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

want to get messaging working - please send messages (or volunteer to receive one)

Expand Messages
  • Eric Fort
    I want to get messaging working from my nuvi 350/t2-301 - callsign af6ep-1. please send a message via aprs and or volunteer to receive one) thanks, Af6ep Eric
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I want to get messaging working from my nuvi 350/t2-301 - callsign af6ep-1.  please send a message via aprs and or volunteer to receive one) 

      thanks,

      Af6ep

      Eric
    • Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
      You might want to get closer to an IGate and make sure it is bi-directional before you start testing other unknowns. From my view of things, you ve only been
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        You might want to get closer to an IGate and make sure it is bi-directional before you start testing other unknowns.  From my view of things, you've only been heard by WI6RE (73 miles N) and BOXSPG (34 miles S) and those both heard (and Gated) a single packet.

        http://aprs.fi/?c=raw&call=AF6EP-1&limit=5&view=hex

        Either WI6RE is removing or BOXSPG is appending a trailing space to your packet messing up the APRS-IS dupe filter.

        There are IGates closer to you, namely N6VIG (9.5m NE), KI6WZX-B (29m SE), N6EX-3 and KG6JOA (28-29m SSW).  I'm wondering why those IGates didn't hear you, so I'd suggest checking your transmit deviation to improve packet reception by local IGates before trying to get messaging working.  (While typing this, a second packet was gated by BOXSPG).



        If you aren't familiar with what all has to work for APRS messaging to function, please check out:

        http://aprsisce.wikidot.com/doc:aprs-messaging-explained

        Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

        PS.  I did try sending you a message, but received no ack after 6 retries, but that's not surprising given your location relative the IGate that is copying your packets.  And BOXSPG may or may not be bi-directional.

        On 10/3/2012 9:08 AM, Eric Fort wrote:
        I want to get messaging working from my nuvi 350/t2-301 - callsign af6ep-1.  please send a message via aprs and or volunteer to receive one) 

        thanks,

        Af6ep

        Eric

      • Eric Fort
        Lynn, thanks for the try, weird that I m getting into wi6re but not n6vig which is my usual digi. being heard by boxspg direct is downright shocking at 5W and
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Lynn,

          thanks for the try, weird that I'm getting into wi6re but not n6vig which is my usual digi.  being heard by boxspg direct is downright shocking at 5W and a duckie, there's way too much dirt in the way to go direct (like 5000 ft of mountain in the path in between!)  Also, How can one tell if an igate or digi is bidirectional?

          Thanks,

          Eric
          AF6EP

          On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) <ldeffenb@...> wrote:
          You might want to get closer to an IGate and make sure it is bi-directional before you start testing other unknowns.  From my view of things, you've only been heard by WI6RE (73 miles N) and BOXSPG (34 miles S) and those both heard (and Gated) a single packet.

          http://aprs.fi/?c=raw&call=AF6EP-1&limit=5&view=hex

          Either WI6RE is removing or BOXSPG is appending a trailing space to your packet messing up the APRS-IS dupe filter.

          There are IGates closer to you, namely N6VIG (9.5m NE), KI6WZX-B (29m SE), N6EX-3 and KG6JOA (28-29m SSW).  I'm wondering why those IGates didn't hear you, so I'd suggest checking your transmit deviation to improve packet reception by local IGates before trying to get messaging working.  (While typing this, a second packet was gated by BOXSPG).



          If you aren't familiar with what all has to work for APRS messaging to function, please check out:

          http://aprsisce.wikidot.com/doc:aprs-messaging-explained

          Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

          PS.  I did try sending you a message, but received no ack after 6 retries, but that's not surprising given your location relative the IGate that is copying your packets.  And BOXSPG may or may not be bi-directional.


          On 10/3/2012 9:08 AM, Eric Fort wrote:
          I want to get messaging working from my nuvi 350/t2-301 - callsign af6ep-1.  please send a message via aprs and or volunteer to receive one) 

          thanks,

          Af6ep

          Eric


        • James Ewen
          ... Listen on RF. If you hear packets being gated from the i-gate onto RF, you can be pretty sure that it is bi-directional. -- James VE6SRV
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

            > Also, How can one tell if an igate or digi is bidirectional?

            Listen on RF. If you hear packets being gated from the i-gate onto RF,
            you can be pretty sure that it is bi-directional.

