Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 04:30:07 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <tcp-group@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #194
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Fri, 30 Jul 93 Volume 93 : Issue 194
Today's Topics:
9.6 Kb Packet Discussion
9600 hardware problems
A minimal KA9Q NOS setup for HP100LX
Hardware Discussion (was: 9600 hardware problems) (2 msgs)
Single PLL radios on 9600.. (2 msgs)
Undelivered mail (2 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
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: 29 Jul 1993 09:13:56 -0400 (AST)
From: "David Seeler, VY2DCS" <SEELER@upei.ca>
Subject: 9.6 Kb Packet Discussion
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Glen (N6GN) asked if there was a forum - perhaps more appropriate than
the TCP news group. To my knowledge there is no listserv that has this
topic within its mandate. However there are at least two Newsgroups
rec.amateur.radio.digital? and .homebrew that has topics in this area.
However - perhaps not everyone has access to the NEWS Groups. I too
am very interested in this topic. Is anyone aware of a listserv which
covers medium and high speed packet from the perspective of hardware
considerations?
Thanks for your time. I apologize if this question does not fit into
the mandate of the TCP Group. Please reply direct to Seeler@UPEI.CA
73 Dave, VY2DCS
David Seeler,
AX25BBS: VY2DCS@VE1AIC.PE.CAN.NOAM
INTERNET: SEELER@UPEI.CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 08:13:43 -0500
From: sbrown@charon.dseg.ti.com (Steve Brown)
Subject: 9600 hardware problems
To: glenne@hpsadl3.sr.hp.com
> Steve, N5OWK writes and Glenn, N6GN, comments:
>
> > Swinging to the hardware side for a moment...
>
> perish the thought! (:>)
Here! Here!
< Good deal of very interesting stuff deleted >
> Other radios I've examined, including a crystal controlled HT ( a
> Clairmont,which looks a lot like a Wilson) and a Motorola Micor, both had
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is where my interest currently lies.
< other stuff deleted >
> I think we need both a source of wider 455 KHz filters and xtal
> filters. It seems like there out to be a market for a "digital IF
> adapter" which uses a couple of conversions, a MC3356 or similar and
> acceptable filters. By first converting from a 10-50 MHz IF of the
> given radio (one radio-specific crystal) I'd think that reasonable
> selectivity and strong signal performance could be maintained at the
> same time that IF characteristics tailored for 9600 bps operation could
> be had. Seems like it wouldn't have to cost more than $50.
> On the transmit side, I suspect that we can make do with PLL radios,
> though perhaps a little loop compensation adjustment might help things
> on a radio by radio basis.
The adapter sounds like a wonderful idea. I would certainly be interested
in pursuing this.
> Is there a forum anywhere for discussing this?
Really good question. Seems to come up about every 2 or 3 months.
Maybe we could discuss it here until we have bored the rest of the
folks to tears at which point they would suggest where we could take
the discussion. :-)
73 es CUL,
*********************************************
| Steve Brown, WD5HCY | |
| sbrown@charon.dseg.ti.com | Simplicate |
| wd5hcy@wd5hcy.ampr.org | and add |
| [44.28.0.61] | lightness. |
| wd5hcy@kf5mg.#dfw.tx.usa.na | |
*********************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 10:26:09 EDT
From: taalebi@ai.mit.edu (Ali Taalebi)
Subject: A minimal KA9Q NOS setup for HP100LX
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Hello there.
I wonder if there is a
"minimal KA9Q NOS setup for HP100LX
?
Many thanks in advance.
--73's de N1HPP
__ _ M. Ali Taalebinezhaad
/ ) // MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
/- -/ // o 545 Technologry Square, NE43-753
/ /_</_<_ Cambridge, MA 02139-3539, USA
Phone: (617) 253-8005
Fax: (617) 258-8682
Email: taalebi@ai.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 11:45:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jeffrey Austen <JRA1854@tntech.edu>
Subject: Hardware Discussion (was: 9600 hardware problems)
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
> > > Swinging to the hardware side for a moment...
>
> > Is there a forum anywhere for discussing this?
>
> Really good question. Seems to come up about every 2 or 3 months.
> Maybe we could discuss it here until we have bored the rest of the
> folks to tears at which point they would suggest where we could take
> the discussion. :-)
There is a modem discussion list, hs-modem, which has seen almost no activity
lately. To subscribe send a message to
hs-modem-request@wb3ffv.ampr.org
(Don't let the ampr.org domain bother you; I just checked and there is an
MX record pointing to a reachable Internet node.)
Why can't we buy a real, working radio with a switch on the front panel
that's labelled "VOICE/DATA"?
