Re: Seeking a Timewave PK232MBX w/ firmware 7.1 or higher
Talking to Randy the owner of Timewave, there are few if any MBX models badged as Timewave.?The MBX models were a single board TNC last produced by AEA. ?The old battery tray had since been replaced with a coin cell sometime in the early nineties. After AEA closed in 1996, Timewave first sold a DSP labeled 232. It had the same mbx capable motherboard with a new daughter board with the DSP filtering. This required 7.0 EPROMs. ?There was a grey version with XLR connectors used by the military. It is still available via special order. ?The PSK version (no soundcard) was released with a transformer isolated radio path to a pc with 7.1 EPROMs. The soundcard or SC version was released with an actual soundcard installed including all other previous upgrades adding USB connectivity, etc. ?The motherboard was eventually ?redone to include the the + version that is sold now allowing 2 radios to be active simultaneously connected to a single pc for soundcard modes on one port and a traditional TNC for packet, RTTY, pactor etc on the other port. 7.2 was the software.?
Our club maintains a packet network using pk-232¡¯s. Among our group we probably have 25 units from the original all red LED to the Heathkit version, all the way to the PK-232sc+ which is current production.?
They are all upgradeable with kits from Timewave.?
I have several PK-232MBX¡¯s: some with red LEDs, some with daughter boards for the enhanced MBX function, a few with multi color LEDs. None have the old battery trays. They were all made with coin cells. One has a 2400 baud modem board.?
I have never seen a Timewave PK-232MBX. Maybe there are some.?
I have 3 AEA pk-232 MBXs on the desk all with upgraded 7.2 firmware. ?They all have factory installed coin cell batteries. ¡¯m adding the reset switch option to them before they go into winlink gateway operation.?
I should have a Timewave PK-232DSP ready to go soon I could sell you ?as soon as parts arrive from Timewave. It needs the Radio selector switch replaced - it no longer latches. I haven¡¯t specifically checked the firmware but it will be at least 7.1. I¡¯ve got about $60 in it.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 7, 2024, at 9:38?PM, Tim Kaminski via groups.io <kaminsti@...> wrote:
? Hank,
Thank you for your questions, but a Timewave is my requirement. I may change my requirement at some later point in time, but at this point in time my requirement is non negotiable for my specific use case. I may actually need a second in the future, but I can start my project with one.
Do you have a fully functional Timewave PK232MBX you want to sell with firmware 7.1 or higher installed and no battery leakage?
Let me know.
Thanks.
Tim AE7OG
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 06:00:27 PM PST, HB K4HYJ via groups.io <hbjr@...> wrote:
What is making you say there is a difference?? No MBX daughterboard? Or DSP added? ? Hank K4HYJ ? ? Must be a Timewave and not an AEA.
Timewave is my requirement. You either have a Timewave to sell or not. I don't appreciate anyone second guessing my requirement.
|
AEA Packrat 232 with mailbox (UPGRADED) $200 or trade
I have a?AEA Packrat 232 with mailbox for sale. The Packrat has ALL the upgrades done on it except the USB port. All the upgrades were done in 2023 at the manufacture Timewave. It has the latest firmware for the model. It cost me around $270 for the upgrades. The box looks very good. I am selling it because I like a Kamtronics TNC better. I am asking $200 plus shipping. The AEA works like it new. Will take paypal?payment.ky4kwky4jw@...
|
Re: Seeking a Timewave PK232MBX w/ firmware 7.1 or higher
Hank,
Thank you for your questions, but a Timewave is my requirement. I may change my requirement at some later point in time, but at this point in time my requirement is non negotiable for my specific use case. I may actually need a second in the future, but I can start my project with one.
Do you have a fully functional Timewave PK232MBX you want to sell with firmware 7.1 or higher installed and no battery leakage?
Let me know.
Thanks.
Tim AE7OG
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 06:00:27 PM PST, HB K4HYJ via groups.io <hbjr@...> wrote:
What is making you say there is a difference?? No MBX daughterboard? Or DSP added? ? Hank K4HYJ ?
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tim Kaminski via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [network105] Seeking a Timewave PK232MBX w/ firmware 7.1 or higher ? Must be a Timewave and not an AEA.
Timewave is my requirement. You either have a Timewave to sell or not. I don't appreciate anyone second guessing my requirement.
|
Re: Seeking a Timewave PK232MBX w/ firmware 7.1 or higher
What is making you say there is a difference?? No MBX daughterboard? Or DSP added? ? Hank K4HYJ ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
Seeking a Timewave PK232MBX w/ firmware 7.1 or higher
Must be a Timewave and not an AEA.
|
Re: KJ7OES shutting down.
Congratulations and Mazel Tovs and every other thing! I've had to pack up station for lots of reasons but none so joyous.?
