Re: Sending NTS traffic via Network 105
It would be the same amount of work either way. Yes, you don't need a
Pactor modem to do DTN. As far as I know everyone also has VaraHF. I
was not willing to spend $2k on a modem when VaraHF is 80% as good
(and better on a poor/noisy channel). However, a fellow CW net person
had an extra SCS Pactor modem and gave it to me.
You don't have to speak for a lot of zip codes if you are not
interested in delivering radiograms. You can
just have your forwarding partner have rules for your own zip code.
There would be virtually no inbound traffic if that were the case.
What is your call and gridsquare?
-Chris KQ6UP DM14ia
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:54?PM Chris Lance WW2BSA <ww2bsa@...> wrote:
Good suggestion, Chris! DTN (Digital Traffic Network) which is part of RRI, will point Sergio in the right direction. It looks like, though, he is only interested in being user to send messages and not host a NTS BBS.
Here is a great PDF from June 2022 on RRI/DTN by Ray for those interested.
73 de Chris
ww2bsa
On 02/19/2024 12:47 PM EST Christopher Maness <christopher.maness@...> wrote:
Better off getting involved with DTN (I am), and use a more effective
HF mode like VaraHF or Pactor to push
NTS traffic. 300bd plain jane AX.25 only works under ideal band
conditions where phase spreading
of the signals due to multipath distortion. The original bell spec.
is for twisted pair, not a noisy
HF channel with lots of phase distortion. It sort of works despite
all this, but an emphasis in the "sort of"
department. It has been enough fun for folks who have a single hop
path to play with keyboard-2-keyboard.
If you need more info, let me know.
-Chris KQ6UP
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:34?AM Chris Lance WW2BSA <ww2bsa@...> wrote:
Hi Sergio and welcome to the Group!
This is an interesting question that I would like to hear others respond to as well.
Although Network105 is designed as a 300 baud AX.25 keyboard to keyboard, there are nodes, mailboxes and Gateways. A lot of these Gateways are HF ports on BPQ Systems. One could go on 14.105, connect to a Gateway, access their BBS and send a message.
But why do all that? It would be easier to connect locally onto a BBS and send the NTS message that way.
So my questions to you are:
Is there a local BBS to you?
NTS message versus a regular packet email: what is your goal?
Radio Relay International (RRI) is a great group to be a part of if you like to send/receive NTS messages.
For more info and group conventions: www.Network105.org
73 de Chris ww2bsa
Moderator
On 02/19/2024 8:36 AM EST sergio ruiz <sergio.rrd@...> wrote:
Is there a way to send NTS traffic via BBS on Network 105?
More specifically, I'd like to send RadioGrams to non hams out in the wild.
Thanks!
--
Thanks,
Chris Maness
--
Thanks,
Chris Maness
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Hi Tom,?
I'll have to see if my signal reaches across to the UK. I've pinged a few EU and UK hams before on VARA 40M (plus assorted digital modes on 25-35W).
I'm now running QTSoundmodem with QPSK V26A 600baud and tuned to 7.05125 USB, I'm hearing some digital noises but no connection to the node yet
I guess the difference between QTSoundModem and the original one are another difference to take into consideration, oh boy!
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Chris:
Just a short comment: Pactor (in any of its four schemes) does not use encryption as a necessity. (It does allow encrypting the traffic but it is of interest in business communications, not in ham radio of course.)
When it comes to Robust packet capability, there are less expensive solutions than the newest Pactor modems: SCS DSP Tracker TNC (although not in production any more when the new ones were cca 250 EUR/USD, I suppose that second-hand ones may be even cheaper), or some older SCS PTC modem series that included Robust packet (also second hand ones).
Regarding 'standardization of mode': Here in Europe most of us agreed on using USB, for almost all data modes, at least on 20m band. I hope that it does not interfere with LSB usage over the pond, so let us know :-)
Dom:
Regarding telling apart Pactor from Robust packet: the Robust 2-way exchange looks relatively similar to the 'classic' 300bd HF packet exchange (when you listen by your ear), although the sound (tone) of Robust is different. That is why you cannot decode/encode Robust with any non-SCS modem. On the other side, Pactor TX/RX timings for 2-way change-over are much more frequent, compared to either 'classic' or Robust packet (when you listen by your ear).