I am interested in discussing the establishment of a standard
"modem"/digital-hardware interface so that we could get the "modem" into
the radio case, where it belongs, and eliminate all this fussing with
getting the right levels and waveforms etc. between different boxes.
Jeff, k9ja
jra1854@tntech.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 14:30:18 PDT
From: Mike_Beezley.houstoncssc@xerox.com
Subject: Hardware Discussion (was: 9600 hardware problems)
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
>> Why can't we buy a real, working radio with a switch on the front panel
that's labelled "VOICE/DATA"? <<
My Yaesu FT5100 has a DATA connector on the rear panel. I'd need to check the
schematics to see if it is anything more than an extension from the mike
connector on the front panel. But this, along with the note sent out earlier
today about upgrading packet gear to 9600 baud, has me wondering if the FT5100
and an upgraded PK88 (to support 9600 data transmit) will work without mods.
Has anyone out there done 9600 baud with that configuration? I'm not averse to
moding the gear but that surface mount stuff just doesn't seem like it will
stand up to a 100W Weller gun. 8-O
I think it would be great to get off the old slow 1200 baud links we users have
been crawling along on for years. Lets move on to the future.
73 de N5PWP
MBeez.HoustonCSSC@Xerox.COM
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 16:12:19 UTC
From: wb9mjn@bbs.ve3jf.AMPR.ORG
Subject: Single PLL radios on 9600..
To: tcpgroup@UCSD.EDU
Hi. The experience with 9600 on PLL radios, i ve heard again and again,
goes like this. First, they get the reciever working, with a widerr 455
Kc filter. Then, they can t copy the PLL transmitter, even for long trans-
missions. They tweak the loop bandwidth down. Then they copy packets! But
when they try to use it for real packet, it fails. The lower loop bandwidth
has reduced the PLL s slew time, so that typically it takes a half a second
or so to switch from transmit to reciever. They then give up on the idea
and get a crystal radio.
On Micors, there is a DVP reciever boards. These boards have wider IFs in
them, and should be able to work to 24Kb.
Back to PLL radio, Glenn has a good idea. But typically the recievers are
easy enuf to get going, with wider IF filters. What s really needed is at
seperate digitally modulatable carrier source. Then mods would lock the
PLL on recieve freq, and key the new carrier source, and pass it thru the
rigs power amplification. I m skeptical tho. With TEKK, D4-10s, Multi-modes,
MITREKs all easy to get on 9600, there may not be a market. Why modify a
radio u can sell off, and then not be able to sell off? When u can get
something like a MITREK and with simple mods get it running on the air. En-
hancing its value, rather than reducing it. Sure u can eventually get that
PLL radio to eventually work on 9600. But would u , or anybody else want to
own it, after its been modified?
73, Don
P.S. 430.55 is really hopping on band openings around here! See stations
from St Louis to Cincinati from one of our link sites. D4-10 s must
be selling good.
wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@wb9uus.ampr.org
wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org
WB9MJN@N9HSI.IL.USA.NA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 12:10:42 -0700
From: "Dana H. Myers" <dana@fafnir.la.locus.com>
Subject: Single PLL radios on 9600..
To: tcpgroup@ucsd.edu, wb9mjn@bbs.ve3jf.ampr.org
wb9mjn@bbs.ve3jf.ampr.org (Don) wrote:
>
> On Micors, there is a DVP reciever boards. These boards have wider IFs in
> them, and should be able to work to 24Kb.
>
The UHF Micors are especially nice for transmit; they use an offset oscillator
mixed with the receive rock to generate the transmit frequency. This
presents a problem in that you usually need to (a) replace the standard
exciter with a "wide-space" exciter or (b) replace the standard exciter
rock with a simplex rock to get simplex operation. However, the advantage
is that the offset oscillator is the one that is frequency modulated. Once
you set the radio up (deviation, etc.) you can change channels without
potentionally having to re-tweak the deviation.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 17:15:24 MET
From: MAILER@CSPGUK11.BITNET (Network Mailer)
Subject: Undelivered mail
To: MAILER%CSPGUK11.BITNET@Sdsc.Edu
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Your mail was not delivered to some or all of its
intended recipients for the following reason(s):
No such local user: RSCS
--------------------RETURNED MAIL FILE--------------------
Received: by CSPGUK11 (Mailer R2.07) id 0957; Wed, 21 Jul 93 17:15:24 MET
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 17:02:34 MET
From: Network Mailer <MAILER@CSPGUK11>
Subject: Undelivered mail
To: RSCS@CSPGUK11
Your mail was not delivered to some or all of its
intended recipients for the following reason(s):
FROM: or SENDER: inconsistent with spool file origin.
