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
> > >
> >
>

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

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
>

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

 

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
> >
>

> 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

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
>

> (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

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

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
>

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

 

> 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

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

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

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

 

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@...

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
***

 

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@...

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