I use them all: Robust, Pactor and HF 300bd 'classic', on a daily basis. As expected, hams who have Pactor modems have more fun with Pactor mode, but it is possible to configure the pactor modem to use both: Some node/bbs software, such as BPQ for example, allows listening in both Pactor and Robust in parallel (of course not transmit in the same time).
And last but not least: Although it is possible to use any SCS Pactor modem for 'classic' 300bd packet, it would be irrational to do it regarding the modem cost. So instead I use both som other old-fashioned TNCs and RIGblaster sound-card adapters for the old packet. All works.
Misko YT7MPB / YU7BPQ
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/20/24 9:56 AM, Chris Lance WW2BSA wrote: Well, my comments on hardware.
In the pre-internet days, or as I call it, the pre-Packet Apocalyse Era, when packet was thriving in the 1980's, Terminal Node Controllers ruled the planet! The internet came and packet usage declined. Then the hobby gave birth to a new breed of young digital amateur radio operators who didn't know what DOS, Win95 and XP was - no less use it. These operators are Linux and Sound Cards gurus, creating new digital modes. Packet interest began to rise - but had many children and grandchildren on the bands too! LOL The bands have become filled with digital signals of all sorts. So many modes, so many choices, so many ways to operate digitally.
I love the progress made over the decades, but alas, I am still old school. I still play with PK-232/900, PacComm, MFJ and Kantronics TNCs. The KPC-3+ which is still very much in production, has a nice feature or HF packet. If you set to SOFTWARE, the firmware inside the TNC will detect the presence of data to enable the carrier detection, allowing operation with un-squelched audio.
Pactor has evolved into Pactor 3 and 4. But I think 4 uses encryption which is a no-no for hams. While those TNCs will do Robust Packet, the hardware is VERY expensive. Plus, they are proprietary, which I don't like. They are made/created by SCS. Their web page is here . There seems to be a cheaper workaround but I am still investigating. There is a Groups.io RPR /g/robustpacket/ that I think you will find interesting. As a USER my technical background is limited so I can not give you data, but it is my understanding that RPR is very reliable on HF.
I never heard of FreeDATA but I believe I found the web page and will have to read it further.
I agree regarding standardization of mode. I read somewhere that the following conventions should be followed on HF: Soundcard digital modes = USB. However, Clover, RTTY, PACKET, AMTOR and PACTOR = LSB. Network105 is suppose to be LSB all the time. I think there was a thread here years ago that indicated that if one had a radio not capable of LSB, you could use USB by using a different dials frequency. The bottom line is: use LSB on HF packet.
I would like to try 600 baud with you. Alas, I am not retired, have a wife and run several companies. Despite this, my wife loves amateur radio, is studying for her exam and supports my hobby. (Every ham should have a woman like this!) Let me set up things here and then work on details with you on how to proceed. Maybe we can start a new thread in case others want to join in this experiment. It's 3:50 AM Eastern...I have to get to sleep, but looking forward to your reply/post, Dom.
73 de Chris
ww2bsa
PS - Enjoyed your QRZ.com page!
PPS - I'm a former planetarium director and love astrophotography too!
On 02/20/2024 2:23 AM EST VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
Hi Chris WW2BSA,
One thing I do not know much about is the 'traditional' packet hardware, like those TNCs for Pactor and Robust Packet and if there's software reimplementations so they're easily usable / accessible? One issue with packet is indeed the lack of standardization, or ease of identifying non-AX25/AFSK300 modes with 'small' bandwidths. I can't tell PACTOR from Robust Packet, and I don't know what benefits there are to using Robust Packet (which doesn't seem to be decodable by 'basic' packet modems?) with the new regulation changes and upcoming packet modems.
for other modems, ARDOP development has been dead for a few years, and in turn now we have FreeDATA based on Codec2 (sadly software is very alpha and buggy on Windows for me, but is under constant development) as a potential longer-term replacement for direwolf/soundmodem. That's probably another huge amount of work to convince people to try since it's not 'true' packet, so best to keep focus on the most popular HF Packet software that I also first tried a decade ago.
