[aprssig] 1200 vs 9600 baud (was: Tracker3 9600 baud balloon tracker beta offer)
scott at opentrac.org
Fri Dec 20 00:12:59 CST 2013
I want to see more 9600 baud APRS on 70cm - we don't get a lot of
consumer RF stuff down in the VHF bands and it's never going to be as
cheap as the low-power UHF stuff that's churned out in massive
quantities for consumer electronics.
But it shouldn't be just a faster APRS network. It needs to be a lot
smarter - self-organizing and adaptive, not relying on centralized
control but also not every man for himself ALOHA networking.
I'm hoping to play around with that some myself, but right now I've got
two more pallets of weather stations to finish packing... somehow
running a full-time APRS business is leaving me less time to play with APRS.
On 12/19/2013 4:12 PM, Ted11 wrote:
> Scott's balloon tracker has gotten me thinking again about a lingering
> question, 1200 vs 9600 baud for APRS. I think I understand this:
> 1. 9600 lets you send more data per time interval.
> 2. 9600 requires tighter radio integration (can't just plug into the
> microphone jack).
> 3. 9600 seems to work best (only?) on UHF.
> Beyond those rather rudimentary constraints, I'm not sure how to decide to
> use 1200 or 9600. All my APRS stuff so far is done at 1200, but I'm
> interested in what advantages 9600 might have. So how would you answer the
> question, "When should I use 9600 baud for APRS and when should I use 1200
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
More information about the aprssig