[aprssig] APRS low-power-local ALT input channel
Robert Bruninga bruninga at usna.eduMon Sep 27 18:11:41 UTC 2004
- Previous message: [aprssig] APRS low-power-local ALT input channel
- Next message: [aprssig] RE: aprssig Digest, Vol 3, Issue 28
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>> wes at johnston.net 9/27/04 11:38:41 AM >>> >I did some stats with 4 home stations (10 min each) and >4 trackers (1 minute each) and came up with... 264 >seconds out of 3600 seconds per hour, 7.3% utilization > on 144.99 if everyone in my local area ran 144.39+600. >This number is a little higher than Bob's. But it's in the ballpark. I'll buy that, but it is a bit high, because it assumes those 4 trackers are in the area for the full hour. Either a commute is shorter than that, or he traveled out of area.. >>Finally, let's look at your digipeater design .... Every time >>the WIDEn-n side transmits, your local receiver is >>desensed and cannot copy anything on the "local" side. >Right again.... We either need vertical separation of the >144.99 and .39 antennas, or to run cavities. >This means we have to double my 7.3% number above >to 14%. AH, but now you are starting to mix apples and oranges. (deaf trackers versus all other stations). We need to keep clear what issue we are talking about here. I have only been addressing the alt-freq idea independently of what kind of station uses it.. >Now if we can forward packets to the digi from the alt >input site in such a way that it does not desense the alt >input's receiver, we have a winner. Yes, but this is only an advantage for deaf trackers... not for regular stations... >If we end up with multiple alt input digipeaters in a metro >area, we need to take care that they can all hear each >other. This is getting convoluted though.... I fear that >by trying to cover all the bases and possibilites I am >muddying the water. Yes, keeping it simple is the only way to achieve progress one digi at a time... Jumping thorugh all kinds of complexity and hardware to change an 86% success rate up by just 7% is just not worth it when the 86% rate is already far better than trying to operate a low p ower device on 144.39... >The maker of the pocket track has said that it will use >144.39 and (144.99 or 144.34). It appears he selected >144.34 at the request of a couple of his first customers >[for balloons] and because it was close in prox to 144.39. >He has offered to sell a pocket tracker on any freq you >ask for... so this is really a non-issue. Yep, that is all we are trying to accomplish here, is to help find a way to make plenty of more room available on APRS for these and other local users of APRS..... >And finally, if CSMA works so well, why did they >switch to DAMA in europe? Good thought wes! Yes, the missplaced belief that CSMA works well on simplex AX.25 with shared high-site digis and low-site users is one of the things that has always held back packet from its potential for HAM radio... since day one in the 1980-'s good thoughts Wes... thanks Bob, Wb4APR
- Previous message: [aprssig] APRS low-power-local ALT input channel
- Next message: [aprssig] RE: aprssig Digest, Vol 3, Issue 28
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