            --
            James
            VE6SRV
          • Eric Fort
            ** ... squaking. how am I to know where they originated? how can I originate a packet on the internet such that it attempts to gateway to RF? Eric AF6EP ...
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment

               

              On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

              > Also, How can one tell if an igate or digi is bidirectional?

              On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:07 AM, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:
              Listen on RF. If you hear packets being gated from the i-gate onto RF,
              you can be pretty sure that it is bi-directional.

              OK, so I listen on RF.  I hear a bunch of (packets) squealing and squaking.  how am I to know where they originated?  how can I originate a packet on the internet such that it attempts to gateway to RF?

              Eric
              AF6EP

            • James Ewen
              ... Okay, I admit that I am an idiot... What I should have stated was: Put up an antenna, connect that to a radio, set the radio up to receive on 144.390 MHz,
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

                >> Listen on RF. If you hear packets being gated from the i-gate onto RF,
                >> you can be pretty sure that it is bi-directional.
                >>
                > OK, so I listen on RF. I hear a bunch of (packets) squealing and
                > squaking. how am I to know where they originated?

                Okay, I admit that I am an idiot...

                What I should have stated was: Put up an antenna, connect that to a
                radio, set the radio up to receive on 144.390 MHz, connect a TNC to
                the radio such that it can decode the audio from the radio, connect a
                computer up to the TNC such that it receives the serial data stream of
                decoded data, install and configure an APRS program on the computer
                such that the program will display the received data, and observe the
                data being received.

                You can tell who handled the packets by looking at the stations in the
                path portion of the packets. You will be looking for the i-gate in
                question having inserted it's callsign into the packet pushing the
                packet heard on the APRS-IS stream out onto the RF network.

                > how can I originate a
                > packet on the internet such that it attempts to gateway to RF?

                Send a message from an internet only connected instance of an APRS
                client to an RF only station active on the local RF network.

                --
                James
                VE6SRV
              • Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
                ... But ONLY after you re sure that the IGate in question has heard a packet from the RF only station recently and local enough as described in the
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 10/3/2012 1:25 PM, James Ewen wrote:
                  >> how can I originate a
                  >> packet on the internet such that it attempts to gateway to RF?
                  > Send a message from an internet only connected instance of an APRS
                  > client to an RF only station active on the local RF network.

                  But ONLY after you're sure that the IGate in question has heard a packet
                  from the RF only station "recently" and "local" enough as described in
                  the messaging link I provided earlier.

                  http://aprsisce.wikidot.com/doc:aprs-messaging-explained

                  Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32
                • James Ewen
                  On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) ... That s difficult to know for sure with the filtering that takes place on the APRS-IS. You can NOT
                  Message 8 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
                    <ldeffenb@...> wrote:

                    > On 10/3/2012 1:25 PM, James Ewen wrote:
                    >>> how can I originate a
                    >>> packet on the internet such that it attempts to gateway to RF?
                    >> Send a message from an internet only connected instance of an APRS
                    >> client to an RF only station active on the local RF network.
                    >
                    > But ONLY after you're sure that the IGate in question has heard a packet
                    > from the RF only station "recently" and "local" enough as described in
                    > the messaging link I provided earlier.

                    That's difficult to know for sure with the filtering that takes place
                    on the APRS-IS. You can NOT snoop on true i-gate reception reports for
                    most i-gate software.

                    Just make sure the station you are sending to is active on RF in the
                    area local to the i-gate, and hope it all works. If it does, you know
                    that the i-gate is bi-directional, if it doesn't you're still not
                    sure.

                    --
                    James
                    VE6SRV
                  • Eric Fort
                    ok, I have one tnc and radio - a t2-301 conbo unit attached to a garmin nuvi350. The present antenna is a rubber duckie bought from argent data. this is
                    Message 9 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ok,

                      I have one tnc and radio - a t2-301 conbo unit attached to a garmin nuvi350.  The present antenna is a rubber duckie bought from argent data.  this is af6ep-1.  Just this evening I installed aprsis32 on the laptop and set it as internet connected only.  the laptop over internet only is af6ep-3.  aprs.fi sees them both, but they don't see each other, actually after running for the last couple hours I just checked again, af6ep-3 is now showing af6ep-1 but af6ep-1 has yet to see af6ep-3.  I can send messages to my email from af6ep-3 but not from af6ep-1 so internet to internet works, but any messaging to or from the rf side (af6ep-1) fails.  looking at aprs.fi raw cached packets for af6ep-1 I see it trying to send the message to my email, but the packets are bad (show in red).  Suggestions?  I am getting decodes when I hook up to the serial port of the t2-301 and they appear good.  I'll check my deviation as soon as I'm able, though I have not changed it from factory settings and would have expected scott to have set it properly prior to being shipped as the t2-301 is a bits to rf and rf to bits device.

