QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/digital/940368.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 13.5 KB

Date: Sat,  5 Nov 94 04:30:27 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 #368
To: Ham-Digital


Ham-Digital Digest          Sat,  5 Nov 94       Volume 94 : Issue  368

Today's Topics:
                                1270C
                        digital radio protocol
                      Ham-Digital Digest V94 #3
                  Help? File Server software Advice
            NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins (5 msgs)
              Packet addresses and Internet: Connection?
                           PK232 19200 Mod?
                            RTTY Question
               your LISTSERV request "help with pk232"

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: 5 Nov 94 04:39:34 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Howard Goldstein)
Subject: 1270C

Daniel, the major difference is the 1270C supports bank switching to the RAM
chip at U25 for the enhanced mailbox.  The 1270B lacks the bank switching it
needs to get at the extra RAM.  The unmodified 1270B it will not run 1270C
firmware.

You can upgrade to the 1270C with the MFJ-46 daughterboard.  It plugs into
the CPU socket to enable access to the large mailbox RAM, and comes with the
latest 1270C firmware.

The latest TAPR TNC-2 release is 1.1.8.

73 Howie N2WX
--                                                                   --
Howard Goldstein                                         [e-mail]
InfoMotion, Inc.                                          CIS:75006,702
          "Joy comes, grief goes, we know not how"  J.R. Lowell

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

Date: 4 Nov 1994 22:27:22 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Phil Karn)
Subject: digital radio protocol

In article <397vik$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaughan McPherson) writes:
|> The problem that I am faced with is the long latency between asserting the Push to
|> talk on the radio and the radio becoming ready to send data (~600 ms).

Well, the immediate answer to this problem is to make fewer but longer
transmissions. Make your frames fairly small to improve the percentage
that make it through without errors, and send several frames per
transmission.

Some time ago I showed that AX.25, over a fairly wide range of
conditions, worked best when you send only one frame per
transmission. But that assumed a much shorter turnaround delay, and
more importantly it also assumed go-back-N retransmission (which is
what AX.25 does). The inefficiency of having to retransmit frames that
were correctly received the first time just because a prior frame was
trashed is mainly what makes it a bad idea to send more than one frame
per transmission in AX.25.

If you use a selective retransmission mechanism where the receiver
individually acknowledges each frame of a transmission so the sender
can resend those that were lost, then things could be much more
efficient.

You might also consider adding forward error correction (FEC) to reduce
the bit error rate, thus allowing longer frames. Depending on the channel
conditions, the overhead of FEC might be less than the extra header
overhead incurred by making your frames small enough to pass with
high probability.

Phil

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

Date: Sat,  5 Nov 94 03:11:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Hua Chu)
Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #3

HA>d,  2 Nov 94       Volume 94 : Issue  363

Is this related to HAM-HOMEBREW DIGEST? Where can I get that? Mind
helping a stupid newbie?

-H.C.

---
 * OLX 2.1 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 22:53:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Peter Snidal)
Subject: Help? File Server software Advice

thanks for reading. We are running a file server here on packet,
(not a full-service bbs; just fs and local message base) and I'm
looking for better software.  We're currently using PaKet, and
it
's designed as User software, with a tacked-on Remote Mode, which
is the only part we're using.  we need passworded remote access
to the system for sysop(s), and something a little less glitchy
would be nice as well.
   If necessary, I suppose we'll have to use full-service bbs
software of some sort, like fbb or msys, although something
designed with local message base/file servers in mind would be
mo bettah.  I have downed copies of incomplete distribution
packages with broken files that wouldn't unzip, form cfcsc.dnd.
ca, and would really appreciate hearing of an ftp site with
complete files which will unzip and work of fbb and msys.  Also
suggestions for other software options would be much appreciated.
  Ditto for node software - we may want this thing to be a node
as well some day.  Thanks.
--

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

Date: 4 Nov 1994 18:08:02 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Hank Oredson)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Wolf) writes:
|> Dave Horsfall ([e-mail]) wrote:
|> : In article <[e-mail]>,
|> :     [e-mail] (Steve Wolf) writes:
|> :
|> : | All bulletins are broadcasting.  They are sent in many directions.  When be
|> : | forwarded, the receiving station did not ask for them.  The sending station
|> : | has no expectation that the receiving BBS will read or reply to them.
|> :
|> : Dunno about your neck of the woods, mate, but here down under the sender
|> : presents a brief list of bulletins, and the receiver is invited to
|> : accept or reject them...
|>
|> When being forwarded?  Really?  How does that work?  I can understand the
|> user being queried but as the quote says, we are talking about forwarding.

Oh, it works quite well, actually!

The receiver may reject a message presented during forwarding
for any reason whatsoever.

This is how the system has worked for the past half-dozen years.

(Jeff, WA7MBL first implemented it in about 1986, and all the
current BBS codes now use his method)

Steve, have you ever actually OPERATED packet and watched
what the systems are doing?  Might be a good idea to spend
a few hours on air to see how it all works.

