Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Activity - comments and idea

Naber, Benjamin L. SPC benjamin.naber at 3BCT3ID.ARMY.MIL
Wed Jan 30 03:54:01 UTC 2008


Thats good info to know, thank you.
 
With the bandwidth requirements we have for 2m and 70cm, what modulation method would get the most effective throughput? Does having FEC lower that actual data throughput because more bits are being sent?
 
~Benjamin, KB9LFZ

________________________________

From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org on behalf of David Josephson
Sent: Wed 30-Jan-08 02:09
To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11
Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] Activity - comments and idea



Naber, Benjamin L. SPC wrote:
> 
> I've been working on a project, just a draft right now, but will be manifesting into the real deal in a little while. I would like to know everyone experiences with different multi-level modulations like QPSK, 8-PSK and the others that are being used. I like the QPSK or 8-PSK as that is what we use for our satellite internet.
>  
Experiences are one thing, actual parts availability and
bang-for-the-buck might be different. QPSK and 8PSK work great, and
gives a pretty good tradeoff between power and bandwidth requirements.
You will probably end up using off-the-shelf 802.11 chipsets, just
because they work so well and are ubiquitous. The collection of
modulation modes in 802.11 a and g (BSPK, QPSK, 16QAM and 64QAM) offer a
good set of options to choose from. The challenge is getting deep enough
into the chipset to use the modem directly without having legal access
to the chip maker's proprietary code.

Historically, 64QAM was what the telephone company settled on as the
best compromise for long distance microwave hops. Your MILSATCOM stuff
is mostly 32QAM although some systems go higher. Only if you're really
short on power, and have excess bandwidth (or very low data rate
requirements) would you want to choose PSK.
> 
> What I'm working on is a TCP/IP setup that will have the functionality of a wireless router, but will have the functions amateurs like to see, and also be open source Linux so we can attract more computer people in here. Seeing how this a group with people who are computer oriented, there shouldn't be anyone griping "this is ham radio!" If you are one of them, then pay no mind as I pass you by.
> 
> If you are familiar with DD-WRT, it may have that setup as I like using that on my linksys and Motorola WRTs.
That (and its cousins in the open and mostly-open source community) is a
good start. The snag has always been the hardware abstraction layer that
the chipsets need.
> the main thing I like about this idea is that it will NOT require drivers on a computer to work so an old Toshiba Satellite 75MHz Laptop with an PCMCIA Ethernet port and TCP/IP support with Win3.1 will work.
>  
That's a good start. But it has to be cheap, too.

73 de WA6NMF

_______________________________________________
ham-80211 mailing list
ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 6077 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/ham-80211/attachments/20080130/9e32e950/attachment.bin 


More information about the ham-80211 mailing list