[aprssig] 9600? Faster?
Patrick Green pagreen at gmail.comThu Jul 7 13:34:54 UTC 2005
- Previous message: [aprssig] 9600? Faster?
- Next message: [aprssig] 9600? Faster?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I plan on putting up a 9600 port for testing puposes in the western suburbs of Chicago. I need to get a KPC-9612 repaired and it'll be ready to go otherwise. Will be interesting to test. I'm expecting poor performance too. 73 de Pat --- KA9SCF. On 7/7/05, Robert Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu> wrote: > >>> vk4tec at tech-software.net 07/07/05 3:13 AM >>> > >I did some testing co-located 1200 and 9600 > >9600 does not seem to reach as far as 1200 > >mobile environmet harsh to 9k6 signals > > Same here. We did extensive tests with 4 different > radios over 200 feet separation using lab attenuators > and a very long run of RG58 to eliminate any chance > of leakage. The diffrence was 7 dB. So it takes > 50W at 9600 to equal 10W at 1200 baud. Or > about half the range. > > And this does not inlude any differences due to multipath > in the mobile environment... I see no advantages at > all to 9600 for APRS (except to use the 9600 baud > satellite)... Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Curt Mills [mailto:archer at eskimo.com] > Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 3:55 PM > To: TAPR APRS Mailing List > Subject: Re: [aprssig] 9600? Faster? > > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Phillip B. Pacier wrote: > > > We've been doing some experiments in So Cal with 9600 APRS. Frequency in > use > > here is 438.975. Equipment generally being used on the digi/igate/home > client > > end is the KPC 9612, and mobiles use D7/D700 equipment. Initial tests > show > > that it works better than most people will tell you. I'll keep you > updated. > > Per Bob King, K7OFT, posted on the NWAPRS list just today: > > "UHF APRS SYSTEM IN PUGET SOUND AREA IS ON 440.875 MHz Simplex 9600 > Baud." > > That's in the Seattle, WA, area. He also mentioned that it is > important to adjust the deviation with a good service monitor to > 3kHz. > > > Bob Donnell, KD7NM, mentioned this: > > "With several 9600 baud projects under our belts over the years, > here in the Seattle area, we've found that +/- 2.75-3.00 kHz > deviation to be the target range, when used with filters designed to > work with a +/- 5 kHz deviation FM environment." > > -- > Curt, WE7U. archer at eskimo dot com > http://www.eskimo.com/~archer > Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math. - unknown > Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates. - WE7U. > The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!" > > _______________________________________________ > aprssig mailing list > aprssig at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > > > > _______________________________________________ > aprssig mailing list > aprssig at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > > > _______________________________________________ > aprssig mailing list > aprssig at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig >
- Previous message: [aprssig] 9600? Faster?
- Next message: [aprssig] 9600? Faster?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
