From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 11 12:40:45 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA21781 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:40:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Lee810@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:39:27 EDT Subject: [ss] Broadband for hams? To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <26.6dc35a8.267528cf@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id MAA21781 The most recent 'lively' discussion on the amsat-bb was related to further promoting digital communications which generated more than 60 responses. (entitled "Going Digital....Ham Radio?) In reading through the responses, it seems that some folks believe that we should just stick to what we have because it's 'good enough' for what hams need, i.e., simple, low bandwidth digital communications and that's certainly true for modes like APRS and PSK31. But ever since I've read the keynote speech by Lyle Johnson at the 1996 Digital Communications Conference (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Flyle.banquet.html), which I highly recommend, I've been wondering if hams will ever be able to 'advance the radio art' with respect to broadband digital communications. I have subscribed to the TAPR spread spectrum email list and it is almost without any discussion. (I will cross post this message for the sake of trying to stimulate some). I am not talking about technological advances, but rather having access to something for which the rest of the world will have to wait, the way we did with repeaters, phone patches, HTs, satellite communications, email (via packet), etc. I ran across a web site today (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is quietly beating us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and antennas. Just think of what we could do if we were able to pool together our resources and co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater tower. We could have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams within line of sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for those of us who live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are never going to be an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham radio'...but it seems silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny ourselves the same privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit for us is that we could have better power and antenna systems (and hence greater distance). We could have portable broadband Internet connections years before anyone else. The problem in moving forward may stem from the 'no commercial' activity of ham radio. Accessing a manufacturer's web site presumably would violate that rule. Reading email has similar problems if the sender is not a ham. However, unlicensed operators are utilizing the same frequencies with no restrictions. Why are we holding ourselves back? It would be fairly easy to police against abuses, by periodically monitoring activity logs and preventing resource hogging amongst the ranks of our members. For all I know, there may be some hams doing just this but perhaps are reluctant to speak about it publicly for fear of stirring up a hornet's nest with respect to the non-commercial policy we have with ham radio. I know that even suggesting Internet email access through packet got a lot of people in an uproar because of the third party traffic implications. This thinking is based on the scarcity principle of bandwidth. Well, how scarce are the microwave bands we are not even utilizing? I realize that this message was a bit 'off topic' for the satellite group, so if anyone has a problem with that, we can just move it in the spread spectrum group. If you don't have access to the TAPR ss group, you can join without worrying about getting a ton of email. The ss group generates only a few email messages a month. 73, Lee Devlin, KØLEE (K0LEE) Greeley, CO http://members.aol.com/lee810/ham.html --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 11 13:15:03 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA00482 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:15:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:15:43 -0400 From: Dave Pomeroy X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail1.mx.voyager.net id e5BIDeL07718 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <394285CF.E897FE66@voyager.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id NAA00482 Lee, I couldn't agree more. We should be doing some kind of wireless internet at least, even if we don't connect to the "internet". I use to be up to speed on the technical end of electronics but been out of the business for 40 years. Also been out of ham for 40 years. Just got back in a year ago. Even I can see the possiblities. I would donate time, money, and what ever talent I have. What say everyone? Dave Pomeroy K8DNP Southwestern Michigan Lee810@aol.com wrote: > > The most recent 'lively' discussion on the amsat-bb was related to further > promoting digital communications which generated more than 60 responses. > (entitled "Going Digital....Ham Radio?) > > In reading through the responses, it seems that some folks believe that we > should just stick to what we have because it's 'good enough' for what hams > need, i.e., simple, low bandwidth digital communications and that's certainly > true for modes like APRS and PSK31. But ever since I've read the keynote > speech by Lyle Johnson at the 1996 Digital Communications Conference > (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Flyle.banquet.html), which I highly recommend, > I've been wondering if hams will ever be able to 'advance the radio art' with > respect to broadband digital communications. I have subscribed to the TAPR > spread spectrum email list and it is almost without any discussion. (I will > cross post this message for the sake of trying to stimulate some). I am not > talking about technological advances, but rather having access to something > for which the rest of the world will have to wait, the way we did with > repeaters, phone patches, HTs, satellite communications, email (via packet), > etc. > > I ran across a web site today (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that > is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is quietly beating > us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and antennas. Just > think of what we could do if we were able to pool together our resources and > co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater