Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] Object DENNI_ato Cannot Be Seen on RF Path

Chris Schwab 1schwab1 at tampabay.rr.com
Mon Jul 11 01:44:55 UTC 2005


Oh, I'm not debating changes didn't need to happen.  I think that the
widen-n trapping is working for the most part. My biggest beef with the new
paradigm is that I think we should have ran parallel relay & wide1-1
networks for a few months until we could have gotten a majority of the home
stations to migrate (But that's a different debate not for this thread!). My
statement to Geoff was basically stating that we need to watch out what's
going to happen out in Polk County (which is right in the middle of both of
us).

Perhaps this is the time that we look towards dumping the KPC's as
standalone digis and try to start modifying the Linksys Wireless access
points to run some type of smart digi software so that we don't have the
same type of limitations. While I like the idea of a UHF network for
experimentation, one of the great things about APRS was being able to get
people of the air cheap with TNC's that have been sitting around. Once you
start talking UHF & 9600 baud, you're going to start turning them off
because you're starting to talk $$$$...

73!
Chris N4BSA

-----Original Message-----
From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]
On Behalf Of VE7GDH
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 1:32 PM
To: aprssig at lists.tapr.org
Subject: RE: [aprssig] Object DENNI_ato Cannot Be Seen on RF Path

Chris N4BSA wrote on 10/07/2005

> I'm with you - I think we've done more harm than good with some of these
> changes implemented. While this might have been a good solution for the
> NE corridor or California, I think we've crippled the network in areas 
> such as
> our own.

Chris - I sympathize, but I think that you must admit that changes were 
needed where there was lots of congestion on 144.390 MHz. Huge increases in 
efficiency have been seen. With that said, what would it take to see the 
objects that you are looking for? Perhaps one or more IGates could be set up

using different paths for severe weather objects. Perhaps it will take more 
IGates, but using short paths compatible with their local network. Perhaps 
it will take a series of digis with non-standard paths working in 
conjunction with IGates set up specifically for those weather objects. I'm 
sure that no-one wants a "fix" for the rest of the network to "break" the 
network for critical weather objects. Times are changing. As more people get

into APRS, more changes will be needed. Talk about it with those around you 
and innovate. Maybe a separate UHF weather only network could be set up in 
your area to make sure critical weather objects or even weather related 
messages can make it to where they need to be heard, and then back out on 
VHF but with a short path. Hopefully you and others can come up with a 
workable solution that doesn't just go back to dupes and stupid long paths 
for everyone that will just kill APRS.

73 es cul - Keith VE7GDH
--
"I may be lost, but I know exactly where I am!" 



_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig





More information about the aprssig mailing list