many
improvements under development for the future, although it has been on the
market for about a year now. The shareware version can be found on AOL in
the ham club, Compuserve in the HAMNET, and Genie in the Radio-Electronics
section. I do not know if it is at an internet location or not.

73 Chuck
Chuck Harrington Software, Inc.
PacketPeT For Windows!

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 1994 21:56:05 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Phil Karn)

References<[e-mail]> <39sbsd$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pulsed BPSK hoax?(???)

I've been asked for a more complete citation for the Costas paper.

It's "Poisson, Shannon and the Radio Amateur", and it first appeared
in the December 1959 (!) issue of Proceedings of the I.R.E. It was
reprinted as the first paper in the 1993 IEEE book "Multiple Access
Communications: Foundations for Emerging Technologies", edited by
Norman Abramson, ISBN 0-87942-292-0.

Here's the abstract. --Phil

Summary - Congested band operation as found in the amateur service
presents an interesting problem in analysis which can only be solved
by statistical methods. Consideration is given to the relative merits
of two currently popular modulation techniques, SSB and DSB. It is
found that in spite of the bandwidth economy of SSB this system can
claim no over-all advantage with respect to DSB for this service. It
is further shown that there are definite advantages to the use of very
broadband techniques in the amateur service.

The results obtained from the analysis of the radio amateur service
are significant, for they challenge the intuitively obvious and
universally accepted thesis that congestion in the radio frequency
spectrum can only be relieved by the use of progressively smaller
transmission bandwidths obtained by appropriate coding and modulation
techniques. In order to study the general problem of spectrum
utilization, some basic results of information theory are required.
Some of the significant work of Shannon is reviewed with special
emphasis on his channel capacity formula. It is shown that this famous
formula, in spite of its deep philosophical significance, cannot be
used meaningfully in the analysis and design of practical, present day
communications systems.  A more suitable channel capacity formula is
derived for the practical case.

The analytical results thus obtained are used to show that broadband
techniques have definite merit for both civil and military
applications.  Furthermore, such techniques will result in far more
efficient spectrum utilization in many applications than any practical
narrow-band, frequency- channelized approach. Thus broad-band
techniques can, in many cases, increase the number of available
"channels". With regard to military communications it is shown that
the ability of a communication system to resist jamming varies in
direct proportion to the transmission bandwidth for a given data
rate. Thus narrow-band techniques lead progressively to more expensive
communications equipment and less expensive jammers. It is concluded
that in the military field broad-band techniques are not only
desirable but also often mandatory.

------------------------------

End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #376
******************************