Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

BPQ32

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 9298 - 9327 of 10807   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#9298 From: "N9ACQ" <n9acq@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:59 pm
Subject: RE: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
n9acq
Send Email Send Email
 

Jeff

                No problems with the following Kenwood mobile units, G-707, V-7, V71, D700 and D710. I am sure that many others are also usable at 9600 but I am not familiar with them.

73 Bill

N9ACQ


#9299 From: "Mike" <mmelnik1@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:02 pm
Subject: RE: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
n9pmo
Send Email Send Email
 
I use a Kantronics 9612 with a 19200 Baud serial link, the serial link
must be
Higher then the Radio speed.

I modified a Motorola Syntor UHF 55 watt radio for 9600 BUAD
Paclen 236, Maxframe 2, Frack 3000, response 1000, TXD 150

Many radios that claim to be 9600 BUAD have a very slow turn around time
TX/RX many are higher then 300ms Alinco happens to be one of those
radios

The only radio I have seen with a good turn around time is the Kenwood
2K
It is always good idea to look at the ARRL test specs.

The data cable usually has one connection for 1200 Baud and 1 for 9600
Baud,
As well as the radio settings, the radio needs to have a very flat
response
For FSK transmission, do not use the Mic plug as a FSK connection
It will never work.

Hope this is some help.

73

Mike N9PMO
BPQ32 Group Moderator
www.n9pmo.com
-----Original Message-----
From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
k1jtc
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:30 PM
To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BPQ32] Re: 9600 baud packet instability

 
What rig or rigs are people using for 9600 packet?

--- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff - WA4ZKO" <wa4zko@...> wrote:
>
> Alinco DR-235's are very marginal radios for 9.6k. The ARRL Lab BER
testing for them reveals the problem.
>
> You can probably pull your PACLEN back to 64 or 32 and see a small
improvement in terms of retries at a cost of reduced throughput. You
might do a bit better with a TNC that uses a true G3RUH modem, but I
suspect you are fighting an uphill battle with a marginal radio for 9.6k
(regardless of how it's advertised).
>
> The DR-235 (and DR-435) rigs are good for 1200 baud, but horrid for
9600 baud. If this is a backbone link (no users) you will do far better
just running 1200 baud and opening up the parms (paclen, maxframe, ect).
>
> As others have said deviation is important, but unless you are using
older or modified radios with "wider" filters you will probably find the
9.6k sweet spot on newer gear is around 2.8KHz peak deviation. Make sure
your meter can show/measure peak deviation.
>
>
> 73
> Jeff
> WA4ZKO
> "Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
> http://twitter.com/wa4zko
>
>
> --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "k1jtc" <jeffrey.t.clark@> wrote:
> >
> > Rather than reply to all I will post all replies here. I am running
alinco 235. I have 2 radios sitting in the same room. From what I
understand the KPC 9612 only supports 9600 baud on the com port so that
is the highest speed to go to the computer. Am I wrong? S meter readings
are full scale in the room as well as when I try across the city. The
radios are identical except the one that is not hooked to the bbs has
the internal tnc option.
> >
> > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "N9ACQ" <n9acq@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > The biggest problem with 9600 is deviation. Both ends should
> > > be around 3 Khz. 9600 also need to bypass all audio amplifiers and
filters
> > > on both transmit and receive. A deviation meter really is needed
to set the
> > > proper audio level to the radio. The other thing is what is the S
meter
> > > reading on receive?
> > >
> > > 73 Bill
> > >
> > > N9ACQ
> > >
> >
>

#9300 From: "N9ACQ" <n9acq@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:15 pm
Subject: RE: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
n9acq
Send Email Send Email
 

Mike

                Mic plugs work for 1200. I used a TR-7930 for years that way.  One suggestion for TNC connections to 6 pin mini-din. Use the 9600 baud pin and set radio t0 9600 capability. Then radio is useable for either 1200 or 9600 without changes.