                      Thanks,

                      Eric
                       

                      On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:
                       

                      On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

                      >> Listen on RF. If you hear packets being gated from the i-gate onto RF,
                      >> you can be pretty sure that it is bi-directional.
                      >>
                      > OK, so I listen on RF. I hear a bunch of (packets) squealing and
                      > squaking. how am I to know where they originated?

                      Okay, I admit that I am an idiot...

                      What I should have stated was: Put up an antenna, connect that to a
                      radio, set the radio up to receive on 144.390 MHz, connect a TNC to
                      the radio such that it can decode the audio from the radio, connect a
                      computer up to the TNC such that it receives the serial data stream of
                      decoded data, install and configure an APRS program on the computer
                      such that the program will display the received data, and observe the
                      data being received.

                      You can tell who handled the packets by looking at the stations in the
                      path portion of the packets. You will be looking for the i-gate in
                      question having inserted it's callsign into the packet pushing the
                      packet heard on the APRS-IS stream out onto the RF network.


                      > how can I originate a
                      > packet on the internet such that it attempts to gateway to RF?

                      Send a message from an internet only connected instance of an APRS
                      client to an RF only station active on the local RF network.

                      --
                      James
                      VE6SRV


                    • James Ewen
                      ... Okay, a rubber duckie is less than an optimal antenna, but you are getting packets into the network. What s your outgoing path? Are you using WIDE2-2 or
                      Message 10 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

                        > I have one tnc and radio - a t2-301 conbo unit attached to a garmin
                        > nuvi350. The present antenna is a rubber duckie bought from argent data.
                        > this is af6ep-1.

                        Okay, a rubber duckie is less than an optimal antenna, but you are
                        getting packets into the network.

                        What's your outgoing path? Are you using WIDE2-2 or WIDE2-1? It's
                        unknown what you are using as the raw packets show WIDE2, but the path
                        is not marked as used up, nor are there any digipeater callsigns
                        inserted. It could be a configuration error on your part, or just more
                        improperly set up digipeaters.

                        > Just this evening I installed aprsis32 on the laptop and
                        > set it as internet connected only. the laptop over internet only is
                        > af6ep-3. aprs.fi sees them both, but they don't see each other, actually
                        > after running for the last couple hours I just checked again, af6ep-3 is now
                        > showing af6ep-1 but af6ep-1 has yet to see af6ep-3.

                        Do you have some method of pushing packets from AF6EP-3 from the
                        internet to the local RF network? Have you sent a message from AF6EP-3
                        to AF6EP-1 which would cause a courtesy position packet to be gated to
                        the local area? If you have no idea what I am asking, it would be
                        useful for you to go read up on what it takes to send messages through
                        i-gates, links to such documents already having been shared in this
                        thread.

                        > I can send messages to
                        > my email from af6ep-3 but not from af6ep-1 so internet to internet works,
                        > but any messaging to or from the rf side (af6ep-1) fails. looking at
                        > aprs.fi raw cached packets for af6ep-1 I see it trying to send the message
                        > to my email, but the packets are bad (show in red). Suggestions?

                        :EMAIL:ERI:email test1{ab [Invalid message packet]

                        How did you send this message? The complaint is about the length of
                        the recipient call. It needs to be padded out to 9 characters as per
                        chapter 14 of the APRS101 document.
                        Can you send an email message from your email client to ERI? ERI is
                        not a valid email address. There are many servers out there now
                        responding to the EMAIL alias, so perhaps one of them supports a
                        shortcut. I know the EMAIL-2 server can have shortcuts configured for
                        email addresses. I would suggest not using the EMAIL server due to the
                        problems caused by having multiple servers all responding to the
                        alias. Use EMAIL-2, there's only one EMAIL-2 server so far.

                        :EMAIL-2 :eric.fort@... test-2 from aprsis af6ep-3{EM}

                        This message sent to the EMAIL-2 server was formatted properly, and as
                        you indicated, it worked.

