[aprssig] Failed APRS?
Tom Hayward esarfl at gmail.comMon Jan 19 21:38:25 UTC 2009
- Previous message: [aprssig] Failed APRS?
- Next message: [aprssig] Failed APRS?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> He is angry that his vehicle TRACKING isn't what he expected it to be. Indeed, sounds like he bought a TX-only tracker and is surprised that it doesn't know when the channel is clear. In an attempt to relieve congestion, I've found that every digipeater in my area can reach an igate, and covers enough distance to reach my tactical team members. So I usually run 1 hop, WIDE2-1. Another way to relieve congestion is the move to 9600 baud. There is a 9600 baud APRS network on 144.35 in western Washington and western Oregon that is seeing lots of recent growth. 9600 baud provides more bandwidth and shortens the burst time so the signal is less susceptible to mobile flutter and QRM. Messaging works between the 144.35 and 144.39 networks because they just act like any other distant RF network--the igates know where to find you. Yet another congestion relief idea is to move igates to the digipeater site. This cuts the required messaging congestion in half (I know, not much of a problem), but also allows tracking-only users to run one less hop, keeping them from congesting my tactical network. VHEBO is set up this way (http://aprs.fi/?call=vhebo). Alas, there is still a lot of educating to do on basic paths and beacon frequency. WA7NWP has set up a way for us to monitor this is the Pacific Northwest: http://srv02.compumont.com/wa/check.html Tom KD7LXL
- Previous message: [aprssig] Failed APRS?
- Next message: [aprssig] Failed APRS?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
