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

Re: [tracker2] want to get messaging working - please send messages (or volunteer to receive one)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
      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 2 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
        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 3 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
          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 4 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
            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 5 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
              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 6 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                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 7 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                   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 8 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                    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 9 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                      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 10 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                        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.