[aprssig] Chemical sensors

[Spider]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga at usna.edu>
To: <aprssig at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Chemical sensors



> Wow, I sure would like to know what sensor is of any value
> whatsoever, if you dont know where it is???


That is what meta files are for, Bob.  They contain the datum that 
corralates a stations
data (and more) without the need to continously transmit it.
In the case of Firenet and APRS, we use meta files to put the data back 
together so APRS clients can see the data on the map now.
However, if the clients were smarter all they would have to do is read a 
local meta file and match it with a sensor/s Id/s and
but it back together at the client....savings tons of bandwidth over time 
and it would also give the ability to give much more data
about a particular sensor on ones map.....including links to URL's that may 
contain all the data, pictures....yada yada yada.
This is where we could drastically depart from APRS yet continue in the 
UnProto fashion.

>
> Keep it simple.  Put WX data in the WX packet, and invent
> a new format for Sensor data.

That's kinda what I was saying....but wx data is nothing more than a 
collection of sensors anyway....so those that had the higher end wx stations 
could take
advantage of a new format.  For examples (correct me if I am wrong) most 
high end weather stations use some form of programmable data logger.  All 
the various
sensors are hard wired to the logger and then the logger is programmed to 
tell it what type of sensors are tied to it and also programmed on how and 
when to output that data.

> Advantages are:
> 1)  Uses new format in accordance with APRS SPEC

> 2) Uses very condensed Mic-E "type" encoding
> 3) But is NOT a Mic-E so it does not confuse existing code
> 4) Each packet is fully stand-alone because it includes position of
> sensor

So how would you deal with a station that had 20 sensors?

Jim, WA6OFT