One coordination issue that I also have noticed is the USB(uppersideband) users on our networks. I know some operators like to run on say, 7.1013 USB to hear both standard packet, robust packet (nearby) and VARA packets on the main freq? If we've got a mix of sidebands, the community would need to agree to offsets for LSB and USB set radios for these additional 'channels'.
I suppose my beacon could include '600b @1250cf L & 2150cf U' as a notice that I am running a decoder on that area. I see a decent bit of QRM from wider digital/packet from Vara or Winlink at ~750hz or so on 7.104LSB
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
It¡¯s not ¡®Network 105¡¯ specifically, but GB7RDG is a well-connected packet node and BBS, with a 40m port, located in Reading, the south east of England, with onward RF links to the growing UK packet network.
24/7 service. 600bps QPSK IL2P+CRC (supported by QtSoundModem) Centre frequency 7052.75 - in the automated 500Hz+ unattended data stations section of our band plan? Dial: 7051.25 USB with a 1500Hz audio centre frequency? Regular beacon.
Toying with the idea of having it switch to a higher bitrate mode for a certain period each hour.
See you there?
Tom
Hello Network 105,
I am an occasional participant in Packet Radio and I was wondering we could be more aggressive with our spectrum usage and software configuration.
I know Direwolf and UZ7HO Soundmodem seem to support multiple modems receiving at once, though finding people to test dual-port/model soundmodem is difficult. For USA operators, I would hope they could be more encouraged to try out more unusual 'open' packet modes with the baud limit being replaced with that 2.8Khz frequency limit
Given the growing amount of VARA users are giving us a lot of interference/overlap with their negative/lower slot frequencies, I feel like having a fixed center frequency/tones/spot to park 600baud and possibly 1200Baud would remind non-traditional packet users to be more mindful and let us enjoy more speed when links are strong enough.?
For example, on Network 40/ 7.104 LSB, my Soundmodem at 300Baud lists 1700Hz as the center freq with the standard 1600+1800 tones/ends.
It would be nice if more of us could agree to set up a spare 600Baud modem to say ~1225-1250Hz center freq (1000hz + 1450hz tones)
with a further spare channel / slot at 750Hz for 525 + 975Hz tones for those with newer radios who don't need to worry about very aggressive band filters
on TX (I'm on a FT991a now, but my FT-990 had this lower power thing on <1200hz and >2200hz)
As an option for occasional usage, a single 1200Baud 'Channel' could be made with waterfall/center freq of 1000 for tones of 500Hz and 1500Hz.This would at least keep the primary 300baud tones/center freq untouched by transmission overlap, and would ideally allow operators with software modems to do their beacons on FX/AX.25 300Baud, but can use the Port option (ie in Easyterm) to specify the speed of the connection with a decent amount of operators eventually being able to hear both 300+600/1200baud.
I feel with modern software and FX25/FEC being an option (that should be a default, honestly) higher baud modes shouldn't be 'unusable' due to their increased bandwidth/speed on moderate HF/SSB conditions, which that plus legacy equipment could keep people wary of adoption?
Of course, it would also be of help to maybe talk with the VARAC Chat program folks who have decided to widely expand VARA's used frequencies with their slot selection system to not go below 14.105/7.105 USB?
I'm probably missing a bunch of other information, but not having to do scheds to test high-baud packet in the USA as we move towards the assumption more stations are using it (maybe note in our beacons too, for keyboard to keyboard?) would be good
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Well, my comments on hardware.
?
In the pre-internet days, or as I call it, the pre-Packet Apocalyse Era, when packet was thriving in the 1980's, Terminal Node Controllers ruled the planet! The internet came and packet usage declined. Then the hobby gave birth to a new breed of young digital amateur radio operators who didn't know what DOS, Win95 and XP was - no less use it. These operators are Linux and Sound Cards gurus, creating new digital modes. Packet interest began to rise - but had many children and grandchildren on the bands too! LOL The bands have become filled with digital signals of all sorts. So many modes, so many choices, so many ways to operate digitally.?