73 Bill

N9ACQ


#9301 From: "Mike" <mmelnik1@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:24 pm
Subject: RE: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
n9pmo
Send Email Send Email
 
Yes the Mic. Plus will work for AFSK, but not FSK (9600 Baud)

Mike N9PMO
www.n9pmo.com
-----Original Message-----
From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
N9ACQ
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:15 PM
To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: 9600 baud packet instability

 
Mike
                Mic plugs work for 1200. I used a TR-7930 for years that
way.  One suggestion for TNC connections to 6 pin mini-din. Use the 9600
baud pin and set radio t0 9600 capability. Then radio is useable for
either 1200 or 9600 without changes.
73 Bill
N9ACQ

#9302 From: "k1jtc" <jeffrey.t.clark@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:35 pm
Subject: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
k1jtc
Send Email Send Email
 
Anyone try using the Yaesu ftm-350ar rig for 9600 baud?

--- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mmelnik1@...> wrote:
>
> Yes the Mic. Plus will work for AFSK, but not FSK (9600 Baud)
>
> Mike N9PMO
> www.n9pmo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> N9ACQ
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:15 PM
> To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: 9600 baud packet instability
>
>  
> Mike
>                 Mic plugs work for 1200. I used a TR-7930 for years that
> way.  One suggestion for TNC connections to 6 pin mini-din. Use the 9600
> baud pin and set radio t0 9600 capability. Then radio is useable for
> either 1200 or 9600 without changes.
> 73 Bill
> N9ACQ
>

#9303 From: Bob Unger <robert4461@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
robert4461
Send Email Send Email
 
Jerry, I am gloing to put some jupdates to this and get it back to you asap.  hope it works better....
 
73 de Bob

From: Jerry <n9lya@...>
To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: [BPQ32] 9600 baud packet instability
 
Ill look yours over more in morningโ€ฆ But here are mine I use a KPC9612 as well mine feeds an Icom 38A
 
Have you adjusted your TX audio and equalization in the TNCโ€ฆ??? 73 Jerry N9LYA
 
PORT                                     ; 220 Meter Emcom FREQ.
PORTNUM=9                    ; Optional but sets port number if stated
ID=9600 223.600 MHz    ; Displayed by PORTS command
TYPE=ASYNC                     ; Port is RS232 Com
PROTOCOL=KISS                             ; TNC is used in KISS mode
FULLDUP=0                       ; Only meaningful for KISS devices
IOADDR=C                         ; 1 = SERIAL PORT COM1 ETC.
SPEED=9600                      ; RS232 COM PORT SPEED
CHANNEL=B                      ; A for single channel TNC, A or B for multichannel
PERSIST=64                        ; PERSIST=256/(# of transmitters-1)
SLOTTIME=100                 ; CMSA interval timer in milliseconds
TXDELAY=300                    ; Transmit keyup delay in milliseconds
TXTAIL=0                            ; TX key down, in milliseconds, at packet end;
QUALITY=192                    ; Quality factor applied to node broadcasts heard on
                                                ; this port, unless overridden by a locked route
                                                ; entry. Setting to 0 stops node broadcasts
MINQUAL=95                   ; Entries in the nodes table with qualities greater or
                                                ; equal to MINQUAL will be sent on this port. A value
                                                ; of 0 sends everything.
MAXFRAME=2                 ; Max outstanding frames (1 thru 7)
FRACK=5000                      ; Level 2 timout in milliseconds
RESPTIME=1000                               ; Level 2 delayed ack timer in milliseconds
RETRIES=10                        ; Level 2 maximum retry value
PACLEN=236                     ; Default max packet length for this port
UNPROTO=Nodes:                         ; BTEXT broadcast addrs format: DEST[,digi1[,digi2]]
BCALL=n9lya-7                 ; BTEXT call. unstated defaults to APPL1CALL
L3ONLY=0                           ; 1=No user downlink connects on this port
DIGIFLAG=1                      ; Digipeat: 0=OFF, 1=ALL, 255=UI Only
DIGIPORT=0                      ; Port on which to send digi'd frames (0 = same port)
USERS=0                             ; Maximum number of L2 sessions, 0 = no limit
WL2KREPORT PUBLIC, http://www.winlink.org/, 8778, K9BBS-10, EM68SR, 00-23, 223600000, PKT9600, 65, 35, 5, 0
ENDPORT
 
