489Re: [Q15X25] Re: Q15x25 / HF Packet: was HF TCP/IP
- Jan 11, 2007
> all we need is a company with enough vision to produce theirHum, that sounds strangely like the Kantronics Kam XL Dual Port, Flash upgradeable, DSP, TNC that has been available now for years. ;)
> own DSP-CPU embedded-pc (TNC) to bring us up to date
> on digital communications. achieving something on the orderCan't be too simple they've been working on Q15X25 now for over a year! :(
> of a Q15 mode that actually works is simply a matter
> of writing the software for the DSP.
> With an open hardwareplatform and development kit, amateurs couldYes unfortunately this doesn't exist as yet. Perhaps if a group started their own Open code replacement for the Kam XL firmware this would do the same thing?
> create robust communications methods that would finally amount
> to more than just typing at 31 baud to each other.
> And for AX.25 things could be accomplished in a simpleYes unfortunately I've had 2x Kam XL's sitting here now for well over a year hoping to see Q15X25 available for them. Gawd I'd even settle for 1200 baud PSK in the mean time. But I refuse to run 300baud on HF. :(
> 12 volt tnc on the order of magnitude of what
> the "flex32" folks are up to, without the hassle of carrying
> around a dozen networked Linux infected IBM pc's.
I'd say I'll end up going down the sound card trail like so many other Ham's. Purely because it's the only option currently available. :(
It's a shame really. These TNC's are a nice bit of Kit. Low power consumption, dual port, Nice NetRom etc software all integrated. I have my two sitting on serial servers so they are directly on the network here. But I'd say they are destined to be replaced by an Embedded PC box running a couple of USB Sound Card Dongles giving me 4x Radio ports at over an Amp of power drain to feed the hungry PC module. :(
Ken - VK4AKP
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: [Q15X25] Re: Q15x25 / HF Packet: was HF TCP/IP
--- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@...> wrote:
> Howdy, Ken!
> I think that in both the short and long run, we will be better off
> the embedded PC's than we will be with TNC's.
A TNC IS an embedded PC. Even my crustly old MFJ
is a self contained communications device. WHat stops it
from being flexible is FIRMware, and Analog modem.
if the firmware were soft, IE Flashable like it is on modern
tnc's, it would be indistinguishable from any "embedded" option.
> This, in light of the relative ease or difficulty involved in
> the software side of things.
> As it stands today, the only digital modes we would have to give
> order to go completely over to free software over the PC/soundcard
> platform are the TOR modes.
Assuming soundcard is the way to go. As the death of this
mailing list has shown, undocumented, unsupported, and non-
standardized soundcard communication methods like Q15 and
olivia are killing H.F. digital. Had Q15 actually been offered
with some reasonable and TESTED default settings, IE
settings that are actually capable of sending data through
a real-life radio, things would be different. there is still
hope if kantronics are still involved with it. more on that later.
> Another way of looking at this is that TOR enthusiasts are the one
> only group in amateur radio today who need to cough up big bucks
> difficult to upgrade multimode TNC in a box.
'TOR enthusiasts are slaves to an outrageous monopoly.
they are also slaves to the beaurocracy involved with
what they actually do on the air. *Cough* winlink.
> The rest of us can go "out of the box" in our thinking and operate
> useful, advanced modes for free. ( Dumpster-diver or donated old
> computer. )
It is that attitude that seperates the modern HAM
from the real world of cutting edge technology. If
adding a 5 dollar soundcard to a dumpster dived computer
and installing mixW is state of the art then our "Art" form
is in serious trouble. the only thing that has been done with mixW
and soundcard DSP's is we have an emergence of a dozen or so
different ways of accomplishing the same thing, a keyboard qso.
If dumpster equipment and donated stuff is the goal, then
soundcard is overkill, a 5 dollar RTTY tnc and a free DEC terminal
are all that is required. It will accomplish the same thing mixW has.
Many have appreciated what mixW has attempted to do for packet,
but in the real world the faulty software DCD and the strict
"gotta be within 2 hz" tuning requirements of mixW make it
impractical for serious use, IE usage other than keyboarding.
The modern 'TOR tnc is 2 chips, a communications quality
DSP, and a low voltage communications CPU. the two do not
form a communications device, the software residing in the actual
ram in the tnc (NOT firmware or ROM!) is responsible for
programming the cpu and dsp to process analog signals
in such a way that a "Mode" is achieved. the original SCS
"greed" design has not changed since pactor2 was introduced.
pactor3, rtty,facsimile,packet, amtor and audio processing
were all added by simply updating the software. These
tnc's also have a little known 600 baud packet radio mode
that has been all but ignored by the packet community
because of various "Holy wars" with the company that produced it.
These tnc's are not a mystery, the motorola DSP and CPU
are off the shelf parts. SCS is making a killing by protecting
thier circuit board design and the software that runs the thing.
all we need is a company with enough vision to produce thier
own DSP-CPU embedded-pc (TNC) to bring us up to date
on digital communications. achieving something on the order
of a Q15 mode that actually works is simply a matter
of writing the software for the DSP. With an open hardware
platform and development kit, amateurs could create
robust communications methods that would finally amount
to more than just typing at 31 baud to each other.
And for AX.25 things could be accomplished in a simple
12 volt tnc on the order of magnitude of what
the "flex32" folks are up to, without the hassle of carrying
around a dozen networked Linux infected IBM pc's.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>