Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Kantronics, Kam XL

Expand Messages
  • Ken
    The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that it would be possible! The next step is to try and get the author to contact Kantronics and give
    Message 1 of 15 , May 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that it
      would be possible! The next step is to try and get the author to
      contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.

      They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?

      Please everyone, help to make this happen!

      THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very popular)
      would become available. Q15X25 would become most popular and common
      place on HF!

      Regards,
      Ken.
      .-.-.

      --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador <co2ja@y...> wrote:
      > The KAM would not be able....The older KAMs I know
      > have only FSK modems, that is, one carrier, and one
      > frequency or another. Q15X25 and many other modes are
      > called soundcardmodes because they require multiple
      > carriers carrying the data. A soundcard, or a DSP box
      > is required for those modes.
      >
      > 73 de Jose, CO2JA
      >
      > --- Ken Page <vk4akp@y...> wrote:
      > > G'day!
      > >
      > > Q15X25 looks very good!. Would the Kam XL be capable
      > > of running this mode
      > > (Hardware wise)?
      > >
      > > If so could I suggest that if enough people contact
      > > them they may update
      > > their firmware to include it?
      > >
      > > The Kam XL is an excellent stand alone gateway
      > > device, perfect for bridging
      > > HF<>VHF etc. It would be great to see it get past
      > > what I feel is it's
      > > biggest limitation 300Baud only HF packet. I believe
      > > the unit should at the
      > > very least support 1200 baud PSK HF packet as well.
      > >
      > > Also...
      > >
      > > I'm really interested in setting up a 4 port
      > > frequency agile HF/VHF Gateway.
      > >
      > > So far I've tried various frequencies (Zero
      > > connects) :( and also emailed
      > > and packet msg'd many people with little to no
      > > response.
      > >
      > > I have the following equipment to set up.
      > > 2x Kam XL's, FT-890AT's, FT-212RH's.
      > > Lantronics LRS32F 32 port Serial Server.
      > > P2-333 PC, Wlan gear, etc, etc.
      > >
      > > Any help appreciated!
      > >
      > >
      > > Regards,
      > >
      > > Ken Page. [VK4AKP]
      > > P.O.Box 3061, West Ipswich 4305. Australia.
      > > Email: vk4akp@h...
      > > Email2: vk4akp@y...
      > >
      > > Instant Message Services
      > > ICQ# 57282091
      > > MSN# vk4akp@h...
      > > Yahoo Messenger# VK4AKP
      > > AOL# 136334164
      > >
      > > PH: 07-3281-9418 (Optus) Answering machine 24/7.
      > > MOB: 0411-260-740 (Optus) Weekends & WeekNights.
      > >
      > > Packet: vk4akp@vk4wip
      > > Email->Packet Gateway: vk4akp@w...
      > > WIA Examiner # AE 879.
      > > UHF CB Base Selcall#: 13493, Mobile Selcall# 12476,
      > > Scanning Channels
      > > 1-8&10.
      > > Monitoring VX 146.725 -Neg, VK4RKP (Mt Crosby).
      > > EchoLink Node# 7878
      > > VK4RKP ATV 444.25Mhz, (Below SBS on your TV tuner).
      > > .-.-.
    • Paul David Gregg, KD4IDR
      ... Hey Ken, You may want to cc this to the Kantronics board as well. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kantronics/ paul
      Message 2 of 15 , May 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <vk4akp@y...> wrote:
        > The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that it
        > would be possible! The next step is to try and get the author to
        > contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.
        >
        > They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?
        >
        > Please everyone, help to make this happen!
        >
        > THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very popular)
        > would become available. Q15X25 would become most popular and common
        > place on HF!
        >
        > Regards,
        > Ken.
        > .-.-.
        >

        Hey Ken,

        You may want to cc this to the Kantronics board as well.

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kantronics/

        paul
      • Scott Thile (K4SET)
        Hello all, This mode never really worked all that well, and from what I can tell has more of less died. We only see occasional posts here. Maybe one of two a
        Message 3 of 15 , May 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello all,

          This mode never really worked all that well, and from what I can tell has
          more of less died. We only see occasional posts here. Maybe one of two a
          month asking what's up....

          Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I doubt it will be worth developing on the
          XL as it is simply not viable in its current state of development on any
          platform.

          Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the developers in it
          have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all there is at
          this point.