From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k1jtc
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:32 PM
To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BPQ32] 9600 baud packet instability
 
 
We are having problems with consistent connects using outpost. When using hyperterminal it connects better but still retries muliple times. Below are the settings that I have in the config file. I am using a kantronics 9612. Any suggestions to make it more stable would be greatly appreciated.

PORT
PORTNUM=1 ; Optional but sets port number if stated
ID=BBS 223.520 MHz ; Displayed by PORTS command
TYPE=ASYNC ; Port is RS232 Com
PROTOCOL=KISS ; TNC is used in KISS (or JKISS) mode
; See ..\RelatedFiles\KissRoms\KissRoms.zip.
FULLDUP=0 ; Only meaningful for KISS (or JKISS) devices
IOADDR=1 ; 1 = SERIAL PORT COM1 ETC.
SPEED=9600 ; RS232 COM PORT SPEED
CHANNEL=B ; A for single channel TNC, A or B for multichannel
PERSIST=64 ; PERSIST=256/(# of transmitters-1)
SLOTTIME=50 ; CMSA interval timer in milliseconds
TXDELAY=300 ; Transmit keyup delay in milliseconds
TXTAIL=30 ; TX key down, in milliseconds, at packet end
QUALITY=125 ; Quality factor applied to node broadcasts heard on
; this port, unless overridden by a locked route
; entry. Setting to 0 stops node broadcasts
MINQUAL=0 ; Entries in the nodes table with qualities greater or
; equal to MINQUAL will be sent on this port. A value
; of 0 sends everything.
MAXFRAME=4 ; Max outstanding frames (1 thru 7)
FRACK=5000 ; Level 2 timout in milliseconds
RESPTIME=1000 ; Level 2 delayed ack timer in milliseconds
RETRIES=5 ; Level 2 maximum retry value
PACLEN=125 ; Default max packet length for this port
UNPROTO=ANTBBS ; BTEXT broadcast addrs format: DEST[,digi1[,digi2]]
BCALL=K1JTC-10 ; BTEXT call. unstated defaults to APPL1CALL
L3ONLY=0 ; 1=No user downlink connects on this port
DIGIFLAG=1 ; Digipeat: 0=OFF, 1=ALL, 255=UI Only
DIGIPORT=0 ; Port on which to send digi'd frames (0 = same port)
USERS=0 ; Maximum number of L2 sessions, 0 = no limit
ENDPORT

#9304 From: Peter - ZL2BAU <peter.zl2bau@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:59 am
Subject: Re: ZL2BAU Test System
zl2bau
Send Email Send Email
 
On 16/11/12 06:58, Miroslav Skoric wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 12:12 PM, Peter - ZL2BAU wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I will be continuing with the XROUTER Node and the Linux BBS
>>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> What kind of Linux BBS are you running? And which distro?
>
> Regards,
>
> Misko
>

Hi Misko,

               Running Ubuntu 10.04.4.LTS with xfbb 7.05c9.

I have not documented the install apart from a short " Install How-To"
for myself.

Regards ..... Peter

#9305 From: Rick Nicholson <n9umj@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
n9umj
Send Email Send Email
 
I agree totally, I've had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone, 
During heavy use the dr235t will distort the packets to the points they cannot be decoded even at short distances. 



I've found that the Tait  8105 a much better choice for a backbone transceiver. 
Ive been using the Tait's  for repeater linking and remote voter sites for several years, after months of testing numerous commercial brands the Tait out performs them all and we will be changing out the Dr235t for the Tait after the first of the year. 
 
I'm hoping others in Indiana will realize the issues with the Dr235t and standardize with the Tait for the 220 backbone.

