Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] Parallel UHF APRS level-4 node system.

John Denison kd5you at houston.rr.com
Tue Dec 28 19:36:11 UTC 2004


Icom has a system called the D-STAR which operates at 128k on 1.2 and 10 
GHz. I've just started getting into packet, but from a newbie point of 
view, I wonder why 1200 baud is still being used. We left 1200 baud 
behind years ago in computer modems, so why is ham radio still lingering 
behind? If high speed data occurs on wireless routers at 2.4 GHz, then 
there is no reason why we can't meet or exceed that standard with our 
own implementations.

The reason why 220 and 1.2 are more expensive is because they are so 
rare. There isn't an interest large enough to justify manufacturing more 
of this equipment, and at the same time the expense prevents the 
interest from growing. Both ADI and Alinco have 220 MHz mobiles, a few 
HT's that have low power 220 MHz, and maybe two mobiles that are 1.2 
GHz. If I remember correctly Kenwood has a tri-bander model that can 
accomodate a 1.2 GHz module, but this radio without the module isn't 
cheap. It's much more cost effective to either buy 2 meter and/or 70 cm, 
or use something already owned. I am working on my APRS set up, and I 
thought about buying a Kenwood TH-D700. I have an extra 2 meter HT that 
works nicely for APRS, so that was in my mind the best way to go.

What I would hope for is more standardization among the manufacturers of 
commercial ham equipment. Recently several manufacturers of ham radio 
have installed the 6 pin mini-din plug for packet use. This is a great 
idea because it seems like non-sense to have 100 different cables to fit 
300 radios. I ordered cables for my HT and for my Icom mobile at 
www.packetradio.com. I understand that there are still so many different 
radio out there with different plugs, and the long list of cables won't 
go away soon, but at least it is one step to making ham radio more 
effecient.

73's
John
KD5YOU

Earl Needham wrote:

> At 09:24 AM 12/28/2004, Phillip B. Pacier wrote:
>
>> Earl Needham wrote:
>>
>>>> But putting up a second TNC at all APRS sites with a "NODE"
>>>> on a common UHF frequency would be a fantastic way to
>>>> support one-time-as-needed connections between users to
>>>> meet the real computer-to-computer needs of users.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         I'd like to see them on 1.2 or higher, with perhaps a 19200 
>>> data rate.
>>>
>>>         Earl
>>
>>
>> And I'd love to see 1.2 radios become more affordable!
>
>
>         Geez, ain't it the truth!  Maybe if we start using them more 
> the price will come down, or maybe it'll go up, or maybe...
>
>> 900 might be an option as well if the older commercial radios can be 
>> tuned and modified to accept 19k2.
>
>
>         Good thought!  And my original thought would more properly be 
> phrased," I'd like to see a frequency where we could use really high 
> data rates, 19200 would be OK, but I'd REALLY like to see 384K or more."
>
>         7 3
>         Earl
>
>
> Earl Needham, KD5XB, Clovis, New Mexico  DM84jk
> <http://kd5xb-2.no-ip.info>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>
>






More information about the aprssig mailing list