          73 and 75, Scott, K4SET

          >-----Original Message-----
          >From: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q15X25@yahoogroups.com]
          >On Behalf Of Ken
          >Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:56 AM
          >To: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [Q15X25] Re: Kantronics, Kam XL
          >
          >The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that
          >it would be possible! The next step is to try and get the
          >author to contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.
          >
          >They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?
          >
          >Please everyone, help to make this happen!
          >
          >THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very
          >popular) would become available. Q15X25 would become most
          >popular and common place on HF!
          >
          >Regards,
          >Ken.
          >.-.-.
          >
        • Tomi Manninen
          ... This comment reminded me of an old issue with my Q15X25 code that is used in MixW, so I recently asked Denis to update the code with a small fix. This fix
          Message 4 of 15 , May 27, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 04:48, Scott Thile (K4SET) wrote:

            > Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the developers in it
            > have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all there is at
            > this point.

            This comment reminded me of an old issue with my Q15X25 code that is
            used in MixW, so I recently asked Denis to update the code with a
            small fix. This fix disables corrections to the symbol sync during
            data phase, which I think might have been doing more harm than good...

            So it would be really nice if people who have tried this mode with
            MixW before would try it again with the updated DLL and let me know
            if there is any difference. The updated DLL is in the donwloads section
            of the MixW site (http://mixw.net/files/q15x25dll6.zip).

            Also, while I'm at it, I would like to point out that Q15X25 was
            designed to be a fairly fast mode requiring good SNR. My
            implementation of the modem has a "bps" control that actually changes
            the internal sample rate and scales the whole modem with it. While
            you can (and probably should) experiment with the "bps" control,
            the modem really was designed to work with fairly high rates. Pawel's
            original modem only supported 2500bps or 3000bps. My experiments
            have always been with bps=2500, fec=3, interleave=8. With these, I've
            had pretty good success. I guess what I'm trying to say is that
            trying to use the modem with slow "bps" is probably not going to
            work very well. There are better modems for that.

            --
            Tomi Manninen / OH2BNS / KP20JF74
          • Ken
            Tomi, Can you please supply the basic spec s for this mode? The guy at Kantronics is ready to go with trying to implement this mode in the Kam XL, but I have
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 7, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Tomi,

              Can you please supply the basic spec's for this mode? The guy at
              Kantronics is ready to go with trying to implement this mode in the
              Kam XL, but I have been unable to find on the net, or via emailing
              people the basic specs for Q15x25. It would be a terrible shame to
              miss this opportunity!

              73 de Ken.
              vk4akp@...
              .-.-.

              From the Kantronics email.

              ---
              I can probably get my boss to agree to publish the modules from the
              KAMxl
              pertaining specifically to the Q15X25 and MT63. But rather than just
              work
              from other people's code, I would also like to be able to work from a
              real
              specification which would not be based on someone's code. For
              example, what
              are the filter characteristics, how does the FEC work, how do the
              bits get
              parsed to the different frequencies, etc. In time, I can probably
              figure
              this stuff out from the published code, but I don't have a lot of
              time to
              devote to this. We did the PSK31 based only on the spec, not on
              someone
              elses code. The firmware in the KAMxl is all HC12 and ADSP21xx
              assembly
              language, and the ADSP2185 is running two modems (HF/VHF)
              simultaneously.

              Mike
              ---


              --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, Tomi Manninen <oh2bns@s...> wrote:
              > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 04:48, Scott Thile (K4SET) wrote:
              >
              > > Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the
              developers in it
              > > have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all
              there is at
              > > this point.
              >
              > This comment reminded me of an old issue with my Q15X25 code that is
              > used in MixW, so I recently asked Denis to update the code with a
              > small fix. This fix disables corrections to the symbol sync during
              > data phase, which I think might have been doing more harm than
              good...
              >
              > So it would be really nice if people who have tried this mode with
              > MixW before would try it again with the updated DLL and let me know
              > if there is any difference. The updated DLL is in the donwloads
              section
              > of the MixW site (http://mixw.net/files/q15x25dll6.zip).
              >
              > Also, while I'm at it, I would like to point out that Q15X25 was
              > designed to be a fairly fast mode requiring good SNR. My
              > implementation of the modem has a "bps" control that actually
              changes
              > the internal sample rate and scales the whole modem with it. While
              > you can (and probably should) experiment with the "bps" control,
              > the modem really was designed to work with fairly high rates.
              Pawel's
              > original modem only supported 2500bps or 3000bps. My experiments
              > have always been with bps=2500, fec=3, interleave=8. With these,
              I've
              > had pretty good success. I guess what I'm trying to say is that
              > trying to use the modem with slow "bps" is probably not going to
              > work very well. There are better modems for that.
              >
              > --
              > Tomi Manninen / OH2BNS / KP20JF74
            • Ken
              Hi guys, sorry it s been a while since I checked this group. Here s a bit of an update. From what I have heard the mode works fine. The only reason it doesn t
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi guys, sorry it's been a while since I checked this group.