tower. We could > have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams within line of > sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for those of us who > live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are never going to be > an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham radio'...but it seems > silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny ourselves the same > privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit for us is that we > could have better power and antenna systems (and hence greater distance). We > could have portable broadband Internet connections years before anyone else. > > The problem in moving forward may stem from the 'no commercial' activity of > ham radio. Accessing a manufacturer's web site presumably would violate that > rule. Reading email has similar problems if the sender is not a ham. > However, unlicensed operators are utilizing the same frequencies with no > restrictions. Why are we holding ourselves back? It would be fairly easy to > police against abuses, by periodically monitoring activity logs and > preventing resource hogging amongst the ranks of our members. > > For all I know, there may be some hams doing just this but perhaps are > reluctant to speak about it publicly for fear of stirring up a hornet's nest > with respect to the non-commercial policy we have with ham radio. I know > that even suggesting Internet email access through packet got a lot of people > in an uproar because of the third party traffic implications. This thinking > is based on the scarcity principle of bandwidth. Well, how scarce are the > microwave bands we are not even utilizing? > > I realize that this message was a bit 'off topic' for the satellite group, so > if anyone has a problem with that, we can just move it in the spread spectrum > group. If you don't have access to the TAPR ss group, you can join without > worrying about getting a ton of email. The ss group generates only a few > email messages a month. > > 73, > > Lee Devlin, KØLEE (K0LEE) > Greeley, CO > http://members.aol.com/lee810/ham.html > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dave_pomeroy@voyager.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 11 14:28:38 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA18445 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:28:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: hansen@postoffice.cc.fredonia.edu Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:27:12 -0400 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: John Hansen Subject: [ss] Re: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? In-Reply-To: <26.6dc35a8.267528cf@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000611150726.02451100@postoffice.cc.fredonia.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 01:39 PM 6/11/00 -0400, Lee810@aol.com wrote: >I ran across a web site today (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that >is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is quietly beating >us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and antennas. Just >think of what we could do if we were able to pool together our resources and >co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater tower. We could >have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams within line of >sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for those of us who >live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are never going to be >an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham radio'...but it seems >silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny ourselves the same >privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit for us is that we >could have better power and antenna systems (and hence greater distance). We >could have portable broadband Internet connections years before anyone else. I started doing this on a private basis (for my own use) about 3 1/2 years ago. The setup was described in PSR at the time and also in the TAPR Spread Spectrum book. That system is still providing me with reliable Internet access. I'm doing this (and so are a lot of others) not as a ham band activity, but as a "license-free" enterprise. >The problem in moving forward may stem from the 'no commercial' activity of >ham radio. Accessing a manufacturer's web site presumably would violate that >rule. What makes you think that? I see no reason that this would violate Part 97. In fact, since the rules now allow you to conduct commercial transactions (as long as they are only for your own private use), presumably you could even buy radio equipment on line from a manufacturer's website, as long as you instigated the transaction, not the store. I can't think of why this is any different that the famous "buying a pizza with an autopatch" case that was specifically decided by the FCC a number of years ago. Is there something about doing this via the Internet that would make it fundamentally different than doing it via an autopatch? John, W2FS --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 11 16:00:33 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA13256 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:00:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:58:11 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000611135221.00b09930@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id QAA13256 I have been working on this for several years. Alas, I keep refining the speeds upwards as technology changes before I get the thing done. It started as 256K bpson 915 MHz in 1993. I am to 40M bps on 10GHz now. I just read a NASA tech brief about a SBIR research project that putt 155M bps on 72 MHz wide K band channel. Hmmmm. The problem is that more than just SS is involved. I'd love to get into more detail, but I don't think here is the place. But then again the networking SIG seems to be the place, but gets no traffic. Any ssuggestions? 