--------------------RETURNED MAIL FILE--------------------
Received: by CSPGUK11 (Mailer R2.07) id 0222; Wed, 21 Jul 93 17:02:35 MET
Received: from ucsd.edu by Sdsc.Edu (sds.sdsc.edu STMG) via INTERNET;
Sun, 18 Jul 93 08:21:17 GMT
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AB03154
sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun
Sat, 17 Jul 93 23:24:29 -0700
Errors-To: tcp-group-relay@ucsd.edu
Sender: tcp-group-relay%UCSD.EDU@Sdsc.BITnet
Precedence: List
Received: from plains.NoDak.edu by ucsd.edu; id AA03148
sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun via SMTP
Sat, 17 Jul 93 23:24:27 -0700 for /usr/mail/listhandler tcp-group
Received: by plains.NoDak.edu; Sun, 18 Jul 1993 01:24:25 -0500
From: ortmann%plains.NoDak.edu%UCSD.EDU@Sdsc.BITnet (Daniel Ortmann)
Message-Id: <199307180624.AA00833@plains.NoDak.edu>
Subject: NOS on MS-Windows?
To: tcp-group%UCSD.EDU@Sdsc.BITnet (tcp group)
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 1:24:24 CDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
1) Has anyone compiled any of the NOS family on MS-Windows?
2) Has anyone done it using MS Visual C++??
3) If it has not been done, then what are your thoughts on the difficulty?
--
Daniel "un?X" Ortmann (talmid) NDSU Electrical Engineering
ortmann@plains.nodak.edu shalom Fargo, North Dakota
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 17:15:34 MET
From: MAILER@CSPGUK11.BITNET (Network Mailer)
Subject: Undelivered mail
To: MAILER%CSPGUK11.BITNET@Sdsc.Edu
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Your mail was not delivered to some or all of its
intended recipients for the following reason(s):
No such local user: RSCS
--------------------RETURNED MAIL FILE--------------------
Received: by CSPGUK11 (Mailer R2.07) id 0986; Wed, 21 Jul 93 17:15:34 MET
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 17:03:00 MET
From: Network Mailer <MAILER@CSPGUK11>
Subject: Undelivered mail
To: RSCS@CSPGUK11
Your mail was not delivered to some or all of its
intended recipients for the following reason(s):
FROM: or SENDER: inconsistent with spool file origin.
--------------------RETURNED MAIL FILE--------------------
Received: by CSPGUK11 (Mailer R2.07) id 0269; Wed, 21 Jul 93 17:03:00 MET
Received: from ucsd.edu by Sdsc.Edu (sds.sdsc.edu STMG) via INTERNET;
Sat, 17 Jul 93 07:40:24 GMT
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA13632
sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun
Fri, 16 Jul 93 22:44:45 -0700
Errors-To: tcp-group-relay@ucsd.edu
Sender: tcp-group-relay%UCSD.EDU@Sdsc.BITnet
Precedence: List
Received: from SABEA-OC.AF.MIL by ucsd.edu; id AA13618
sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun via SMTP
Fri, 16 Jul 93 22:44:33 -0700 for /usr/mail/listhandler tcp-group
Received: by sabea-oc.af.mil (5.59/25-eef)
id AA26398; Sat, 17 Jul 93 00:41:09 CDT
From: ssampson%sabea-oc.af.mil%UCSD.EDU@Sdsc.BITnet (Mr. Sampson)
Message-Id: <9307170541.AA26398@sabea-oc.af.mil>
Subject: 9600 Experiances
To: TCP-Group%UCSD.EDU@Sdsc.BITnet
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 00:41:05 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1149
Swinging to the hardware side for a moment...
I've recently been experimenting with 2 meter FM 9600 (have a
lot of experiance with a Tekk on 440) and am amazed at how
poorly it performs. I modified an ICOM 228A both to keep the
receiver on all the time (it shuts it off during transmit as
designed) and the normal VCO and Discriminator taps. After
discussing it, I'm pretty much convinced that the final IF
filter is the culprit. I'm using a PacComm TNC which has a
5 kHz cut-off on its input filter.
My theory is that 4800 Hz is the highest modulating frequency,
so the modulation index at 3 kHz deviation would be .625. Using
a Bessel chart shows +/- 3 sidebands for (6 x 4800) 28.8 kHz
Bandwidth. I assume the FIR filter on transmit greatly
attenuates the third sideband so we probably only need (4 x
4800) or 19.2 kHz.
The trouble is my ICOM (and most other rigs) has a 455 kHz filter
marked with an 'E'. PacComm says an 'E' is 15 kHz and a 'D' is
20 kHz. I'm not sure what the 10.7 MHz IF has in it. What's the
general consensus on this? Do those running 9600 sucessfully change
these out, or is my math all wrong?
---
Steve N5OWK
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #194
******************************
******************************