                Here's a bit of an update.

                From what I have heard the mode works fine. The only reason it doesn't
                have better support (YET) is that there are no simple hardware
                platforms available for it. This is why I was hoping to see Kantronics
                include the mode in their Kam XL. After all the XL bosts DSP
                technology and is the only TNC I know of currently on the market
                suitable.

                It is disapointing to say the least that years later nothing has been
                done to offer more modern DSP modes in this TNC, after all it is it's
                main claim to fame. Flash upgradable with the latest modes etc etc.

                Currently I receive no replies from Kantronics when emailing them
                about this. It has been over a year now since they first started
                development on the mode for their TNC.

                My current info from the grape vine is that they don't have a lot of
                interest in supporting the Amateur market for their product as money
                is more forthcomming from the commercial sector.

                This in it's self is very sad and bad news for us.

                So what does the future hold?

                I myself am currently looking at using USB sound card dongles chained
                off a dedicated PC. Power usage is of course going to be horrific and
                exactly the path I didn't want to go down as it will exclude such
                setups on hilltops etc where power is usually provided by solar
                panels. But what can you do. A TNC solution at present is going no where.

                Long term, there is no reason why a developers group couldn't look at
                a alternative open source image for the Kam XL. While Kantronics do
                not seem interested in making their code open source. I can't see any
                reason why if a group started from scratch on their own version an
                alternative could be developed that supports not only Q15X25 packet
                but all the other packet modes and speeds currently so sadly missing
                from the XL. This sort of thing has been done for everything from the
                TinyTrack to DVD recorders. Where the original designers have let the
                consumer down, people have picked up the torch and turned a great yet
                lacking device into a killer product by getting together with other
                like minded users and writing their own firmware.

                So if anyone is interested in this and has programming ability. Please
                contact me vk4akp@... and perhaps we can start a developers
                group to do just this.

                In the mean time all my Kam XL's will go back into moth balls and I
                guess I will start to go down the USB sound card trail.

                Keep in mind that until a newer mode is invented, other then 1200 baud
                PSK, Q15X25 is currently the only other option available to anyone
                wanting to run packet on HF at a higher baudrate then the traditional
                300 Baud. I have also heard of people running G3RUH at 4800 baud on
                21Mhz. But once again, I don't know of any current TNC technology
                available to do this.

                As I've pointed out to Kantronics, what they really need is for the
                packet mode to be an independant setting to the baud rate. That way
                the device is far more flexable for things like HF and Satelite work.
                Once again, I won't hold my breath.

                Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear who's QRV in this mode and on what
                frequencies etc currently.

                Regards,
                Ken - VK4AKP
                .-.-.