?? Hope everyone stays healthy and happy and radio-active in the future.
|
Hey everyone! With great joy I'm announcing the pending birth of my 2nd son! Mom is doing well and we're excited to meet him. BUT, This means I am shutting down the node and moving it to the rack in the garage. When the weather breaks here and time allows we'll be moving all the antennas to the other side of the house. I do plan on reconnecting soon.
I wanted to personally thank Chris WW2BSA, David W7EES, Ken W9GM for their many hours on the phone and through email helping me set my node up correctly and work out any kinks. Their support and encouragement made made the difference a few times between figuring out the issue or just shutting the node down. Thank you so much gentlemen.
My goal is to have a 2m winlink VARA gateway up soon to keep our podunk backwoods connected.
Again, thank you all so much for the help, and we hope to see you all soon. Devin KJ7OES Grants pass,OR
|
|
|
Stations received as of 09 29 2024 on 14.105 LSB @ 1700 htz
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: Chris Lance WW2BSA <ww2bsa@...> Date: 2/29/24 8:49 AM (GMT-05:00) Subject: Re: [network105] Net10
Hi Mike, I read that the following is suggested: 28.070-28.189, priority 28.120-28.189 LSB.
73 de Chris ww2bsa
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Mike N5PWP <n5pwp1@...> Date: 2/28/24 11:50 PM (GMT-05:00) Subject: [network105] Net10
I know this is the Network105 group but I haven't seen a Net10
group. Hopefully someone here has had an opportunity to try it.
I have been monitoring? the frequency today and have managed to snag
a few decodes although I'm not sure they're actually true decodes.
I do have FX25 enabled Rx Only. Has anyone actually had any success
with packet radio on Net10? It seems that 20M seems to be the
favorite place, at least here in the US. I'm going to start
beaconing on it tomorrow to see if I can find any other 10M
packeteers.
73 de n5pwp
Mike
|
Hi Mike, I read that the following is suggested: 28.070-28.189, priority 28.120-28.189 LSB.
73 de Chris ww2bsa
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: Mike N5PWP <n5pwp1@...> Date: 2/28/24 11:50 PM (GMT-05:00) Subject: [network105] Net10
I know this is the Network105 group but I haven't seen a Net10
group. Hopefully someone here has had an opportunity to try it.
I have been monitoring? the frequency today and have managed to snag
a few decodes although I'm not sure they're actually true decodes.
I do have FX25 enabled Rx Only. Has anyone actually had any success
with packet radio on Net10? It seems that 20M seems to be the
favorite place, at least here in the US. I'm going to start
beaconing on it tomorrow to see if I can find any other 10M
packeteers.
73 de n5pwp
Mike
|
I know this is the Network105 group but I haven't seen a Net10
group. Hopefully someone here has had an opportunity to try it.
I have been monitoring? the frequency today and have managed to snag
a few decodes although I'm not sure they're actually true decodes.
I do have FX25 enabled Rx Only. Has anyone actually had any success
with packet radio on Net10? It seems that 20M seems to be the
favorite place, at least here in the US. I'm going to start
beaconing on it tomorrow to see if I can find any other 10M
packeteers.
73 de n5pwp
Mike
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Yes, AX25 and FX25 are intercompatible, but makes the transmission times (for longer packets) about twice the TX time as long due to the addition of the error correcting tail/footer section (the 'pillars' you may see on the waterfall on some 300baud packet transmissions)?
At 600baud, using FX25 isn't much of an issue for speed as it's already much faster
I can confirm reception but no luck with being heard/decoded by Marcel VE3UKW on afsk 600baud 1200cf, but even with a digipeater?KB9PVH we could not be reliably heard yet?
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Ok, Tnx Joe. I don't know much about FX.25, nor have I ever operated it.
It's interesting that you were in FX.25 mode and Dom was in AX.25 mode and you both were able to have a QSO.
I didn't realize they were compatible.?
Tnx 73 de Chris? Ww2bsa
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: "Joe, W7EP" <jtlee0871@...> Date: 2/28/24 7:04 PM (GMT-05:00) Subject: Re: [network105] High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
I did have fx25 activated. Later saw it at bottom of modem setting. I was looking it in the pull down window where it is not.? So i was active in fx25 rx/tx.? Hope this helps.? Joe w7ep On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:47?pm, VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
?Hi Chris and Marcel,
Chris, as far as I could tell I had FX25 enabled for me in Soundmodem but I've never found/understood the main signs on the decoder that you are receiving FX vs AX packets. Given FX25 is essentially invisible to AX25 decoders (it's extra stuff at the start and end apparently, but doesn't interrupt the original ax25 packet) I'd figure I was sending FX25, and Joe was sending AX25. Both of us had Single Bit error correction enabled as a minimum.
Marcel, I do believe it's sideband agnostic as with many packet modes. I know folks who run UpperSB on 14.1013 with no issues.