Rick/ n9umj



Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 15, 2012, at 8:17 AM, "Jeff - WA4ZKO" <wa4zko@...> wrote:

 

Alinco DR-235's are very marginal radios for 9.6k. The ARRL Lab BER testing for them reveals the problem.

You can probably pull your PACLEN back to 64 or 32 and see a small improvement in terms of retries at a cost of reduced throughput. You might do a bit better with a TNC that uses a true G3RUH modem, but I suspect you are fighting an uphill battle with a marginal radio for 9.6k (regardless of how it's advertised).

The DR-235 (and DR-435) rigs are good for 1200 baud, but horrid for 9600 baud. If this is a backbone link (no users) you will do far better just running 1200 baud and opening up the parms (paclen, maxframe, ect).

As others have said deviation is important, but unless you are using older or modified radios with "wider" filters you will probably find the 9.6k sweet spot on newer gear is around 2.8KHz peak deviation. Make sure your meter can show/measure peak deviation.

73
Jeff
WA4ZKO
"Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
http://twitter.com/wa4zko

--- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "k1jtc" <jeffrey.t.clark@...> wrote:
>
> Rather than reply to all I will post all replies here. I am running alinco 235. I have 2 radios sitting in the same room. From what I understand the KPC 9612 only supports 9600 baud on the com port so that is the highest speed to go to the computer. Am I wrong? S meter readings are full scale in the room as well as when I try across the city. The radios are identical except the one that is not hooked to the bbs has the internal tnc option.
>
> --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "N9ACQ" <n9acq@> wrote:
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > The biggest problem with 9600 is deviation. Both ends should
> > be around 3 Khz. 9600 also need to bypass all audio amplifiers and filters
> > on both transmit and receive. A deviation meter really is needed to set the
> > proper audio level to the radio. The other thing is what is the S meter
> > reading on receive?
> >
> > 73 Bill
> >
> > N9ACQ
> >
>


#9306 From: Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
wa7nwp
Send Email Send Email
 
> I agree totally, I've had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its
> performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone,
> During heavy use the dr235t will distort the packets to the points they
> cannot be decoded even at short distances.

Is that with the built in 9k6 TNC or a "good" external TNC like the PK96?

Thanks,
Bill - WA7NWP

#9307 From: "Danny Oudendag" <pa2snk@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:58 pm
Subject: Fw: BPQ32 crashing and web/telnet server behaviour
nl3snk
Send Email Send Email
 
same problem here.
after a couple of days the system is not accesible and the monitor screen does not show traffic. bpq freezes.
 
i thougt the fault lies in the bpqethernet driver but looks like its in the telnet section when i read the messages here.
 
i run windows xp on a pentium 4 rackserver.
 
73 Danny PA2SNK

#9308 From: "Jeff - WA4ZKO" <wa4zko@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:12 pm
Subject: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
wa4zko
Send Email Send Email
 
My experience is the modem in the PK-96 and the 9612 TNCs perform the same.
Neither are true G3RUH modems, but both work well with a good 9.6k radio.

Best TNC in the world can't make up for BER specs like these, especially when
you start off listening to a TX BER that bad.
(DR-235 BER data per ARRL Lab results)

Receiver:
BER at 12-dB SINAD, 3.8ื10–3
BER at 16 dB SINAD, 1.4ื10–4
BER at –50 dBm, 2.4ื10–5
transmitter:
BER at 12-dB SINAD + 30 dB, 3.4ื10–4

Pretty decent TXDelay, but the RX/TX BER is the problem.

Good to know there's a usable commercial "off-the-shelf 220 radio out there with
the Tait rigs.

Be nice if the ARRL would get back to publishing BER Test data on the newer
rigs. Then maybe crack down on manufacturers advertising rigs as "9600 ready" if
they don't meet a minimal BER spec.