                --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Thile \(K4SET\)" <k4set@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hello all,
                >
                > This mode never really worked all that well, and from what I can
                tell has
                > more of less died. We only see occasional posts here. Maybe one of two a
                > month asking what's up....
                >
                > Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I doubt it will be worth developing
                on the
                > XL as it is simply not viable in its current state of development on any
                > platform.
                >
                > Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the developers
                in it
                > have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all
                there is at
                > this point.
                >
                > 73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
                >
                > >-----Original Message-----
                > >From: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q15X25@yahoogroups.com]
                > >On Behalf Of Ken
                > >Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:56 AM
                > >To: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com
                > >Subject: [Q15X25] Re: Kantronics, Kam XL
                > >
                > >The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that
                > >it would be possible! The next step is to try and get the
                > >author to contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.
                > >
                > >They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?
                > >
                > >Please everyone, help to make this happen!
                > >
                > >THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very
                > >popular) would become available. Q15X25 would become most
                > >popular and common place on HF!
                > >
                > >Regards,
                > >Ken.
                > >.-.-.
                > >
                >
              • Paul David Gregg, KD4IDR
                ... where. ... two a ... on any ... Ken, You should post this to the kantronics group. We have kantronics tech support in there now. Maybe you can get them to
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 12, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <vk4akp@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi guys, sorry it's been a while since I checked this group.
                  >
                  > Here's a bit of an update.
                  >
                  > From what I have heard the mode works fine. The only reason it doesn't
                  > have better support (YET) is that there are no simple hardware
                  > platforms available for it. This is why I was hoping to see Kantronics
                  > include the mode in their Kam XL. After all the XL bosts DSP
                  > technology and is the only TNC I know of currently on the market
                  > suitable.
                  >
                  > It is disapointing to say the least that years later nothing has been
                  > done to offer more modern DSP modes in this TNC, after all it is it's
                  > main claim to fame. Flash upgradable with the latest modes etc etc.
                  >
                  > Currently I receive no replies from Kantronics when emailing them
                  > about this. It has been over a year now since they first started
                  > development on the mode for their TNC.
                  >
                  > My current info from the grape vine is that they don't have a lot of
                  > interest in supporting the Amateur market for their product as money
                  > is more forthcomming from the commercial sector.
                  >
                  > This in it's self is very sad and bad news for us.
                  >
                  > So what does the future hold?
                  >
                  > I myself am currently looking at using USB sound card dongles chained
                  > off a dedicated PC. Power usage is of course going to be horrific and
                  > exactly the path I didn't want to go down as it will exclude such
                  > setups on hilltops etc where power is usually provided by solar
                  > panels. But what can you do. A TNC solution at present is going no
                  where.
                  >
                  > Long term, there is no reason why a developers group couldn't look at
                  > a alternative open source image for the Kam XL. While Kantronics do
                  > not seem interested in making their code open source. I can't see any
                  > reason why if a group started from scratch on their own version an
                  > alternative could be developed that supports not only Q15X25 packet
                  > but all the other packet modes and speeds currently so sadly missing
                  > from the XL. This sort of thing has been done for everything from the
                  > TinyTrack to DVD recorders. Where the original designers have let the
                  > consumer down, people have picked up the torch and turned a great yet
                  > lacking device into a killer product by getting together with other
                  > like minded users and writing their own firmware.
                  >
                  > So if anyone is interested in this and has programming ability. Please
                  > contact me vk4akp@... and perhaps we can start a developers
                  > group to do just this.
                  >
                  > In the mean time all my Kam XL's will go back into moth balls and I
                  > guess I will start to go down the USB sound card trail.
                  >
                  > Keep in mind that until a newer mode is invented, other then 1200 baud
                  > PSK, Q15X25 is currently the only other option available to anyone
                  > wanting to run packet on HF at a higher baudrate then the traditional
                  > 300 Baud. I have also heard of people running G3RUH at 4800 baud on
                  > 21Mhz. But once again, I don't know of any current TNC technology
                  > available to do this.
                  >
                  > As I've pointed out to Kantronics, what they really need is for the
                  > packet mode to be an independant setting to the baud rate. That way
                  > the device is far more flexable for things like HF and Satelite work.
                  > Once again, I won't hold my breath.
                  >
                  > Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear who's QRV in this mode and on what
                  > frequencies etc currently.
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  > Ken - VK4AKP
                  > .-.-.
                  >
                  > --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Thile \(K4SET\)" <k4set@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hello all,
                  > >
                  > > This mode never really worked all that well, and from what I can
                  > tell has
                  > > more of less died. We only see occasional posts here. Maybe one of
                  two a
                  > > month asking what's up....
                  > >
                  > > Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I doubt it will be worth developing
                  > on the
                  > > XL as it is simply not viable in its current state of development
                  on any
                  > > platform.
                  > >
                  > > Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the developers
                  > in it
                  > > have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all
                  > there is at
                  > > this point.
                  > >
                  > > 73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
                  > >
                  > > >-----Original Message-----
                  > > >From: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q15X25@yahoogroups.com]
                  > > >On Behalf Of Ken
                  > > >Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:56 AM
                  > > >To: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com
                  > > >Subject: [Q15X25] Re: Kantronics, Kam XL
                  > > >
                  > > >The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that
                  > > >it would be possible! The next step is to try and get the
                  > > >author to contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.
                  > > >
                  > > >They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?
                  > > >
                  > > >Please everyone, help to make this happen!
                  > > >
                  > > >THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very
                  > > >popular) would become available. Q15X25 would become most
                  > > >popular and common place on HF!
                  > > >
                  > > >Regards,
                  > > >Ken.
                  > > >.-.-.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >


                  Ken,

                  You should post this to the kantronics group. We have kantronics tech
                  support in there now. Maybe you can get them to help.

                  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kantronics/message/282

                  paul
                • kd4e
                  ... There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary formats -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition. Many manufacturers have tried the
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 12, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Jose A. Amador wrote:
                    > Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate
                    > modems formats?

                    There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary
                    formats -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition.

                    Many manufacturers have tried the proprietary mode
                    idea and all have failed. Kantronics among them,
                    more recently joined by Alinco, Kenwood, and Icom's
                    competing VHF/UHF digital and linking schemes.