                        Send an improperly formatted message from the internet connected
                        client, and you'll find that it won't work either. Having a radio
                        system that is improperly wired will cause a problem with being
                        successful. Having an improperly set deviation will cause a problem
                        with being successful. Sending improperly formatted packets will cause
                        a problem with being successful. You have to do everything right for
                        things to work. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades... close isn't
                        good enough. Computers are not forgiving... they expect you to do your
                        part so they can do theirs...

                        > I am
                        > getting decodes when I hook up to the serial port of the t2-301 and they
                        > appear good. I'll check my deviation as soon as I'm able, though I have not
                        > changed it from factory settings and would have expected scott to have set
                        > it properly prior to being shipped as the t2-301 is a bits to rf and rf to
                        > bits device.

                        It looks like you are probably close to where you want to be due to
                        the packets getting picked up and gated to the APRS-IS. At the very
                        least some of your packets are being gated.

                        BTW, every OT device that Scott makes is a bits to RF and RF to bits
                        device... so are the TinyTrak, KPC, TNC-X and all other packet TNCs.
                        It's always best to check your equipment for proper operation.

                        --
                        James
                        VE6SRV
                      • Eric Fort
                        Replies threaded below: ... WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path. ... network to deliver packets to and from RF. I have attempted to send a message from
                        Message 11 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Replies threaded below:

                          On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:53 PM, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:
                           

                          On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

                          > I have one tnc and radio - a t2-301 conbo unit attached to a garmin
                          > nuvi350. The present antenna is a rubber duckie bought from argent data.
                          > this is af6ep-1.

                          Okay, a rubber duckie is less than an optimal antenna, but you are
                          getting packets into the network.

                          What's your outgoing path? Are you using WIDE2-2 or WIDE2-1? It's
                          unknown what you are using as the raw packets show WIDE2, but the path
                          is not marked as used up, nor are there any digipeater callsigns
                          inserted. It could be a configuration error on your part, or just more
                          improperly set up digipeaters.



                          WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path.
                           
                          > Just this evening I installed aprsis32 on the laptop and
                          > set it as internet connected only. the laptop over internet only is
                          > af6ep-3. aprs.fi sees them both, but they don't see each other, actually
                          > after running for the last couple hours I just checked again, af6ep-3 is now
                          > showing af6ep-1 but af6ep-1 has yet to see af6ep-3.

                          Do you have some method of pushing packets from AF6EP-3 from the
                          internet to the local RF network? Have you sent a message from AF6EP-3
                          to AF6EP-1 which would cause a courtesy position packet to be gated to
                          the local area? If you have no idea what I am asking, it would be
                          useful for you to go read up on what it takes to send messages through
                          i-gates, links to such documents already having been shared in this
                          thread.

                          AD6EP-3 is connected to the internet only.  It must rely solely on the network to deliver packets to and from RF.  I have attempted to send a 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. 
                           

                          > I can send messages to
                          > my email from af6ep-3 but not from af6ep-1 so internet to internet works,
                          > but any messaging to or from the rf side (af6ep-1) fails. looking at
                          > aprs.fi raw cached packets for af6ep-1 I see it trying to send the message
                          > to my email, but the packets are bad (show in red). Suggestions?

                          :EMAIL:ERI:email test1{ab [Invalid message packet]

                          How did you send this message? The complaint is about the length of
                          the recipient call. It needs to be padded out to 9 characters as per
                          chapter 14 of the APRS101 document.
                          Can you send an email message from your email client to ERI? ERI is
                          not a valid email address. There are many servers out there now
                          responding to the EMAIL alias, so perhaps one of them supports a
                          shortcut. I know the EMAIL-2 server can have shortcuts configured for
                          email addresses. I would suggest not using the EMAIL server due to the
                          problems caused by having multiple servers all responding to the
                          alias. Use EMAIL-2, there's only one EMAIL-2 server so far.


                          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.
                           
                          :EMAIL-2 :eric.fort@... test-2 from aprsis af6ep-3{EM}

                          This message sent to the EMAIL-2 server was formatted properly, and as
                          you indicated, it worked.


                          This is probably because aprsis32 did the formatting for me.
                           