73
Jeff
WA4ZKO
"Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
http://twitter.com/wa4zko

--- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...> wrote:
>
> > I agree totally, I've had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its
> > performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone,
> > During heavy use the dr235t will distort the packets to the points they
> > cannot be decoded even at short distances.
>
> Is that with the built in 9k6 TNC or a "good" external TNC like the PK96?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill - WA7NWP
>

#9309 From: Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:15 pm
Subject: Re: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
wa7nwp
Send Email Send Email
 
> (DR-235 BER data per ARRL Lab results)
>
> Receiver:
>   BER at 12-dB SINAD, 3.8ื10–3
>   BER at 16 dB SINAD, 1.4ื10–4
>   BER at –50 dBm, 2.4ื10–5
> transmitter:
>   BER at 12-dB SINAD + 30 dB, 3.4ื10–4

What numbers would a good radio have?   1x10-6?

Thanks,
Bill

#9310 From: PE1RDW <pe1rdw@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:27 pm
Subject: Re: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
aprsrdw
Send Email Send Email
 
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:15:32 +0100, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...> wrote:

>> (DR-235 BER data per ARRL Lab results)
>>
>> Receiver:
>>   BER at 12-dB SINAD, 3.8ร—10โ€“3
>>   BER at 16 dB SINAD, 1.4ร—10โ€“4
>>   BER at โ€“50 dBm, 2.4ร—10โ€“5
>> transmitter:
>>   BER at 12-dB SINAD + 30 dB, 3.4ร—10โ€“4
>
> What numbers would a good radio have?   1x10-6?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
probably 0 but the only radio I ever found that has that is a converted
analog cell phone like nokia morbia

--
73 Andre PE1RDW

#9311 From: "Jeff - WA4ZKO" <wa4zko@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
wa4zko
Send Email Send Email
 
1.0x10-5 (or better) is good benchmark to look for on the RX BER at –50 dBm test
and the TX "BER at 12-dB SINAD+30 dB" test. If a radio can't perform well at
those levels then good luck with it on the 9.6k airwaves.

http://wx4j.com/Radio-TNC9600bInfoC.htm

A really good article by KE3Z in the May 1995 QST goes into BER testing details
and what makes a good 9600 baud radio (or not). Unfortunately I don't think it's
openly available on the internet.
I might check to see if the ARRL would allow me to PDF it and post it publicly
if there is enough interest.


73
Jeff
WA4ZKO
"Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
http://twitter.com/wa4zko

--- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...> wrote:
>
> > (DR-235 BER data per ARRL Lab results)
> >
> > Receiver:
> >   BER at 12-dB SINAD, 3.8ื10–3
> >   BER at 16 dB SINAD, 1.4ื10–4
> >   BER at –50 dBm, 2.4ื10–5
> > transmitter:
> >   BER at 12-dB SINAD + 30 dB, 3.4ื10–4
>
> What numbers would a good radio have?   1x10-6?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>

#9312 From: Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:56 pm
Subject: Re: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
wa7nwp
Send Email Send Email
 
Thank you Jeff..   That's good info to keep on had.

Bill

> 1.0x10-5 (or better) is good benchmark to look for on the RX BER at –50
> dBm test and the TX "BER at 12-dB SINAD+30 dB" test. If a radio can't
> perform well at those levels then good luck with it on the 9.6k airwaves.
>
> http://wx4j.com/Radio-TNC9600bInfoC.htm

#9313 From: Rick Nicholson <n9umj@...>
Date: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:05 am
Subject: Re: Re: 9600 baud packet instability
n9umj
Send Email Send Email
 
That was with a Kantronics KPC-9612 and on a Timewave DSP-232USB. 

Rick/n9umj


Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...> wrote:

 

> I agree totally, I've had the Dr235t in operation for a year and found its
> performance on 9.6k nominal and unreliable as a backbone,
> During heavy use the dr235t will distort the packets to the points they
> cannot be decoded even at short distances.

Is that with the built in 9k6 TNC or a "good" external TNC like the PK96?