?
I love the progress made over the decades, but alas, I am still old school. I still play with PK-232/900, PacComm, MFJ and Kantronics TNCs. The KPC-3+ which is still very much in production, has a nice feature or HF packet.?If you set to SOFTWARE, the firmware inside the TNC will detect the presence of data to?enable the carrier detection, allowing operation with un-squelched audio.
Pactor has evolved into Pactor 3 and 4. But I think 4 uses encryption which is a no-no for hams. While those TNCs will do Robust Packet, the hardware is VERY expensive.? Plus, they are proprietary, which I don't like. They are made/created by SCS. Their . There seems to be a cheaper workaround but I am still investigating. There is a Groups.io RPR? /g/robustpacket/ that I think you will find interesting. As a USER my technical background is limited so I can not give you data, but it is my understanding that RPR is very reliable on HF.
?
I never heard of FreeDATA but I believe I found the and will have to read it further.?
?
I agree regarding standardization of mode. I read somewhere that the following conventions should be followed on HF: Soundcard digital modes = USB. However, Clover, RTTY, PACKET, AMTOR and PACTOR = LSB. Network105 is suppose to be LSB all the time. I think there was a thread here years ago that indicated that if one had a radio not capable of LSB, you could use USB by using a different dials frequency. The bottom line is: use LSB on HF packet.
?
I would like to try 600 baud with you. Alas, I am not retired, have a wife and run several companies. Despite this, my wife loves amateur radio, is studying for her exam and supports my hobby. (Every ham should have a woman like this!) Let me set up things here and then work on details with you on how to proceed. Maybe we can start a new thread in case others want to join in this experiment. It's 3:50 AM Eastern...I have to get to sleep, but looking forward to your reply/post, Dom.
?
73 de Chris
ww2bsa
PS - Enjoyed your QRZ.com page!
PPS - I'm a former planetarium director and love astrophotography too!
?
On 02/20/2024 2:23 AM EST VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
?
?
Hi Chris WW2BSA,
One thing I do not know much about is the 'traditional' packet hardware, like those TNCs for Pactor and Robust Packet and if there's software reimplementations so they're easily usable / accessible? One issue with packet is indeed the lack of standardization, or ease of identifying non-AX25/AFSK300 modes with 'small' bandwidths. I can't tell PACTOR from Robust Packet, and I don't know what benefits there are to using Robust Packet (which doesn't seem to be decodable by 'basic' packet modems?) with the new regulation changes and upcoming packet modems.
for other modems, ARDOP development has been dead for a few years, and in turn now we have FreeDATA based on Codec2 (sadly software is very alpha and buggy on Windows for me, but is under constant development) as a potential longer-term replacement for direwolf/soundmodem. That's probably another huge amount of work to convince people to try since it's not 'true' packet, so best to keep focus on the most popular HF Packet software that I also first tried a decade ago.
One coordination issue that I also have noticed is the USB(uppersideband) users on our networks. I know some operators like to run on say, 7.1013 USB to hear both standard packet, robust packet (nearby) and VARA packets on the main freq? If we've got a mix of sidebands, the community would need to agree to offsets for LSB and USB set radios for these additional 'channels'.
I suppose my beacon could include '600b @1250cf L & 2150cf U' as a notice that I am running a decoder on that area. I see a decent bit of QRM from wider digital/packet from Vara or Winlink at ~750hz or so on 7.104LSB
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Hi Chris WW2BSA,
One thing I do not know much about is the 'traditional' packet hardware, like those TNCs for Pactor and Robust Packet and if there's software reimplementations so they're easily usable / accessible? One issue with packet is indeed the lack of standardization, or ease of identifying non-AX25/AFSK300 modes with 'small' bandwidths. I can't tell PACTOR from Robust Packet, and I don't know what benefits there are to using Robust Packet (which doesn't seem to be decodable by 'basic' packet modems?) with the new regulation changes and upcoming packet modems.
for other modems, ARDOP development has been dead for a few years, and in turn now we have FreeDATA based on Codec2 (sadly software is very alpha and buggy on Windows for me, but is under constant development) as a potential longer-term replacement for direwolf/soundmodem. That's probably another huge amount of work to convince people to try since it's not 'true' packet, so best to keep focus on the most popular HF Packet software that I also first tried a decade ago.
