QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/digital/940366.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 21.9 KB

Date: Fri,  4 Nov 94 04:30:31 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 #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: <[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: 3 Nov 1994 17:05:08 GMT
From: [e-mail] (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 :     [e-mail]                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 3 Nov 1994 16:31:12 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Vince B. Hadley)
Subject: 9600bd radio's ?? NOT !

 ([e-mail]) 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                    |
[e-mail]  |

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

Date: 2 Nov 94 20:28:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: 9600bd radio's ?? NOT !

[e-mail] (Steve Diggs)  writes:

>-> From: [e-mail] ()
>-> 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: [e-mail] (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        :  [e-mail]
     Amateur Radio   :  no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na (at 100k in '94, too!)
     MSYS Mail List  :  [e-mail] ("info" in subject)

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

Date: 4 Nov 1994 04:16:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (David J. Graff)
Subject: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC

Jeff Okleberry ([e-mail]) 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: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail] (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  | [e-mail]             |
| 9V1ZV       | 9V1ZV @ 9V1VS.SGP.AS --             |
| UUCP1.12b   | [e-mail] |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
** 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: [e-mail] (Hank Oredson)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Wolf) writes:
|> Hank Oredson ([e-mail]) 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     : [e-mail]    "Parts 'R Us!"
Amateur Radio: [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Nov 1994 02:18:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Pactor, HF, Binary File Transfers ( CDN Question)

In article <[e-mail]>, David Seeler <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail] (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: [e-mail]
Subject: unsubscribe

unsubscribe [e-mail] ham-digital

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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 18:18:18 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Geert Jan de Groot)

References<[e-mail]> <390i5p$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi mode VHF/UHF recommendation?

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <390i5p$[e-mail]> [e-mail] () 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: [e-mail] (phil reed)

References<395ur8$[e-mail]> <398, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Bushong) says:
>
>[e-mail] (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
******************************