Thanks,
Bill - WA7NWP


#9314 From: "Bill Erhardt" <k7mt@...>
Date: Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:38 pm
Subject: BPQ RF Nodes Broadcast Question
k7mt
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi gang,

Presently, by BPQ32 broadcasts the following on local RF:

   HLNBBS:K7MT-1 via K7MT-6 qlty=195
   HLNCHT:K7MT-2 via K7MT-6 qlty=195
   HLNMT:K7MT-6 via K7MT-6 qlty=196
   HLNRMS:K7MT-10 via K7MT-6 qlty=195

I would like to only broadcast HLNMT:K7MT-6 on RF and not the BBS/Mail, Chat
Node, and the RMS packet node. This way it would look more like a X1J4 node
with just the main alias:callsign

Can I do this with BPQ32 Switch on RF only but still keep the TCP/IP/UDP
broadcast all four ?

I tried the BPQ APRS and still have issues with the radio in Kiss mode. Time
to go skiing for the weekend and will look it over next week.

Thanks in advance and look forward to responses for RF Nodes Broadcast
question.

Bill K7MT

#9315 From: "Bill Erhardt" <k7mt@...>
Date: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:49 pm
Subject: N7YHE-5
k7mt
Send Email Send Email
 
Howdy from Bill K7MT,

I use to get Mike N7YHE-5 on UDP 10076 as I had to set up a special link.  I
see him coming into me on 10093 now so does anyone have Mikes New link ??? I
am getting a Error on my resolver to his site..

Thanks Bill

#9316 From: "Bill Erhardt" <k7mt@...>
Date: Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:03 pm
Subject: RE: BPQ RF Nodes Broadcast Question
k7mt
Send Email Send Email
 

Howdy gang,

 

I am experimenting by setting the application quality to one below my minqual on my RF radio port. So far it is working but not sure of the long term outcome.  It is broadcasting only hlnmt:K7MT-6  and I can still access BBS, RMS, CHAT via logging into K7MT-6 then the command line..

 

Cheers  Bill

 


#9317 From: "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@...>
Date: Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:27 pm
Subject: RE: BPQ RF Nodes Broadcast Question
gm8bpq
Send Email Send Email
 
Bill,
 
If you don't want the application nodes to be broadcast you can set the quality to zero. That way local users can connect direct, but people coming over the network will need to connect to the node first.
 
John
 


From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Erhardt
Sent: 18 November 2012 21:03
To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BPQ32] BPQ RF Nodes Broadcast Question

 

Howdy gang,

I am experimenting by setting the application quality to one below my minqual on my RF radio port. So far it is working but not sure of the long term outcome.  It is broadcasting only hlnmt:K7MT-6  and I can still access BBS, RMS, CHAT via logging into K7MT-6 then the command line..

Cheers  Bill


#9318 From: "Bill Erhardt" <k7mt@...>
Date: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:54 pm
Subject: RE: BPQ RF Nodes Broadcast Question
k7mt
Send Email Send Email
 

Thanks John,

 

That works. Cool.

 

Bill K7MT


#9319 From: "K.O. Higgs" <n0kfq@...>
Date: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:39 pm
Subject: Winlink CMS
khiggs74
Send Email Send Email
 
Is there a way to send packet-to-email messages in a distribution list as Bc so that it will not contain the list of addresses?

K.O. n0kfq
-- K.O. Higgs n0kfq@...

#9320 From: "N9ACQ" <n9acq@...>
Date: Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:27 pm
Subject: RE: Winlink CMS
n9acq
Send Email Send Email
 

KO

                A recent post from the WDT specified that BCC addresses are not used. Both Airmail and RMS Express have omitted there entry capability. I believe Paclink strips them if used.

73 Bill

N9ACQ


#9321 From: "K.O. Higgs" <n0kfq@...>
Date: Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:50 pm
Subject: Re: Winlink CMS
khiggs74
Send Email Send Email
 
When using Outpost to send a list of e-mail addresses (distribution list)  to a BPQMailChat bbs to be sent by BPQ RMS, the entire distribution list is included in the header to each addressee. Is there any way to hide this list.... or someway to NOT include it?