                          Send an improperly formatted message from the internet connected
                          client, and you'll find that it won't work either. Having a radio
                          system that is improperly wired will cause a problem with being
                          successful. Having an improperly set deviation will cause a problem
                          with being successful. Sending improperly formatted packets will cause
                          a problem with being successful. You have to do everything right for
                          things to work. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades... close isn't
                          good enough. Computers are not forgiving... they expect you to do your
                          part so they can do theirs...


                          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 properly.
                           

                          > I am
                          > getting decodes when I hook up to the serial port of the t2-301 and they
                          > appear good. I'll check my deviation as soon as I'm able, though I have not
                          > changed it from factory settings and would have expected scott to have set
                          > it properly prior to being shipped as the t2-301 is a bits to rf and rf to
                          > bits device.

                          It looks like you are probably close to where you want to be due to
                          the packets getting picked up and gated to the APRS-IS. At the very
                          least some of your packets are being gated.

                          BTW, every OT device that Scott makes is a bits to RF and RF to bits
                          device... so are the TinyTrak, KPC, TNC-X and all other packet TNCs.
                          It's always best to check your equipment for proper operation.


                          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.  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.  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.
                           
                          --
                          James
                          VE6SRV


                          Eric
                        • James Ewen
                          ... Okay, great... you re good on your end... it s the network that s screwed up. ... Have you read about gating to RF yet? That does NOT happen automatically
                          Message 12 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

                            > WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path.

                            Okay, great... you're good on your end... it's the network that's screwed up.

                            > AD6EP-3 is connected to the internet only. It must rely solely on the
                            > network to deliver packets to and from RF.

                            Have you read about gating to RF yet? That does NOT happen
                            automatically on a regular basis.

                            > I have attempted to send a
                            > 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.

                            Again, have you read the information presented that describes the
                            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.

                            You still never answered the question... HOW did you send that message?

                            > 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
                            > properly.

                            As I said, you're probably in the ballpark...

                            > 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.

                            Well, we're going to disagree...

                            > 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.

                            You do know that the DR-135 is a radio, right? Just because you open
                            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.

                            > 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.

                            This is true... the OT2-135 is going to be installed in a known radio.
                            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
                            just some.

                            --
                            James
                            VE6SRV
                          • Eric Fort
                            ok, 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
                            Message 13 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                               ok, 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:

                              > WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path.

                              Okay, great... you're good on your end... it's the network that's screwed up.


                              > AD6EP-3 is connected to the internet only. It must rely solely on the
                              > network to deliver packets to and from RF.

                              Have you read about gating to RF yet? That does NOT happen
                              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 a
                              > 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.

                              Again, have you read the information presented that describes the
                              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?


                              yes
                               

                              > 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.

                              You still never answered the question... HOW did you send that message?


                              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
                              > properly.

                              As I said, you're probably in the ballpark...


                              > 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.

                              Well, we're going to disagree...


                              > 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.

                              You do know that the DR-135 is a radio, right? Just because you open
                              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.


                              > 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.

                              This is true... the OT2-135 is going to be installed in a known radio.
                              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
                              just some.

                              --
                              James
                              VE6SRV


                            • James Ewen
                              ... Are you using a wide band FM transmitter? ... Your deviation should be about 3 kHz. ... An antenna to toss your signal out into the ether helps. What does
                              Message 14 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

                                > 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.

                                Are you using a wide band FM transmitter?

                                > also what SHOULD my 2 tone deviation be?

                                Your deviation should be about 3 kHz.

                                > more antenna seems to be a big help. Beginning to think
                                > more tx power (like a dedicated dr-135) might help a bit too.

                                An antenna to toss your signal out into the ether helps. What does the
                                channel sound like around there? Is it busy, or do you hear a lot of
                                dead air? More gain and more power is the solution a lot of people
                                use. Yell louder to get heard... don't work towards reducing the noise
                                level, just yell louder. Obviously yelling louder is easier to do than
                                trying to reduce the noise level.

                                > 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.

                                The theory is how it HAS to work.

                                If you are thinking that you're going to see your internet based
                                station on RF on a regular basis, you're going to be disappointed.

                                > 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.

                                Hmm, the NUVI should pad out the destination call properly.

                                > I'm guessing that I got the syntax and message formatting wrong
                                > upon entering it into the nuvi

                                Just tell the unit to send a message to email, and in the message body
                                just put "joe@... This is my message" Anything up to the first
                                space is the email address, and after the first space is the message.

                                > 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.