One coordination issue that I also have noticed is the USB(uppersideband) users on our networks. I know some operators like to run on say, 7.1013 USB to hear both standard packet, robust packet (nearby) and VARA packets on the main freq? If we've got a mix of sidebands, the community would need to agree to offsets for LSB and USB set radios for these additional 'channels'.
I suppose my beacon could include '600b @1250cf L & 2150cf U' as a notice that I am running a decoder on that area. I see a decent bit of QRM from wider digital/packet from Vara or Winlink at ~750hz or so on 7.104LSB
|
Re: Sending NTS traffic via Network 105
Good suggestion, Chris! DTN (Digital Traffic Network) which is part of RRI, will point Sergio in the right direction. It looks like, though, he is only interested in being user to send messages and not host a NTS BBS.
?
Here is a great on RRI/DTN by Ray for those interested.
?
73 de Chris
ww2bsa
?
?
?
Better off getting involved with DTN (I am), and use a more effective
HF mode like VaraHF or Pactor to push
NTS traffic. 300bd plain jane AX.25 only works under ideal band
conditions where phase spreading
of the signals due to multipath distortion. The original bell spec.
is for twisted pair, not a noisy
HF channel with lots of phase distortion. It sort of works despite
all this, but an emphasis in the "sort of"
department. It has been enough fun for folks who have a single hop
path to play with keyboard-2-keyboard.
?
If you need more info, let me know.
?
-Chris KQ6UP
?
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:34?AM Chris Lance WW2BSA < ww2bsa@...> wrote:
>
Hi Sergio and welcome to the Group!
This is an interesting question that I would like to hear others respond to as well.
?
Although Network105 is designed as a 300 baud AX.25 keyboard to keyboard, there are nodes, mailboxes and Gateways. A lot of these Gateways are HF ports on BPQ Systems. One could go on 14.105, connect to a Gateway, access their BBS and send a message.
?
But why do all that? It would be easier to connect locally onto a BBS and send the NTS message that way.
?
So my questions to you are:
?
Is there a local BBS to you?
NTS message versus a regular packet email: what is your goal?
Radio Relay International (RRI) is a great group to be a part of if you like to send/receive NTS messages.
For more info and group conventions: www.Network105.org
?
73 de Chris ww2bsa
Moderator
?
?
?
?
?
?
Is there a way to send NTS traffic via BBS on Network 105?
?
More specifically, I'd like to send RadioGrams to non hams out in the wild.
?
Thanks!
?
?
?
?
?
--
Thanks,
Chris Maness
?
?
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Great post, Dom!
?
With the recent lift on baud rate restrictions by the FCC in the United States, there are definitely exciting times to come! I can foresee a lot of experimenting with increased baud rates. Bandwidth consideration will be important as well. Just last year, even before the FCC passed their ruling, I was having an educational conversation with Ken at Kantronics about higher baud rates and bandwidth on VHF. He taught me that, "As you increment those packet baud rates, 19200 is twice the baud rate of 9600, requires twice the transmitted bandwidth, and twice the receiver bandwidth. ?38400 is twice the baud of 19200, and requires twice the tx/rx bandwidths of 19200. So, 9600 baud packet works best with about 20KHz (or more) bandwidths, 19200 works best with 40KHz bandwidths (or more), etc. With lower transmit deviation levels, you can use each baud at less transmit bandwith, if the intended receiver has adequate receive passband and strong signals (good signal to noise ratios)."
?
While I'm sure no one is going to try 9600 on HF any time soon, I do recall the Canadian packeteers being quite successful with 1200 baud AX.25 packet on 10 meters FM the last sunspot cycle. :-)
?
I can't speak for the group, but my opinion is to agree with you. Why not run a 600 or 1200 baud Soundcard or TNC at certain times of the day (or evening) for experimentation?
?