K.O. n0kfq
On 11/20/2012 5:27 PM, N9ACQ wrote:
 

KO

                A recent post from the WDT specified that BCC addresses are not used. Both Airmail and RMS Express have omitted there entry capability. I believe Paclink strips them if used.

73 Bill

N9ACQ


-- K.O. Higgs n0kfq@...

#9322 From: "N9ACQ" <n9acq@...>
Date: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:03 am
Subject: RE: Winlink CMS
n9acq
Send Email Send Email
 

KO

                Sounds like the long way around, Outpost - BPQ - BPQMail – RMS Packet. Why not Paclink or RMS Express – RMS Packet. Short answer is NO. The other solution is to send individual E-mails.

73 Bill

N9ACQ


#9323 From: "John Wiseman" <john.wiseman@...>
Date: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:35 am
Subject: RE: Winlink CMS
gm8bpq
Send Email Send Email
 
K.O,
 
At the moment if the messages are sent via RMS, all the addresses are combined into a single message, and the WL2K system doesn't support BCC. If the messages are sent via the SMTP server or the packet network they will be sent as separate messages.So if messages are sent to smtp: instead of rms:, they should be send separately.
 
Generally combining the addresses is more efficient, especially if the message has to be forwarded over a radio link to get to a CMS, but if it is a serious problem it would be possible to add an option not to combine them.
 
73, John
 
 


From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of K.O. Higgs
Sent: 20 November 2012 23:50
To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Winlink CMS

 

When using Outpost to send a list of e-mail addresses (distribution list)  to a BPQMailChat bbs to be sent by BPQ RMS, the entire distribution list is included in the header to each addressee. Is there any way to hide this list.... or someway to NOT include it?

K.O. n0kfq

On 11/20/2012 5:27 PM, N9ACQ wrote:
 

KO

                A recent post from the WDT specified that BCC addresses are not used. Both Airmail and RMS Express have omitted there entry capability. I believe Paclink strips them if used.

73 Bill

N9ACQ


-- K.O. Higgs n0kfq@...


#9324 From: "Bill Erhardt" <k7mt@...>
Date: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:18 pm
Subject: BPQ32 APRS Object and WX beacon not working
k7mt
Send Email Send Email
 
Howdy Gang Bill K7MT in Helena, Mt.

I cannot get my object to beacon out for out local club repeater. Here is my
APRSDIGI cfg file below. Any Ideas ?

Secondly, I have my Weather station using WXDisplay and the WXNOW.TXT is
correct but BPQ32 APRS will not beacon my Weather.  Copy of WXDisplay TXT
file and yes my path is correct in setup.....

Nov 21 2012 07:15
301/000g000t040r000p000P000h97b10076


My Port is three using Kantronics KPC-3 in KISS mode for BPQ32 APRS It is
running ok...


APRSDIGI

APRSCall K7MT
StatusMsg=BPQ32 IGate Helena, Mt. WLNK-1

Symbol=I        ; Icon to display for station. Default is House if omitted
Symset=/

; Specify a Dest and Path for each port you want to use for APRS. No dest
means receive only port
; Ports without an APRSPath statement will not be used by the Digi


APRSPath 2= 		 ; Receive only port
APRSPath 3=APRS,WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1  ; Dest and up to 8 digis
BeaconInterval=30 	 ; Send Beacon every 30 minute

; Define Crossport Digi.
; For each port, a list of ports to send a packet to (IS means send to
APRS-IS)
; If a Digimap isn't specified for a port, digi out on the port the packet
arrived on,
; and send to APRS-IS (if enabled)
; If you want to digi on same port, but not send to APRS-IS, Specify Digimap
n=n

;Digimap 1=1  ; Packets from 1 to 9, but not APRS-IS
;Digimap 7=7,9,IS  ; Packets from 7 to 7, 9 and APRS-IS

TraceCalls=WIDE  ; Calls for CALLN-n Processing with Trace
;FloodCalls=  ; Calls for CALLN-n Processing without Trace
DigiCalls=K7MT ; Calls for Normal (ie no SSID manipulation) Digi
			 ; For a Local "Fillin" Digi, you could include
WIDE1-1
			 ; and leave out TraceCalls and FloodCalls

; ReplaceDigiCalls ; Replace DigiCalls with APRSCall.
			 ; Omit if you want the call to be left as it is
received.