                    Ham radio needs a non-proprietary foundation same
                    as in the Internet realm, e.g. IEEE 802.11 and others.

                    We need a robust format that is 100% non-proprietary:

                    1. All of the code is published and anyone is
                    allowed to base apps on it.

                    2. No exclusive source hardware requirement.

                    3. Cross-OS platform compatible -- Apple, Linux, and MS.

                    Only then will we have something likely to earn the
                    support of the majority of digital mode Ham ops and
                    only then can we move into the digital mode future
                    working together vs divided and making inefficient
                    use of fragmented development resources.


                    --

                    Thanks! & 73,
                    doc, KD4E
                    ... somewhere in FL
                    URL: bibleseven (dot) com
                  • Jose A. Amador
                    Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate modems formats? Those are very robust modem formats, far better than the traditional Bell 103 modems
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 12, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate modems formats?

                      Those are very robust modem formats, far better than the traditional
                      Bell 103 modems
                      for HF, and might prove to be better than Q15X25 in poor conditions,
                      specially on the
                      lower bands. Q15X25 is faster, but requires a clean, stable channel, or
                      it won't work.

                      While PAX is rather slow, in comparison, it really fights to get the
                      data thru when others
                      fail and desist. It is better to have a slow working link than none at
                      all. PAX requires
                      about the same bandwidth as a Bell 103 modem. PAX2 is wider.

                      Jose, CO2JA


                      Paul David Gregg, KD4IDR wrote:

                      >--- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <vk4akp@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >>Hi guys, sorry it's been a while since I checked this group.
                      >>
                      >>Here's a bit of an update.
                      >>
                      >>From what I have heard the mode works fine. The only reason it doesn't
                      >>have better support (YET) is that there are no simple hardware
                      >>platforms available for it. This is why I was hoping to see Kantronics
                      >> include the mode in their Kam XL. After all the XL bosts DSP
                      >>technology and is the only TNC I know of currently on the market
                      >>suitable.
                      >>
                      >>It is disapointing to say the least that years later nothing has been
                      >>done to offer more modern DSP modes in this TNC, after all it is it's
                      >>main claim to fame. Flash upgradable with the latest modes etc etc.
                      >>
                      >>Currently I receive no replies from Kantronics when emailing them
                      >>about this. It has been over a year now since they first started
                      >>development on the mode for their TNC.
                      >>
                      >>My current info from the grape vine is that they don't have a lot of
                      >>interest in supporting the Amateur market for their product as money
                      >>is more forthcomming from the commercial sector.
                      >>
                      >>This in it's self is very sad and bad news for us.
                      >>
                      >>So what does the future hold?
                      >>
                      >>I myself am currently looking at using USB sound card dongles chained
                      >>off a dedicated PC. Power usage is of course going to be horrific and
                      >>exactly the path I didn't want to go down as it will exclude such
                      >>setups on hilltops etc where power is usually provided by solar
                      >>panels. But what can you do. A TNC solution at present is going no
                      >>
                      >>
                      >where.
                      >
                      >
                      >>Long term, there is no reason why a developers group couldn't look at
                      >>a alternative open source image for the Kam XL. While Kantronics do
                      >>not seem interested in making their code open source. I can't see any
                      >>reason why if a group started from scratch on their own version an
                      >>alternative could be developed that supports not only Q15X25 packet
                      >>but all the other packet modes and speeds currently so sadly missing
                      >>from the XL. This sort of thing has been done for everything from the
                      >>TinyTrack to DVD recorders. Where the original designers have let the
                      >>consumer down, people have picked up the torch and turned a great yet
                      >>lacking device into a killer product by getting together with other
                      >>like minded users and writing their own firmware.
                      >>
                      >>So if anyone is interested in this and has programming ability. Please
                      >>contact me vk4akp@... and perhaps we can start a developers
                      >>group to do just this.
                      >>
                      >>In the mean time all my Kam XL's will go back into moth balls and I
                      >>guess I will start to go down the USB sound card trail.
                      >>
                      >>Keep in mind that until a newer mode is invented, other then 1200 baud
                      >>PSK, Q15X25 is currently the only other option available to anyone
                      >>wanting to run packet on HF at a higher baudrate then the traditional
                      >>300 Baud. I have also heard of people running G3RUH at 4800 baud on
                      >>21Mhz. But once again, I don't know of any current TNC technology
                      >>available to do this.
                      >>
                      >>As I've pointed out to Kantronics, what they really need is for the
                      >>packet mode to be an independant setting to the baud rate. That way
                      >>the device is far more flexable for things like HF and Satelite work.
                      >>Once again, I won't hold my breath.
                      >>
                      >>Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear who's QRV in this mode and on what
                      >>frequencies etc currently.
                      >>
                      >>Regards,
                      >>Ken - VK4AKP
                      >>.-.-.
                      >>
                      >>--- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Thile \(K4SET\)" <k4set@> wrote:
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>Hello all,
                      >>>
                      >>>This mode never really worked all that well, and from what I can
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>tell has
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>more of less died. We only see occasional posts here. Maybe one of
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >two a
                      >
                      >
                      >>>month asking what's up....
                      >>>
                      >>>Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I doubt it will be worth developing
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>on the
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>XL as it is simply not viable in its current state of development
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >on any
                      >
                      >
                      >>>platform.
                      >>>
                      >>>Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the developers
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>in it
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>there is at
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>this point.
                      >>>
                      >>>73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>>-----Original Message-----
                      >>>>From: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q15X25@yahoogroups.com]
                      >>>>On Behalf Of Ken
                      >>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:56 AM
                      >>>>To: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com
                      >>>>Subject: [Q15X25] Re: Kantronics, Kam XL
                      >>>>
                      >>>>The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that
                      >>>>it would be possible! The next step is to try and get the
                      >>>>author to contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?
                      >>>>
                      >>>>Please everyone, help to make this happen!
                      >>>>
                      >>>>THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very
                      >>>>popular) would become available. Q15X25 would become most
                      >>>>popular and common place on HF!
                      >>>>
                      >>>>Regards,
                      >>>>Ken.
                      >>>>.-.-.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >
                      >
                      >Ken,
                      >
                      > You should post this to the kantronics group. We have kantronics tech
                      >support in there now. Maybe you can get them to help.
                      >
                      >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kantronics/message/282
                      >
                      >paul
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________