As far as VARA: I respect the mode. I works. But I don't use it. It is proprietary. You have to pay to upgrade. And quite frankly, I want to play with packet. VARA isn't packet. I enjoy packet because it has three great advantages over other digital modes: transparency, error correction, and automatic control.
?
The problem with HF packet is that 300 baud is too slow for hauling traffic between packet BBS systems. Since there aren't enough terrestrial systems to forward on VHF/UHF backbones, many sysops are using VARA on HF. Their choice...
?
Dom, you also mention, FX.25. A very interesting packet mode very close to AX.25 which works well on HF. Let's also remember Kantronics GTOR mode that they still have in the KAM XL TNCs. I think it's comparable to PACTOR 1 or 2? Someone correct me... Then there is, in my opinion, the Creme de la Creme of HF packet, Robust Packet!
?
Your thoughts, Dom.
?
Chris WW2BSA?
?
On 02/20/2024 12:14 AM EST VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
?
?
Hello Network 105,
I am an occasional participant in Packet Radio and I was wondering we could be more aggressive with our spectrum usage and software configuration.
I know Direwolf and UZ7HO Soundmodem seem to support multiple modems receiving at once, though finding people to test dual-port/model soundmodem is difficult. For USA operators, I would hope they could be more encouraged to try out more unusual 'open' packet modes with the baud limit being replaced with that 2.8Khz frequency limit
Given the growing amount of VARA users are giving us a lot of interference/overlap with their negative/lower slot frequencies, I feel like having a fixed center frequency/tones/spot to park 600baud and possibly 1200Baud would remind non-traditional packet users to be more mindful and let us enjoy more speed when links are strong enough.?
For example, on Network 40/ 7.104 LSB, my Soundmodem at 300Baud lists 1700Hz as the center freq with the standard 1600+1800 tones/ends.
It would be nice if more of us could agree to set up a spare 600Baud modem to say ~1225-1250Hz center freq (1000hz + 1450hz tones)
with a further spare channel / slot at 750Hz for 525 + 975Hz tones for those with newer radios who don't need to worry about very aggressive band filters
on TX (I'm on a FT991a now, but my FT-990 had this lower power thing on <1200hz and >2200hz)
As an option for occasional usage, a single 1200Baud 'Channel' could be made with waterfall/center freq of 1000 for tones of 500Hz and 1500Hz.This would at least keep the primary 300baud tones/center freq untouched by transmission overlap, and would ideally allow operators with software modems to do their beacons on FX/AX.25 300Baud, but can use the Port option (ie in Easyterm) to specify the speed of the connection with a decent amount of operators eventually being able to hear both 300+600/1200baud.
I feel with modern software and FX25/FEC being an option (that should be a default, honestly) higher baud modes shouldn't be 'unusable' due to their increased bandwidth/speed on moderate HF/SSB conditions, which that plus legacy equipment could keep people wary of adoption?
Of course, it would also be of help to maybe talk with the VARAC Chat program folks who have decided to widely expand VARA's used frequencies with their slot selection system to not go below 14.105/7.105 USB?
I'm probably missing a bunch of other information, but not having to do scheds to test high-baud packet in the USA as we move towards the assumption more stations are using it (maybe note in our beacons too, for keyboard to keyboard?) would be good
|
High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Hello Network 105,
I am an occasional participant in Packet Radio and I was wondering we could be more aggressive with our spectrum usage and software configuration.
I know Direwolf and UZ7HO Soundmodem seem to support multiple modems receiving at once, though finding people to test dual-port/model soundmodem is difficult. For USA operators, I would hope they could be more encouraged to try out more unusual 'open' packet modes with the baud limit being replaced with that 2.8Khz frequency limit
Given the growing amount of VARA users are giving us a lot of interference/overlap with their negative/lower slot frequencies, I feel like having a fixed center frequency/tones/spot to park 600baud and possibly 1200Baud would remind non-traditional packet users to be more mindful and let us enjoy more speed when links are strong enough.?
For example, on Network 40/ 7.104 LSB, my Soundmodem at 300Baud lists 1700Hz as the center freq with the standard 1600+1800 tones/ends.