                                Fleet Management has no clue about APRS, let alone sending an APRS
                                message to a specialty address for forwarding on to the internet.

                                The AvMap G6 has a custom message function for APRS, but still is not
                                tailored specifically for sending email. APRSISCE/32 does however have
                                a specialized input dialog for email messages via APRS messages.

                                --
                                James
                                VE6SRV
                              • Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
                                ... Create Message expects a dash followed by the addressed APRS callsign followed by the message body. If you don t put the leading dash, then the Tracker2
                                Message 15 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 10/4/2012 4:36 PM, Eric Fort wrote:

                                  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.

                                  Create Message expects a dash followed by the addressed APRS callsign followed by the message body.  If you don't put the leading dash, then the Tracker2 will send it to some default that seems to be either the station you last received a message from or the one you last sent one to (which may the same thing if you receive an ack).  I always try to put the -callsign in there when in doubt.  So, you should enter the following:

                                  -EMAIL-2 me@... Text of e-mail essage

                                  Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

                                • Eric Fort
                                  ... I thought I mad that clear. I plug serial bits into one end of an argent t2-301 http://www.argentdata.com/images/fc301d-vhf1.jpg. I attach an antenna to
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:53 PM, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:

                                    > **
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > 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.
                                    >
                                    > Are you using a wide band FM transmitter?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    I thought I mad that clear. I plug serial bits into one end of an argent
                                    t2-301 http://www.argentdata.com/images/fc301d-vhf1.jpg. I attach an
                                    antenna to the bnc connector (happens to be on the same end....) - magic
                                    happens.... well ok vastly simplified but the general idea I did configure
                                    my callsign and connect the nuvi350 to it for gps and fmi data exchange but
                                    basicly t2-301 with proper accessories as provided by argent.

                                    >
                                    > > also what SHOULD my 2 tone deviation be?
                                    >
                                    > Your deviation should be about 3 kHz.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    would not a wideband fm transmitter be about 100kc deviation? I'll see if
                                    I can get a better measurement and verify what I found on the spectrum
                                    analyzer, really though the signal I was seeing at 144.390 out of the
                                    t2-301 in calibrate mode varied in width depending upon how many db down
                                    from the peak one measured. it may be only 3khz wide at the peak.


                                    >
                                    >

                                    > > more antenna seems to be a big help. Beginning to think
                                    > > more tx power (like a dedicated dr-135) might help a bit too.
                                    >
                                    > An antenna to toss your signal out into the ether helps. What does the
                                    > channel sound like around there? Is it busy, or do you hear a lot of
                                    > dead air? More gain and more power is the solution a lot of people
                                    > use. Yell louder to get heard... don't work towards reducing the noise
                                    > level, just yell louder. Obviously yelling louder is easier to do than
                                    > trying to reduce the noise level.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    144.390 around here has reasonably constant traffic on it. from just
                                    listening I'd say it's busy enough to have someone transmitting 90% of the
                                    time without having too much trouble with collisions. I'd love to reduce
                                    the noise level, but much of that seems to be out of my control.


                                    > > 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.
                                    >
                                    > The theory is how it HAS to work.
                                    >
                                    > If you are thinking that you're going to see your internet based
                                    > station on RF on a regular basis, you're going to be disappointed.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    theoretically as it's described I figure it should work perfectly every
                                    time (in a perfect world) to send messages in either direction.
                                    Observationally and as you describe it, I'm learning not so much....


                                    >
                                    > > 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.
                                    >
                                    > Hmm, the NUVI should pad out the destination call properly.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > I'm guessing that I got the syntax and message formatting wrong
                                    > > upon entering it into the nuvi
                                    >
                                    > Just tell the unit to send a message to email, and in the message body
                                    > just put "joe@... This is my message" Anything up to the first
                                    > space is the email address, and after the first space is the message.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > 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.
                                    >
                                    > Fleet Management has no clue about APRS, let alone sending an APRS
                                    > message to a specialty address for forwarding on to the internet.
                                    >
                                    > The AvMap G6 has a custom message function for APRS, but still is not
                                    > tailored specifically for sending email. APRSISCE/32 does however have
                                    > a specialized input dialog for email messages via APRS messages.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    well one can wish! not much one can do there though as that's a garmin
                                    design decision not a decision by argent or scott.

                                    Eric


                                    > --
                                    > James
                                    > VE6SRV
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.