[aprssig] The East will Rise again! (at 9600?)

Fri May 6 09:10:28 EDT 2016

Scott,

I have several of your VHF Data Radios FC-301/D.  I assume they would work
fine?

When I google the model number, your current radios under the same model
number come up as UHF.

Are VHF still available?

Its just the Radio right?  I assume I hook up an external KPC-9612 to do
the AX.25 and modem functions?

Bob

*From:* aprssig [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] *On Behalf Of *Scott
Miller via aprssig
*Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2016 2:35 PM
*To:* aprssig at tapr.org
*Subject:* Re: [aprssig] The East will Rise again! (at 9600?)

If we're going to push for expanded 9600 baud implementation, can we pretty
please enforce some more rigorous technical standards than on 144.39?  For
1200 baud APRS you never know if you're going to see Bell 202 or V.23,
pre-emphasized or flat, deviation could be anything, the HDLC reset
sequence is awful for fast clock recovery but there's no other standard
preamble, you don't know if the receiving TNC is going to choke on
non-printable characters in the payload or if it's even checking FCS or
PID, and you've got tens of thousands of Kenwood devices that have a fixed
500 ms TXD.

At 9600 baud there doesn't seem to be much agreement on filter selection
and documentation is scarce.

You could probably match 1200 baud's Eb/N0 advantage just by requiring
certain basic technical standards on a 9600 baud network.

Scott
N1VG

On 5/5/2016 10:59 AM, Brian D Heaton via aprssig wrote:

Why KPC9612s and 2M?

Commercial TNC/Node combos (KPC9612 and others) - Small computers are
available which can provide all the needed/desired functions and interface
to multiple TNCs or sound interfaces. Recent testing shows that QPSK/4800
is quite reliable via a sound interface to a radio with a 9600 data port.
9600 is just a step up the chain from that. I expect xPSK (likely OQPSK or
8PSK) rates of around 19200 are quite achievable. You can still use
KPC9612s if sticking to 9600.

Many (I will guess "the vast majority") of EOCs already have issues with
desense from multiple radios on 2M. If the supporting rationale that may
make more sites available is EMCOMM support, I would put the backbone links
on either 1.25M or 70cm with a preference for 1.25M. I would keep the
backbone frequency clear of users to avoid additional congestion and hidden
transmitters. Users could access on 2M/1.25M/70cm (whichever band the
backbone link(s) aren't running on) at either 1200 or 9600. Why kill
performance of an engineered and well adjusted backbone link/network with
user stations?

73-KY9K/Brian

On 5/5/2016 10:29, Robert Bruninga via aprssig wrote:

SAVE your KPC9612’s Boys, the East will RISE AGAIN!

The Golden Packet team is toying with the idea of making our annual
Appalachian mountain digipeater string from Maine to Georgia permament and
making it a 9600 baud network for emergency and ham radio disaster response
and play.  We already have 3 of the 14 sites with approval for
installations…

Lets face it, traditional packet networks are dead and although APRS is
alive and well, it is specific and only operates at 1200 baud.  Although
all fully integrated APRS radios work perfectly well at 1200 and 9600 baud,
all of the existing APRS network is 1200 because all the digipeaters (not
integrated APRS radios) operate at 1200 and the majority of all home APRS
stations and IGates use TNC’s that operate at 1200.  A huge legacy.
Besides, going to 9600 only barely doubles APRS speeds while degrading link
reliability.

So, since we have already shown for 6 years now, that this long 2000 mile
linear chain of mountains and valleys can support a 2000 mile network with
only 14 digis,  why not establish a long haul 9600 baud Node chain from
Maine to Georgia which could be a significant boost to Packet radio
emergency operations. The network would not operate as APRS digipeaters but
as KAnodes.   As we all knew back in the 1990’s link-by-link acknowledgment
was vastly superior to end-to-end.

We already have three sites in MD, and PA …  But we need more than hikers,
to get us access to some existing ham radio maintained sites.  We do NOT
want nodes to branch off down into the plains.  These nodes would bog down
the network.  No, the main backbone would be to support emergency
operations with beams that can point up to the mountains to pass traffic.

So, we are splashing this onto the APRSSIG to see if people have SITE
access and/or have unused 9600 baud KPC-9612’s to step up and lets see what
we got.  Also will need a freq.  I’m thinking 145.01 but every time I think
of it, people give feedback, and I LOSE or forget the feedback as to what
existing systems are already on 145.01, such as DX clusters, etc…

Every day we get MORE AND MORE addicted to our wireless infrastructure,
which we all know, will be hard to access in a real emergency.  We need to
keep the Ham radio Plan-B alive…

Bob, WB4APR

_______________________________________________

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/20160506/10086cbb/attachment.html>