                      XIII Convención Científica de Ingeniería y Arquitectura
                      28/noviembre al 1/diciembre de 2006
                      Cujae, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
                      http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/convencion
                    • Ken
                      Hi Paul, I have spoken to the tech guy direct on a number of occasions. Didn t help I m afraid. Regards, Ken .-.-.
                      Message 10 of 15 , Oct 12, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Paul,

                        I have spoken to the tech guy direct on a number of occasions. Didn't
                        help I'm afraid.

                        Regards,
                        Ken
                        .-.-.



                        > Ken,
                        >
                        > You should post this to the kantronics group. We have kantronics tech
                        > support in there now. Maybe you can get them to help.
                        >
                        > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kantronics/message/282
                        >
                        > paul
                        >
                      • Ken
                        Well some bad news today after so long a effort of trying to get this damn mode into current technology like the Kam XL. A response from Tomi to my request to
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Well some bad news today after so long a effort of trying to get this
                          damn mode into current technology like the Kam XL.

                          A response from Tomi to my request to have the mode properly
                          documented so developers like Kantronics could include it in their TNC
                          range.

                          ---
                          > Do you have a more up to date Q15X25 technical description available
                          please? (Last release received 2005-07-20).

                          Sorry to say but no. I have mosty forgotten the whole modem as
                          I haven't used it and I don't think anyone else does either...
                          At least I haven't heard from anyone.

                          Unless I get a sudden inspiration to document stuff, I probably
                          won't update it any more.
                          ---

                          So it seems we are at a dead end again. :( Most disapointing. I have
                          been chasing this since 2005! :(

                          OK So whats next? We still need a newer faster mode for HF that is
                          ax25 / packet compatable for our existing networks.

                          Any idea's? The big issue I see is having something that we can get
                          the TNC manufacturers to include. A mode that is within the capability
                          of some of the latest hardware like the Kam XL's etc.

                          My only other idea is to abandon triditional TNC technology and go
                          down the path of using Embedded PC boards with USB sound card dongles
                          and linux. While this would offer more mode flexability and access to
                          a better supported software base it's main limitations are these
                          devices are generally power hungry which is bad news for field apps
                          like solar sites and digi's etc.

                          Any idea's anyone?


                          ~Ken - VK4AKP
                          .-.-.




