[nos-bbs] JNOS rig control of frequency

[maiko at pcsinternet.ca]

Don't know what kind of funds you guys have, or the distance between
networks that you need to bridge, but there are some interesting devices
on the market. A friend of mine who is in the WISP business, just put up
these nice 60 Ghz dishes recently, tired of all the interference on the
2.4 and 5 ghz bands, and they are smoking hot (rain fall can be issue),
lookup the unit below, tons of this stuff around :

    Ubiquiti Airmax Gigabeam Long-range Wireless 60 Ghz Radio Bridge

The documentation is terrible of course, and it's quite new, firmware
is constantly being updated. It's still radio of course, just an idea,
doesn't have to be this one in particular, depends on your distance of
course.

You could 'bridge the networks' using internet as well, but one could
be construed a land line lid, that's what Charles N5PVL would always
chime in on (changing the subject a bit), it's been years since I've
heard or seen any post from him on this topic.

I miss the guy in many ways, don't even know if he's still alive, he
had health issues back in 2017 from what I've read. He was big into
the flexnet stuff, which I also was back in the day.

Maiko / VE4KLM


On 2022-06-08 15:41, Sky via nos-bbs wrote:
> Also acknowledging Maiko's response saying essentially "no."
> 
> My initial question(s) came from a desire to bridge two 2m packet
> networks. One is a localized packet frequency also designated for
> emergency use, and the other is a high-level BBS frequency that lets
> me reach from San Francisco way down past San Jose in the south Bay
> Area.
> 
> But I stupidly ignored that the high-level BBS has a UHF frequency as
> well as a VHF frequency.
> 
> So tha coaching has been useful, even though the problem as posed is
> insoluble.
> 
> -Sky
> 
>> On Jun 4, 2022, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Pepper <anpepper at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> You'd be better off using one port on vhf and the other port on uhf.
>> All you'll need is a dual band antenna and a diplexer... Or just use
>> two antennas. Then you'll avoid the need for expensive VHF duplex
>> filters and worrying about both transmitters TXing at the same time.
>> Andrew
>> 
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2022, 15:19 <maiko at pcsinternet.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Please confirm the following:
>>>> 
>>>> •     The second interface would allow JNOS to simultaneously
>>> listen to
>>>> both frequencies, logging all traffic and serving its BBS on
>>> both
>>>> frequencies. (This one I am sure of.)
>>> 
>>> Of course.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> •     JNOS will not trigger a second radio to transmit at the
>>> same time as
>>>> the first. (This was one of my earlier questions, and I honestly
>>> do
>>>> not know the answer.)
>>> 
>>> There is no way for JNOS to know, especially in KISS mode, it
>>> sends the
>>> data when it wants to send the data, so it has no idea when PTT is
>>> going
>>> to be active or not. Unless it controls PTT direct for some of the
>>> more
>>> recent code I wrote, but even then there is no 'check if another
>>> radio
>>> is active' type of code. I could put in code, but that could
>>> possibly
>>> introduce longer delays, since you still don't really know when
>>> the TNC
>>> is going to PTT the radio ? I have no experience with this, but
>>> this is
>>> what my sense would be.
>>> 
>>> But it gets worse, even if one radio is not transmitting, suppose
>>> you
>>> are receiving a packet on the one, and you key up the other ?
>>> Signal
>>> will most likely get WASHED out anyways by your own TX on the
>>> other
>>> frequency ? Hopefully I am not making a fool of myself, it's been
>>> years since we played with stuff like DIODE MATRIX interconnected
>>> systems and the sort, that was a LONG time ago, oh my gosh ....
>>> 
>>> Either huge duplexor cans or TNCs that can be GPS sync'd (never
>>> heard
>>> of that, but it would be cool, similar to motorola canopy
>>> systems).
>>> 
>>> Yeah, if anyone wants to better educate us, please do :)
>>> 
>>>> This would allow continued use of JNOS without additional work
>>> from
>>>> anybody.
>>> 
>>> There would need to be some type of additional work in my opinion,
>>> 
>>> unless
>>> you could somehow manage to separate the antennas really really
>>> good ...
>>> 
>>> Maiko / VE4KLM
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nos-bbs mailing list
>>> nos-bbs at lists.tapr.org
>>> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs_lists.tapr.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> nos-bbs mailing list
>> nos-bbs at lists.tapr.org
>> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs_lists.tapr.org
> _______________________________________________
> nos-bbs mailing list
> nos-bbs at lists.tapr.org
> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs_lists.tapr.org