It would be nice if more of us could agree to set up a spare 600Baud modem to say ~1225-1250Hz center freq (1000hz + 1450hz tones)
with a further spare channel / slot at 750Hz for 525 + 975Hz tones for those with newer radios who don't need to worry about very aggressive band filters
on TX (I'm on a FT991a now, but my FT-990 had this lower power thing on <1200hz and >2200hz)
As an option for occasional usage, a single 1200Baud 'Channel' could be made with waterfall/center freq of 1000 for tones of 500Hz and 1500Hz.This would at least keep the primary 300baud tones/center freq untouched by transmission overlap, and would ideally allow operators with software modems to do their beacons on FX/AX.25 300Baud, but can use the Port option (ie in Easyterm) to specify the speed of the connection with a decent amount of operators eventually being able to hear both 300+600/1200baud.
I feel with modern software and FX25/FEC being an option (that should be a default, honestly) higher baud modes shouldn't be 'unusable' due to their increased bandwidth/speed on moderate HF/SSB conditions, which that plus legacy equipment could keep people wary of adoption?
Of course, it would also be of help to maybe talk with the VARAC Chat program folks who have decided to widely expand VARA's used frequencies with their slot selection system to not go below 14.105/7.105 USB?
I'm probably missing a bunch of other information, but not having to do scheds to test high-baud packet in the USA as we move towards the assumption more stations are using it (maybe note in our beacons too, for keyboard to keyboard?) would be good
|
KO4YAW - off air for a few days.
KO4YAW will be off air for a few days. Having a new well drilled and the drilling rig is a bit to close to the antenna wire for my comfort level.
|
Re: Sending NTS traffic via Network 105
I have been really interested in DTN, but for some reason, I was under the impression that the hardware was super expensive..
I need to do some digging on it, and find out if it¡¯s feasible for me to participate.
Thanks!
On Feb 19, 2024, at 12:47?PM, Christopher Maness <christopher.maness@...> wrote:
Better off getting involved with DTN (I am), and use a more effective
HF mode like VaraHF ?or Pactor to push
----
peace,
sergio
photographer, journalist,?visionary
Public Key:?https://pgp.key-server.io/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x69B08F58923AB3A2
#BitMessage BM-NBaswViL21xqgg9STRJjaJaUoyiNe2dV @sergio_101@... https://sergio101.com
http://www.codeandmusic.com
http://www.twitter.com/sergio_101
http://www.facebook.com/sergio101
|
Re: Which connection should i be using? KISS or AGW?
If your client can talk directly to AGWPE, then it should be able to talk directly to DireWolf.? You don¡¯t need AGWPE installed to talk to Dire Wolf.? The AGWPE API (application program interface) should be built into the client if it is there at all.? Check your client software description; it should state that it supports things like serial, telnet, agwpe, direwolf, vara, or whatever.? If it lists agwpe, then just configure direwolf as if you are configuring for agwpe.
For instance, I use Outpost Packet Message Manager supports Serial, Telnet, AGWPE interfaces.? When I want to use DireWolf, I select Outpost¡¯s AGWPE IF option.? I then use DireWolf instead of AGWPE to talk to the modem (or whatever you are using).? Hope this helps.
regards,
jim kn6pe ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of sergio ruiz Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 8:02 AM To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [network105] Which connection should i be using? KISS or AGW? ? Thanks!
I feel like that answer for direwolf is AGWPE?
|
Re: Sending NTS traffic via Network 105
Better off getting involved with DTN (I am), and use a more effective
HF mode like VaraHF or Pactor to push
NTS traffic. 300bd plain jane AX.25 only works under ideal band
conditions where phase spreading
of the signals due to multipath distortion. The original bell spec.
is for twisted pair, not a noisy
HF channel with lots of phase distortion. It sort of works despite
all this, but an emphasis in the "sort of"
department. It has been enough fun for folks who have a single hop
path to play with keyboard-2-keyboard.
If you need more info, let me know.
-Chris KQ6UP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:34?AM Chris Lance WW2BSA <ww2bsa@...> wrote:
Hi Sergio and welcome to the Group!
This is an interesting question that I would like to hear others respond to as well.