                          --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <kd4e@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Jose A. Amador wrote:
                          > > Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate
                          > > modems formats?
                          >
                          > There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary
                          > formats -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition.
                          >
                          > Many manufacturers have tried the proprietary mode
                          > idea and all have failed. Kantronics among them,
                          > more recently joined by Alinco, Kenwood, and Icom's
                          > competing VHF/UHF digital and linking schemes.
                          >
                          > Ham radio needs a non-proprietary foundation same
                          > as in the Internet realm, e.g. IEEE 802.11 and others.
                          >
                          > We need a robust format that is 100% non-proprietary:
                          >
                          > 1. All of the code is published and anyone is
                          > allowed to base apps on it.
                          >
                          > 2. No exclusive source hardware requirement.
                          >
                          > 3. Cross-OS platform compatible -- Apple, Linux, and MS.
                          >
                          > Only then will we have something likely to earn the
                          > support of the majority of digital mode Ham ops and
                          > only then can we move into the digital mode future
                          > working together vs divided and making inefficient
                          > use of fragmented development resources.
                          >
                          >
                          > --
                          >
                          > Thanks! & 73,
                          > doc, KD4E
                          > ... somewhere in FL
                          > URL: bibleseven (dot) com
                          >
                        • Charles Brabham
                          ... Q15x25 has demonstrated that AX25 need not be packet. - In fact there are several digital modes that could be operated over AX25 just as Tomi has done with
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 9, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <vk4akp@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > OK So whats next? We still need a newer faster mode for HF that is
                            > ax25 / packet compatable for our existing networks.

                            Q15x25 has demonstrated that AX25 need not be packet. - In fact there
                            are several digital modes that could be operated over AX25 just as
                            Tomi has done with multiple PSK streams.

                            The primary holdup is that most of the programmers who are capable of
                            this kind of work have been taught to look down on the concept of an
                            independent amateur radio network in the first place. They have
                            specifically been encouraged to look down on AX25, despite the
                            obvious irony that not a single one of them can point to anything
                            else that does the same thing better.

                            Fortunately this is true in the great majority of cases, but not all
                            of them.

                            There is a newer, slower mode that strangely enough has great
                            potential to speed things up on HF. Have you looked at HF multicast?
                            HF multicast SYSOPs are currently needed, if you find that you are
                            interested in providing this service and would like to participate.

                            There is a special section on HF Multicast at USPacket. Skim over the
                            articles there, if you get a chance.

                            http://www.uspacket.org

                            Charles, N5PVL
                          • Jose A. Amador
                            The efforts I am seeing might indicate that we are attempting to bite a bit too large.... On one side, the reports that Q15X25 works better at 2300 baud, and
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 9, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The efforts I am seeing might indicate that we are attempting to bite a
                              bit too large....

                              On one side, the reports that Q15X25 works better at 2300 baud, and that
                              the 100 baud packet mode incorporated into MultiPSK works when 300 baud
                              does not looks like a hint to go at lower speeds and bandwidths, and at
                              least match the expected thruput of 300 baud packet, reliably. It is a
                              pity that only some AEA TNC's could go below 300 baud, and that it did
                              not become popular. Greed or carelessness? Cannot tell, but the results
                              are there for all to see.

                              I have been a witness that Pactor II and III are better alternatives
                              than 300 (and HF 1200 baud) packet, with some 10 times the thruput.

                              SCS has achieved to better protect the data in transit, starting with
                              their old "memory ARQ", and using adaptative techniques, like switching
                              in more complex constellations (Pactor II with 2 carriers) or more
                              carriers with no more complex constellations than DQPSK, starting with
                              as few as 2 carriers, and going up to as many as 16, depending on the
                              channel quality. It is complex and has a price, but works quite well.

                              Should a faithful copy be made? Guess not, including the avoidance of
                              patent infringements, but there are salient points in display for all to
                              see. Adaptativity and data protection seem to be the key.

                              The behavior with Q15X25 seem to follow this pattern, using slower
                              speeds if it is more reliable, and avoiding the filters passband edges.

                              In a multicarrier environment, it is wise to confine them in the
                              flattest propagation delay portion of the passband. The edges do not
                              have this desirable property.

                              It is important to go as fast as POSSIBLE to catch band openings and
                              move traffic, but with an eye in EFFICIENCY, neither that fast that the
                              water spills out of the bucket, neither that slow that it takes an
                              eternity to fill it up. With 300 baud packet, most of the water was
                              spilled outside (endless retries....remember?)....

                              It is better (for moving BBS traffic) to have one drop falling INTO the
                              bucket for a day than a large hose with large pressure bouncing the
                              water on the bottom of the bucket spilling it all over the place for a
                              short while (wasting bandwidth). The good choice seems to be an average
                              of those extreme conditions. Transmitting data, and not live voice, you
                              are not forced to some minimum transmission speed. Just use the one that
                              DELIVERS the most.

                              The HF channel is a variable one. In good years we can move to higher
                              frequencies, as close to the MUF multipath diminishes or dissapears, but
                              regional nets with the required path geometries do not enjoy these
                              benefits.