I believe for you, the Soundmodem decoder center frequency would need to be 500Hz above the normal 300 baud packet area.
I'm moving my 600baud beacons to 1200Hz going forwards as mentioned in my previous post, but any feedback on potential workable offsets to mitigate overlap is appreciated. I found that ~900hz (14.105LSB) could potentially squeeze in an AFSK 1200bd packet transmission channel, but a bit unreasonable this early on :)
Thanks for all the interest and responses, I do need to say that I need to watch out for the QTSoundmodem folks who have their own specific qpsk 600baud mode that isn't compatible with our (and their) afsk 600baud mode. I haven't booted up Direwolf in a while as I found Windows/Uz7ho soundmodem to be slightly better at decoding weaker packets but unsure if that's still true today. Not sure what the differences between AFSK600 and BPSK 600 are, BPSK seems to need more bandwidth and can't decode afsk600.?
For Direwolf, could someone verify a 600baud mode could be easily rigged up on the config files, I'd hope it does for those users as it is the more traditional packet radio modem for Linux. QTSoundmodem exists and is thankfully cross platform, but asking people to switch is a big ask and inconvenience.
Finally, does anyone have experience with testing degraded SSB signals in software? I recall the Rowtel/Codec2/FreeDV and WSJTX folk(s) had a specific tool they used to degrade test audio to HF conditions of various kinds. I'm interested in anyone's experience or practical tests on how 300 baud compares to 600 and 1200 baud on HF, given both parties will be running FX25 to increase error correction. With 600baud being wider and faster, I would assume it needs slightly more SNR for a consistent decode, but at the same time, unpredictable fading would impact it less since the transmission is much quicker. Hmm.
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
I did have fx25 activated. Later saw it at bottom of modem setting. I was looking it in the pull down window where it is not.? So i was active in fx25 rx/tx.? Hope this helps.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:47?pm, VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
?Hi Chris and Marcel,
Chris, as far as I could tell I had FX25 enabled for me in Soundmodem but I've never found/understood the main signs on the decoder that you are receiving FX vs AX packets. Given FX25 is essentially invisible to AX25 decoders (it's extra stuff at the start and end apparently, but doesn't interrupt the original ax25 packet) I'd figure I was sending FX25, and Joe was sending AX25. Both of us had Single Bit error correction enabled as a minimum.
Marcel, I do believe it's sideband agnostic as with many packet modes. I know folks who run UpperSB on 14.1013 with no issues.
I believe for you, the Soundmodem decoder center frequency would need to be 500Hz above the normal 300 baud packet area.
I'm moving my 600baud beacons to 1200Hz going forwards as mentioned in my previous post, but any feedback on potential workable offsets to mitigate overlap is appreciated. I found that ~900hz (14.105LSB) could potentially squeeze in an AFSK 1200bd packet transmission channel, but a bit unreasonable this early on :)
Thanks for all the interest and responses, I do need to say that I need to watch out for the QTSoundmodem folks who have their own specific qpsk 600baud mode that isn't compatible with our (and their) afsk 600baud mode. I haven't booted up Direwolf in a while as I found Windows/Uz7ho soundmodem to be slightly better at decoding weaker packets but unsure if that's still true today. Not sure what the differences between AFSK600 and BPSK 600 are, BPSK seems to need more bandwidth and can't decode afsk600.?
For Direwolf, could someone verify a 600baud mode could be easily rigged up on the config files, I'd hope it does for those users as it is the more traditional packet radio modem for Linux. QTSoundmodem exists and is thankfully cross platform, but asking people to switch is a big ask and inconvenience.
Finally, does anyone have experience with testing degraded SSB signals in software? I recall the Rowtel/Codec2/FreeDV and WSJTX folk(s) had a specific tool they used to degrade test audio to HF conditions of various kinds. I'm interested in anyone's experience or practical tests on how 300 baud compares to 600 and 1200 baud on HF, given both parties will be running FX25 to increase error correction. With 600baud being wider and faster, I would assume it needs slightly more SNR for a consistent decode, but at the same time, unpredictable fading would impact it less since the transmission is much quicker. Hmm.
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Thanks for the reply Dom, but I am still unsure of one thing: was this a FX.25 to AX.25 QSO or FX.25 to FX.25, or ???
Please clarify. Tnx.
Chris ww2bsa
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Hi Chris and Marcel,
Chris, as far as I could tell I had FX25 enabled for me in Soundmodem but I've never found/understood the main signs on the decoder that you are receiving FX vs AX packets. Given FX25 is essentially invisible to AX25 decoders (it's extra stuff at the start and end apparently, but doesn't interrupt the original ax25 packet) I'd figure I was sending FX25, and Joe was sending AX25. Both of us had Single Bit error correction enabled as a minimum.
Marcel, I do believe it's sideband agnostic as with many packet modes. I know folks who run UpperSB on 14.1013 with no issues.