Although Network105 is designed as a 300 baud AX.25 keyboard to keyboard, there are nodes, mailboxes and Gateways. A lot of these Gateways are HF ports on BPQ Systems. One could go on 14.105, connect to a Gateway, access their BBS and send a message.
But why do all that? It would be easier to connect locally onto a BBS and send the NTS message that way.
So my questions to you are:
Is there a local BBS to you?
NTS message versus a regular packet email: what is your goal?
Radio Relay International (RRI) is a great group to be a part of if you like to send/receive NTS messages.
For more info and group conventions: www.Network105.org
73 de Chris ww2bsa
Moderator
On 02/19/2024 8:36 AM EST sergio ruiz <sergio.rrd@...> wrote:
Is there a way to send NTS traffic via BBS on Network 105?
More specifically, I'd like to send RadioGrams to non hams out in the wild.
Thanks!
--
Thanks,
Chris Maness
|
Re: Sending NTS traffic via Network 105
Hi Sergio and welcome to the Group!
This is an interesting question that I would like to hear others respond to as well.
?
Although Network105 is designed as a 300 baud AX.25 keyboard to keyboard, there are nodes, mailboxes and Gateways. A lot of these Gateways are HF ports on BPQ Systems. One could go on 14.105, connect to a Gateway, access their BBS and send a message.
?
But why do all that? It would be easier to connect locally onto a BBS and send the NTS message that way.?
?
So my questions to you are:
- Is there a local BBS to you?
- NTS message versus a regular packet email: what is your goal?
- is a great group to be a part of if you like to send/receive NTS messages.
- For more info and group conventions:
73 de Chris ww2bsa
Moderator
?
?
?
On 02/19/2024 8:36 AM EST sergio ruiz <sergio.rrd@...> wrote:
?
?
Is there a way to send NTS traffic via BBS on Network 105?
More specifically, I'd like to send RadioGrams to non hams out in the wild.
Thanks!
|
Re: Which connection should i be using? KISS or AGW?
We are all in this together no doubt . What I understood when I found direwolf was it is for the arm process or to be exact the raspberry Pi computers. We all are experimenting and creating. Big changes are here every day including from the FCC in helping radio amateurs. Best thing to do is find every group relevant and join the discussions. You can learn and the best part is you can teach! The future of amateur radio is heading to a bright new beginning. Try looking at ARDC.?
Hello George Kirn had contact with this data..
Thanks!
I feel like that answer for direwolf is AGWPE?
|
Re: Which connection should i be using? KISS or AGW?
Thanks!
I feel like that answer for direwolf is AGWPE?
|
Re: Which connection should i be using? KISS or AGW?
HI Sergio, This is a ¡°it depends¡± answer. ?If you have a client app that talks KISS natively, then going kiss direct to a KISS modem keeps your configuration simpler. ?If you have a client app that only speaks rs232/serial, then i¡¯d go with AGWPE which can talk serial to the client and talk KISS to the modem. ?Dire Wolf is another alternative to AGWPE. ?The nice thing about Dire Wolf is that it uses the same API as AGWPE.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 19, 2024, at 05:35, sergio ruiz <sergio.rrd@...> wrote:
? It seems like either one works, but I am not really sure which one I should be using.
Ideas?
TU ES 73 DE KB8QPT
|
Sending NTS traffic via Network 105
Is there a way to send NTS traffic via BBS on Network 105?
More specifically, I'd like to send RadioGrams to non hams out in the wild.
Thanks!
|
Which connection should i be using? KISS or AGW?
It seems like either one works, but I am not really sure which one I should be using.
Ideas?
TU ES 73 DE KB8QPT
|
Hi, everyone!
I just learned of HF packet activity on Network 105 this weekend, and am setting up my station.
I can connect to other stations using Direwolf and PiQtSoundModem.
I can check the sound level with PiQtSoundModem, but my log for direwolf looks like:
N0HI-7 audio level = 1(0/0)? ?[NONE]? ?
Does anyone know how to interpret that audio level?
TU ES 73 DE KB8QPT
|
Chris Lance WW2BSA
Christopher Molnar KO4YAW
Jim Oberhofer KN6PE