                              And yes, the trend in the times we are living is using PC's and sound
                              cards, as it is versatile and somehow, affordable. Making it open
                              software may allow some worthwhile contributions and a shorter
                              development time.

                              I have seen one similar solution: Using smaller motherboards with less
                              power hungry processors (VIA, etc) allows the development to be done in
                              the PC and ported to a smaller and less power hungry box, powered from a
                              DC-DC converter. It seems to be the fashion nowadays. There are non ham
                              networks in South America (and possibly Africa) being built that way.

                              The AEA hardware solution saw the light in 1988....almost 20 years ago.
                              And at the pace the development goes nowadays, and the attitudes we are
                              seeing (life is hard and short, I am not criticizing anyone), it looks
                              that those boxes are history.

                              Once again, pactor channel access solutions seem to show the way. You
                              can go with a single speed for all links in a shared channel, like in
                              wire (X.25 was born in that environment) on VHF/UHF, but on HF all paths
                              in a network won't show the same quality, so you cannot use the single
                              speed shared channel efficiently for all, neither a mix of speeds on a
                              shared channel seems to be a viable solution so far. So peer to peer
                              links at the highest EFFICIENT speed (maximizing ALLOWABLE thruput, not
                              HOPING the highest theoretical one to be AVAILABLE always) seem to be
                              the solution. It is the way the HF, ham side of the link works in
                              Winlink 2000.

                              Could a viable mimic of that be achieved?


                              Jose, CO2JA


                              PS: Daydreaming....perhaps...even a mixture of those ideas with ALE and
                              an SDR....

                              Second...could we be able to live with variable bandwidth, adaptive
                              digital transmissions in our ham bamds without quarreling among us?

                              Sorry for the crossposting, but to me, it seems interesting for both groups.

                              Ken wrote:
                              > Well some bad news today after so long a effort of trying to get this
                              > damn mode into current technology like the Kam XL.
                              >
                              > A response from Tomi to my request to have the mode properly
                              > documented so developers like Kantronics could include it in their
                              > TNC range.
                              >
                              > ---
                              >> Do you have a more up to date Q15X25 technical description
                              >> available
                              > please? (Last release received 2005-07-20).
                              >
                              > Sorry to say but no. I have mosty forgotten the whole modem as I
                              > haven't used it and I don't think anyone else does either... At least
                              > I haven't heard from anyone.
                              >
                              > Unless I get a sudden inspiration to document stuff, I probably won't
                              > update it any more. ---
                              >
                              > So it seems we are at a dead end again. :( Most disapointing. I have
                              > been chasing this since 2005! :(
                              >
                              > OK So whats next? We still need a newer faster mode for HF that is
                              > ax25 / packet compatable for our existing networks.
                              >
                              > Any idea's? The big issue I see is having something that we can get
                              > the TNC manufacturers to include. A mode that is within the
                              > capability of some of the latest hardware like the Kam XL's etc.
                              >
                              > My only other idea is to abandon triditional TNC technology and go
                              > down the path of using Embedded PC boards with USB sound card dongles
                              > and linux. While this would offer more mode flexability and access
                              > to a better supported software base it's main limitations are these
                              > devices are generally power hungry which is bad news for field apps
                              > like solar sites and digi's etc.
                              >
                              > Any idea's anyone?
                              >
                              > ~Ken - VK4AKP .-.-.
                              >
                              > --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q15X25%40yahoogroups.com>, kd4e
                              > <kd4e@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >>> Jose A. Amador wrote: Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered
                              >>> as candidate modems formats?
                              >>
                              >> There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary formats
                              >> -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition.
                              >>
                              >> Many manufacturers have tried the proprietary mode idea and all
                              >> have failed. Kantronics among them, more recently joined by Alinco,
                              >> Kenwood, and Icom's competing VHF/UHF digital and linking schemes.
                              >>
                              >> Ham radio needs a non-proprietary foundation same as in the
                              >> Internet realm, e.g. IEEE 802.11 and others.
                              >>
                              >> We need a robust format that is 100% non-proprietary:
                              >>
                              >> 1. All of the code is published and anyone is allowed to base apps
                              >> on it.
                              >>
                              >> 2. No exclusive source hardware requirement.
                              >>
                              >> 3. Cross-OS platform compatible -- Apple, Linux, and MS.
                              >>
                              >> Only then will we have something likely to earn the support of the
                              >> majority of digital mode Ham ops and only then can we move into the
                              >> digital mode future working together vs divided and making
                              >> inefficient use of fragmented development resources.
                              >> --
                              >>
                              >> Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot)
                              >> com
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.