I believe for you, the Soundmodem decoder center frequency would need to be 500Hz above the normal 300 baud packet area.
I'm moving my 600baud beacons to 1200Hz going forwards as mentioned in my previous post, but any feedback on potential workable offsets to mitigate overlap is appreciated. I found that ~900hz (14.105LSB) could potentially squeeze in an AFSK 1200bd packet transmission channel, but a bit unreasonable this early on :)
Thanks for all the interest and responses, I do need to say that I need to watch out for the QTSoundmodem folks who have their own specific qpsk 600baud mode that isn't compatible with our (and their) afsk 600baud mode. I haven't booted up Direwolf in a while as I found Windows/Uz7ho soundmodem to be slightly better at decoding weaker packets but unsure if that's still true today. Not sure what the differences between AFSK600 and BPSK 600 are, BPSK seems to need more bandwidth and can't decode afsk600.?
For Direwolf, could someone verify a 600baud mode could be easily rigged up on the config files, I'd hope it does for those users as it is the more traditional packet radio modem for Linux. QTSoundmodem exists and is thankfully cross platform, but asking people to switch is a big ask and inconvenience.
Finally, does anyone have experience with testing degraded SSB signals in software? I recall the Rowtel/Codec2/FreeDV and WSJTX folk(s) had a specific tool they used to degrade test audio to HF conditions of various kinds. I'm interested in anyone's experience or practical tests on how 300 baud compares to 600 and 1200 baud on HF, given both parties will be running FX25 to increase error correction. With 600baud being wider and faster, I would assume it needs slightly more SNR for a consistent decode, but at the same time, unpredictable fading would impact it less since the transmission is much quicker. Hmm.
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Excellent Dom and Joe!
?
I'm curious, was the QSO AX.25 or FX.25?
?
Chris ww2bsa
On 02/27/2024 2:26 PM EST VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
?
?
I can confirm that Joe, W7EP (DM91) and I Dom, VP9NO (FM72) conducted a QSO over 600baud on Network 105 just a few minutes ago :)
I note that we have changed the 1225hz (14.105 LSB, Modem 'B' 600baud on Soundmodem) to 1200hz to ensure there is no overlap between normal traffic and us. I had adjusted his TXDelay and TXTail from the default 250ms to 125ms delay + 25ms tail without any dropped decodes and quicker replies.
Soundmodem 1.14 seems to be needed to enable FX25 (RX+TX for me) but Joe was on 1.13 with no issues.
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
are you still sending out beacons?
Would anyone know if 600baud is also sideband agnostic? I'm trying to add it to my existing setup with Packet and Robust Packet. (Dial 14.1013 and then 2nd modem on 2.5kHz)
Thanks, Marcel
On Tuesday, February 27th, 2024 at 2:26 PM, VP9NO Dom <sunday.weaver@...> wrote:
I can confirm that Joe, W7EP (DM91) and I Dom, VP9NO (FM72) conducted a QSO over 600baud on Network 105 just a few minutes ago :)
I note that we have changed the 1225hz (14.105 LSB, Modem 'B' 600baud on Soundmodem) to 1200hz to ensure there is no overlap between normal traffic and us. I had adjusted his TXDelay and TXTail from the default 250ms to 125ms delay + 25ms tail without any dropped decodes and quicker replies.
Soundmodem 1.14 seems to be needed to enable FX25 (RX+TX for me) but Joe was on 1.13 with no issues.
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
Congratulations! Excellent? Hello George Kirn had contact with this data.
I can confirm that Joe, W7EP (DM91) and I Dom, VP9NO (FM72) conducted a QSO over 600baud on Network 105 just a few minutes ago :)
I note that we have changed the 1225hz (14.105 LSB, Modem 'B' 600baud on Soundmodem) to 1200hz to ensure there is no overlap between normal traffic and us. I had adjusted his TXDelay and TXTail from the default 250ms to 125ms delay + 25ms tail without any dropped decodes and quicker replies.
Soundmodem 1.14 seems to be needed to enable FX25 (RX+TX for me) but Joe was on 1.13 with no issues.
|
Re: High-Baud 'Channels' for Network 40, 30, 105?
I can confirm that Joe, W7EP (DM91) and I Dom, VP9NO (FM72) conducted a QSO over 600baud on Network 105 just a few minutes ago :)
I note that we have changed the 1225hz (14.105 LSB, Modem 'B' 600baud on Soundmodem) to 1200hz to ensure there is no overlap between normal traffic and us. I had adjusted his TXDelay and TXTail from the default 250ms to 125ms delay + 25ms tail without any dropped decodes and quicker replies.
Soundmodem 1.14 seems to be needed to enable FX25 (RX+TX for me) but Joe was on 1.13 with no issues.
|
Chris Lance WW2BSA
James C Miller -KB2RSK