   ...  Hank


--

Hank Oredson @ Mentor Graphics             Library Operations
Internet     : [e-mail]    "Parts 'R Us!"
Amateur Radio: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 23:02:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Peter Snidal)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Good One!  Well Done! .... .... ..._._
--

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

Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 07:21:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

:
: Steve, have you ever actually OPERATED packet and watched
: what the systems are doing?  Might be a good idea to spend
: a few hours on air to see how it all works.
:

Aw, there you go getting grumpy again.

Like I told F6FNB, lot of people are doing the same thing you are, don't pat
a hole in your back over your 100k messages a year.  We all have those same
political agenda, recipes, sewing lessons, Rush Limbaugh, and other
informational bulletins (that are beginning to consume the majority of
the amateur radio network).

Your arguements are too far tangent and no longer of relevance.

73,
Steve
     Internet      :  [e-mail]
     Amateur Radio :  no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na
     MSYS Mail List:  [e-mail] ('info' for title)

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

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 22:49:08 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Hank Oredson ([e-mail]) wrote:
:
: Steve,
:
: sorry, but you are just plain wrong here.
:
: Please think about how things work, read part 97, and then
: come back and join in the discussion with some useful ideas.
:
: This horse is dead, you can stop beating it.
:
:    ...  Hank

Is this supposed to be a form of arguement?

Ah!  I was just plain wrong!  No wonder!

73,
Steve

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

Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 07:43:01 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

:   Face it Steve, you've stepped on your dick. Now quietly put it back in
:   your pants, zip up and stop asking others to come by and step on it as
:   well.

:  Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM Internet: [e-mail]
:  US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749       Phone: [phone]


That's a whole new subclass under assasination, isn't it?  Maybe it could
go under a ... negative compliment???

73,
Steve
     Internet      :  [e-mail]
     Amateur Radio :  no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na
     MSYS Mail List:  [e-mail] ('info' for title)

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

Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 04:21:44
From: [e-mail] (Gordon R Beatty)
Subject: Packet addresses and Internet: Connection?

     I never thought that I would have a need to check in to this
newsgroup.  Well, not yet anyway.  Being fairly new to amateur radio
I have been examining the different avenues that the hobby has
to offer, but I figured I'd hold off on the packet thing for a while,
despite my (first) love of computers and the obvious tie-in that lies
in packet between these two hobbies.

    And here I am.  Why?  I have noticed -- on a few things that I have
been amassing -- that individuals will say they are accessible by
such-and-such an address on packet.  Now correct me if I'm wrong,
but doesn't packet interface to the Internet to a certain extent?
If this were so, then it would suggest the possibility that these
addresses might be converted to an address that is accessible
through Internet e-mail, just as Compuserve and other networks/
services are.  So I ask all the great packet enthusiasts, is this
possible? And if so, how is the address converted?

    Thanks,

--------------------------
Gordon R Beatty  VA3GRB
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
E-Mail: [e-mail]
'Live Long and Propagate'   'What's an O-P-I-N-I-O-N ?'

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

Date: 31 Oct 94 16:11:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Diggs)
Subject: PK232 19200 Mod?

I own a PK232 that is doing a fine job for me...I added a TAPR 9600
modem to it, and all is fine down South...

With the data coming in at 9600 bps, and 9600 is also the DTE rate from
the TNC to my PC...data flow to the screen leaves something to be
desired.

Has anyone done the 19200 DTE mod to the PK232? I called AEA, and they
say that they don't do it, but they have heard of it being done.
Something about changing a crystal out...

I would appreciate any feedback; if I get a mod, I will post it on my
BBS and make it available for all.

Regards,
Steve Diggs

----
Top Of The Rock BBS - Lilburn, GA         SYSOP: Steve Diggs
UUCP: totrbbs.atl.ga.us               Snailmail: 4181 Wash Lee Ct.
Phone: [phone]                           Lilburn, GA 30247-7407

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

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 21:02:19 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Cummings)
Subject: RTTY Question

Harold E Cheyney ([e-mail]) wrote:
: 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

Hello Harold:

Since most CW crystals are centred about 800 HZ, it is unlikely that it
will do you much good when the signals of interest are around 2200 hz.
However, if the 530 has an RTTY/FSK mode on the mode switch, what I have
just said is untrue.  If the 530 has an RTTY/FSK mode, you will find that
a 500 hz is plenty of filtering.  250 hz will be much too narrow for
anything but the strongest stations (I know, I fell into that trap years
ago - there is a technical explanation, but I don't want to get into that
now).  If 500 Hz is not available, 400 HZ should be OK for you.

Failing that, you might want to consider a DSP filter.  I haven't had any
experience with them, but I understand from reading other comments they
seem to be effective.

I hope to meet up with you someday and we can have a chat on RTTY!
Welcome to the mode.

73 and live better digitally

Jim, VE3XJ

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

Date: 5 Nov 94 06:43:44 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mailing List Processor)
Subject: your LISTSERV request "help with pk232"

The mailing list "with" could not be found.
You may use the INDEX command to get a listing
of available mailing lists.

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

End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #368
******************************