[aprssig] Fwd: Q: Delayed Packet Problem.

[Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)]

It is in fact only on the KPC-3+, not on the non-plus version.  You can 
read all about it at:

http://blog.aprs.fi/2011/03/kantronics-kpc3-considered-harmful.html

Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

On 1/26/2016 12:31 PM, noskosteve--- via aprssig wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From:noskosteve at yahoo.com
> Sent:Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:01:50 -0600
> To:noskosteve at yahoo.com
> Subject:Q: Delayed Packet Problem.
>
> One of the locals appears to be (have been) so aflicted.
>
> Finding myself characterized as the local APRS guru, I was asked about 
> it...
>
> Is the delayed packet problem only on the KPC3, or is it also on the 
> KPC3+ ?
> Where (site) is this story told so I can refer them to it??
> Further detail not needed here.
>
> Regards, Steve K9DCI
> Science & Technical Advisor
> challengerillinois.org
> From my tablet.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From:Steve Dimse via aprssig
> Sent:Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:40:39 -0600
> To:TAPR APRS Mailing List
> Subject:Re: [aprssig] SATgates ? (again)
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:11 AM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) via aprssig wrote:
> >
> > If the purpose of the APRS satellites is to provide a 
> super-long-range digipeater to ensure packet delivery from remote 
> areas, then the current system is working fine. If the purpose of the 
> APRS satellites is to give people visibility that their packets 
> actually traversed through space, then that's the same thing as asking 
> to use the APRS-IS as an RF analysis tool which is beyond its design 
> requirements.
> >
> Many people do want confirmation of their packets being heard in 
> space. Really this is no different than the QSL cards that were once 
> central to ham radio and still quite popular. It is certainly a valid 
> amateur activity and not one to be slighted.
>
> In general I'm the first to point out the unsuitability of APRS for 
> propagation studies, but for the most part the APRS IS does work for 
> this particular case. It fails in a particular circumstance, where an 
> IGate is local to the person trying to be heard via satellite. If an 
> IGate author were to include the satellite mode option of filtering 
> directly heard stations it would go a long way to solving that issue. 
> There would be one program we could point people to to solve this 
> problem in the locations where it occurs.
>
> The lack of a satellite mode IGate also has lowered the number of 
> IGates we have on 145.825. I know of one case where, when he 
> complained to me about not appearing on findU and I explained the dup 
> problem, the operator turned off his IGate so he could be seen on 
> findU. There are probably more examples and that is too bad because we 
> need more IGates. I used to brag that the APRS IS created the world's 
> largest diversity receiver with the HF gates on 10.151. That is 
> probably no longer true, but maybe 145.825 could be a similar bragging 
> point for APRS, if only we could get more IGates. There is certainly 
> more need than with 10.151 because of the polarization, antenna 
> blocking, and line of sight issues.
>
> Steve K4HG
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20160126/d7c11d39/attachment.html>