MaxTraceHops=2  ; Max value of n in CALLN-n processing.
			 ; If a packet is received with n greater than
MaxFloodHops=2  ; this, the value will be replaced BEFORE it is
decremented.

GPSPort=0  ; if specified, lat/lon will be taken from a GPS
GPSSpeed=0

; You can specify a fixed LAT/LONG instead of using GPS

LAT=4638.29N     		 ; Must be in standard APRS Format
LON=11156.22W 	 ; Must be in standard APRS Format

OBJECT PATH=APRS,WIDE1-1 PORT=3,IS INTERVAL=30
TEXT=;147.22+WS*111111z4644.89N/11219.91WrT100 +060

; IGATE Params. If specified you will gate RF packets and your beacons to
APRS-IS

ISHost=england.aprs2.net    ; APRS-IS Host Name
ISPort=14580                ; Normal port for a filtered feed
ISPasscode=XXXXX My Code is ok I just XXXXed it out
***

#9325 From: "K.O. Higgs" <n0kfq@...>
Date: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: Winlink CMS
khiggs74
Send Email Send Email
 
I'm not exactly SURE of what I saw... it seemed that one of the recipients of the RMS message may have (accidentally or maliciously ??) replied to the "list" instead of the "sender".

K.O. n0kfq
On 11/21/2012 3:35 AM, John Wiseman wrote:
 

K.O,
 
At the moment if the messages are sent via RMS, all the addresses are combined into a single message, and the WL2K system doesn't support BCC. If the messages are sent via the SMTP server or the packet network they will be sent as separate messages.So if messages are sent to smtp: instead of rms:, they should be send separately.
 
Generally combining the addresses is more efficient, especially if the message has to be forwarded over a radio link to get to a CMS, but if it is a serious problem it would be possible to add an option not to combine them.
 
73, John
 
 


From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of K.O. Higgs
Sent: 20 November 2012 23:50
To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Winlink CMS

 

When using Outpost to send a list of e-mail addresses (distribution list)  to a BPQMailChat bbs to be sent by BPQ RMS, the entire distribution list is included in the header to each addressee. Is there any way to hide this list.... or someway to NOT include it?

K.O. n0kfq

On 11/20/2012 5:27 PM, N9ACQ wrote:
 

KO

                A recent post from the WDT specified that BCC addresses are not used. Both Airmail and RMS Express have omitted there entry capability. I believe Paclink strips them if used.

73 Bill

N9ACQ


-- K.O. Higgs n0kfq@...

-- K.O. Higgs n0kfq@...

#9326 From: "Bill Erhardt" <k7mt@...>
Date: Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:20 pm
Subject: RE: BPQ32 APRS Object and WX beacon not working
k7mt
Send Email Send Email
 

Howdy Gang,

 

Well, Disregard the object question as I did have the wrong longitude and after correcting there it is.  My eyesite is not what it use to be.  I have to blame my mistake on something !! Hee Hee !!

 

I still have the WX Station question open.

 

Happy Turkey Day all,

 

Cheers Bill K7MT

http://www.k7mt.com


#9327 From: "kb5oze" <mike@...>
Date: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:29 pm
Subject: APRS iGate and AXIP linking issue
kb5oze
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello All,
     I am trying to setup an AXIP link with Don, W9JUN and I am having some
issues. I have 1 AXIP port defined that does work for APRSiGate traffic. For
some reason, we can get to a "connecting" state, but never actually connect. I
can see his traffic coming in and my traffic going out over UDP port 10093 with
no problems but we never can connect.

My question is will this type of configuratio work or do I need a second AXIP
port defined for internet linking?

Thanks,

Mike-KB5OZE

Messages 9298 - 9327 of 10807   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright ฉ 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help