[aprssig] New IGate Operator (streaming on UHF or VHF)

Robert Bruninga bruninga at usna.edu
Fri Jan 6 07:57:20 CST 2017


The best way to do local IS-to-RF broadcast of lots of activity is to simply
use an unused UHF frequency.  Then you are just streaming the data at up to
full rate.  Locals can see everything.  And when they are transmitting
there, too, they are also seen everywhere.

Local mobiles who are moving and want to also be seen on local RF can
operate split band, with their TX on 144.39 and their receive side on the
UHF channel.  Their radio will then see EVERYTHING the local streaming IGate
delivers.

There are plenty of  unused PACKET frequencies!

A third way is to stream on an unused VHF packet frequency, but keep the
stream down at only say 10 packets per minute.  Then the mobiels can operate
APRS on only one band (leaving the other band for voice).  They simply sset
their APRS side to TX on 144.39 and RX on the designated APRS-IS channel.

The reason the stream should be about 10 packets per minute is to allow the
80% channel clear time for the local mobiles to get their packets in.

I think this is described somewhere on http://aprs.org/fix14439.html

Bob, WB4APR

-----Original Message-----
From: aprssig [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Bramscher
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 9:08 PM
To: aprssig at tapr.org
Subject: Re: [aprssig] New IGate Operator

I rarely ever setup IS->RF either, not wanting to use up electricity, keep
my rig too warm, create too much local RF traffic, etc.

I'm not principally opposed to it, though, it would be a sort of an
EchoLinky APRS.  In that realm, numerous internet<->radio permutations exist
as par for the course.

Maybe it would be an interesting alternate RF network, perhaps standardized
on a freq. other than 144.390 though due to noise.  But as mobile internet
becomes more pervasive, this would begin to negate hypothetical benefits of
cross-band repeating, so to speak.

The WX3in1 looks like a pretty interesting device, I'll have to look more
into it.

73, KD0KZE / Paul

On 1/4/2017 10:51 AM, Nagi Punyamurthula wrote:
> I usually stay away from IS->RF forwarding.  APRS was (I would say
> still is IMHO) originally intended to enable simple packet ops for the
> RF traffic.  The IS stack came into picture to enable reporting on the
> front end visualization. If a source station originated from TCP/IP
> (IS), leave it there – since the source station’s intent is not so
> much for letting RF know, but, to let other TCP/IP users know via
> visualization tools such as aprs.fi.
>
>
>
> Pete, fyi, I have been using the Microsat’s Wx3in1 Plus and Mini for a
> few years now (for local APRS WIDE digipeater / iGate and also for my
> sGate ops as igate) – I agree, they’re great products. I am happy to
> assist w/ any settings related questions you might have. Best wishes
>
>
>
> 73, N0AGI-Nagi
>
> http://N0AGI.com/
>
> http://call.n0agi.com/
>
> http://arissdash.n0agi.com/
>
> http://MNDMR.net/
>
> http://services.n0agi.com/
>
> http://cubes.n0agi.com/
>
> http://MNMesh.net/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*aprssig [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] *On Behalf Of *Lee
> Bengston
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 3, 2017 8:27 PM
> *To:* TAPR APRS Mailing List <aprssig at tapr.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [aprssig] New IGate Operator
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2017 1:08 PM, "Jason KG4WSV" <kg4wsv at gmail.com
> <mailto:kg4wsv at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jim Conrad <jjc at oceanviewcom.com
>     <mailto:jjc at oceanviewcom.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         My thought process is that positions no matter the source of
>         actual hams (not objects) should be reflected on RF which
>         provides a coherent picture for the RF stations.
>
>
>
>
>
>     IMO you're sort of contradicting yourself.  How does giving a
>     picture of hams on cell/IP give you a picture of RF?  It doesn't.
>     It's noise. If they're not on RF, then they don't need to be on RF.
>
>
>
> Actually he referred to providing a picture for RF stations as opposed
> to a picture of RF.  I can see the benefit with respect to messaging.
> Someone on RF could see someone on a phone, and send them a message.
>
>
>
> There was a bug in AprsDroid a while back (now fixed as far as I know)
> that resulted in stations sending positions very rapidly, so there is
> the risk of gating an Android device running an old version.
>
>
>
> IMO it all depends on RF traffic in a local area. If it's very low, it
> should be OK to RF gate the phones, especially with rate limiting
> functionality in the Igate. How low is low - yeah, it's subjective.
> Whether the device in question can do it is really a question for the
> maker of that device - does it have its own mailing list?
>
>
>
>     Now for non-APRS RF resources that may benefit by being announced on
>     APRS, which what you may be headed toward, look at Bob's info
>     here: http://www.aprs.org/localinfo.html
>
>
>
> I have to admit I haven't looked at that yet; thanks for sharing.  Off
> to take a look.
>
>
>
> Lee - K5DAT
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>

_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at tapr.org
http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig


More information about the aprssig mailing list