14857Re: [tracker2] want to get messaging working - please send messages (or volunteer to receive one)
- Oct 4, 2012ok, 2 possible veriables looked at and one improved. I looked at the deviation using the calibrate command and alternating tones on a spectrum analyzer and it at least liiks reasonable, somewhere between 12-15khz with alternating high/low tones and the deviation looked about the same as the touch tones sent by the ft-2800. I also removed the rubber ducky antenna and the t2-301 that is AF6EP-1 is now attached to a Hustler G-270 Base antenna up about 20 ft. still strange that I'm not hearing n6vig in victorville. I did just get a message successfully received from NV7PC-7. Now if I could figure out how to reply.
also what SHOULD my 2 tone deviation be? more antenna seems to be a big help. Beginning to think more tx power (like a dedicated dr-135) might help a bit too.
the rest threaded below.On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:16 AM, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:Okay, great... you're good on your end... it's the network that's screwed up.
> WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path.
Have you read about gating to RF yet? That does NOT happen
> AD6EP-3 is connected to the internet only. It must rely solely on the
> network to deliver packets to and from RF.
automatically on a regular basis.
I've read this multiple times. the description of how it's supposed to work in theory looks really good. The reality you describe not quite as good. I'll take you at your word as I'm new at this.
> I have attempted to send aAgain, have you read the information presented that describes the
> message from AF6EP-3 to AF6EP-1 and after several hours the message has not
> made it, even though I can see AF6EP-1 displayed at AF6EP-3. I never have
> however seen AF6EP-3 show up on the display at af6ep-1.
process and all the bit that need to be in place and working properly
for this to happen? All of which is out of your control?
> The message was formatted as indicated here:
> http://www.aprs-is.net/email.aspx but I may have gotten the syntax
> incorrect. I'll try using the email-2 alias.
on the nuvi I selected create message. I then entered what I thought was the proper syntax to send a message to an email address. what it aparently picked up and parsed as the supposed to call was the first part of my email address. much of this is likely human error. I'm guessing that I got the syntax and message formatting wrong upon entering it into the nuvi - if only FMI allowed for a dialog to be presented on the nuvi where the tracker requested the to address and the message body seperately.
> Well I've driven around with it and gotten good tracks, I can use
> messaging to send commands to the t2-301 such as requesting the firmware
> version and get a proper response. From that I would gather that the wiring
> is at least proper and shows that the t2-301 and nuvi350 are on speaking
> terms with each other. Packet formatting and syntax could be a problem due
> to inexperience and Deviation while I hope to check it has not been altered
> from the way it was delivered from argent wherein I'd expect them to set it
Well, we're going to disagree...
> We seem to have a slight difference in terms when we claim bits to rf.
> The t2-301 and t3-301 by argent are truly bits to rf and rf to bits devices.
> the ot2m and kpc-3 for instance are not.
You do know that the DR-135 is a radio, right? Just because you open
> The former, I attach serial BITS
> to one end and an ANTENNA to the other and that antenna radiates and
> receives radio waves. The later examples given interface to bits and make
> audio that then can be used to modulate a radio and make rf and take rx
> audio and make bits. these later examples still require a radio as they are
> bits to audio, not bits to rf.
the case and stuff the TNC inside the case doesn't change the fact
that you are pushing audio out the wires from the OT device and into a
radio. It matters not where the TNC resides, nor where the radio
interface connector is presented, either inside or on the back plane
of the radio.This is true... the OT2-135 is going to be installed in a known radio.
> Part of the point I was making is that in a
> device that's bits to rf, the deviation ought be set properly once at the
> manufacture and left alone as it is a complete unit. something like the
> later examples likely require fiddling and tweaking depending what radio
> they get interfaced to and the requirements of said modulator.
However, the deviation is set via the configuration firmware. Loading
new firmware, a new configuration, or just plain user twiddling can
change the deviation adjustment. There's no guarantee that the
deviation is adjusted perfectly. One can assume that the deviation is
set properly, or remove all doubt and check it. You're getting
decoded, but we have no idea how many packets you have sent, nor the
number that have been digipeated locally on your RF network. Your
deviation may be bang on. We can't tell from here... It is one of the
fundamental settings that can make or break successful packet
operations. You need to tell us if you're good there or not. As stated
numerous times previously... you're close enough that at least some of
your packets are being decoded. We can't tell if it's all of them or
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>