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek At 02:15 PM 6/10/00 -0400, you wrote: >Lee, > I couldn't agree more. We should be doing some kind of wireless >internet at least, even if we don't connect to the "internet". I use to >be up to speed on the technical end of electronics but been out of the >business for 40 years. Also been out of ham for 40 years. Just got >back in a year ago. Even I can see the possiblities. I would donate >time, money, and what ever talent I have. What say everyone? >Dave Pomeroy K8DNP Southwestern Michigan > >Lee810@aol.com wrote: > > > > The most recent 'lively' discussion on the amsat-bb was related to further > > promoting digital communications which generated more than 60 responses. > > (entitled "Going Digital....Ham Radio?) > > > > In reading through the responses, it seems that some folks believe that we > > should just stick to what we have because it's 'good enough' for what hams > > need, i.e., simple, low bandwidth digital communications and that's > certainly > > true for modes like APRS and PSK31. But ever since I've read the keynote > > speech by Lyle Johnson at the 1996 Digital Communications Conference > > (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Flyle.banquet.html), which I highly > recommend, > > I've been wondering if hams will ever be able to 'advance the radio > art' with > > respect to broadband digital communications. I have subscribed to the TAPR > > spread spectrum email list and it is almost without any discussion. (I will > > cross post this message for the sake of trying to stimulate some). I am not > > talking about technological advances, but rather having access to something > > for which the rest of the world will have to wait, the way we did with > > repeaters, phone patches, HTs, satellite communications, email (via > packet), > > etc. > > > > I ran across a web site today > (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that > > is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is quietly beating > > us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and antennas. Just > > think of what we could do if we were able to pool together our > resources and > > co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater tower. We could > > have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams within > line of > > sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for those of us who > > live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are never going > to be > > an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham radio'...but it seems > > silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny ourselves the > same > > privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit for us is > that we > > could have better power and antenna systems (and hence greater > distance). We > > could have portable broadband Internet connections years before anyone > else. > > > > The problem in moving forward may stem from the 'no commercial' activity of > > ham radio. Accessing a manufacturer's web site presumably would > violate that > > rule. Reading email has similar problems if the sender is not a ham. > > However, unlicensed operators are utilizing the same frequencies with no > > restrictions. Why are we holding ourselves back? It would be fairly > easy to > > police against abuses, by periodically monitoring activity logs and > > preventing resource hogging amongst the ranks of our members. > > > > For all I know, there may be some hams doing just this but perhaps are > > reluctant to speak about it publicly for fear of stirring up a hornet's > nest > > with respect to the non-commercial policy we have with ham radio. I know > > that even suggesting Internet email access through packet got a lot of > people > > in an uproar because of the third party traffic implications. This > thinking > > is based on the scarcity principle of bandwidth. Well, how scarce are the > > microwave bands we are not even utilizing? > > > > I realize that this message was a bit 'off topic' for the satellite > group, so > > if anyone has a problem with that, we can just move it in the spread > spectrum > > group. If you don't have access to the TAPR ss group, you can join without > > worrying about getting a ton of email. The ss group generates only a few > > email messages a month. > > > > 73, > > > > Lee Devlin, KØLEE (K0LEE) > > Greeley, CO > > http://members.aol.com/lee810/ham.html > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dave_pomeroy@voyager.net > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 11 16:15:30 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA17086 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:15:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:14:32 -0700 From: "Shawn T. Rutledge" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Derek Lassen on Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:58:11PM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000611141432.E30272@electron.quantum.int> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:58:11PM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > I'd love to get into more detail, but I don't think here is the place. But > then again the networking SIG seems to be the place, but gets no traffic. > Any ssuggestions? Well if you do it on a different list, can you please give some warning so I can go subscribe? As someone else said, this list is low-traffic anyway, so maybe discussing this would "stimulate" something. I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute myself, except that I would like to do it. Was thinking of one of those links using Proxim Symphony cards and dish antennas. -- _______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD ecloud@bigfoot.com (_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud kb7pwd@kb7pwd.ampr.org __) | | \________________________________________________________________ Get money for spare CPU cycles at http://www.ProcessTree.com/?sponsor=5903 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 11 19:43:53 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA11398 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:43:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:41:39 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000611171935.00b99f00@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Here is a summary of my current thinking: Processor: AMD Elan SC520 with a optional AMD 186CC. The 186CC would do AX.25 - four ports. Memory of 16M to 256M bytes (1M for 186CC). LAN: 10/100 mb Ethernet On air protocol: ATM. Transmission in time slots with the central site being the arbiter of the time. Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star topologies. Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). Modulation: 16 QAM. Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. Carrier: Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum on 10 GHz, appx 8 MHz occupied bandwidth, I am looking into DSSS of the carrier, but that is rather "problematic". :> The actual on air bit rate would be 48M bps, but FEC drops that to 10M bps thruput. I think the thing (I call it TOS (TNC On Steroids) would fit on a 20 to 30 sq inch board. Any interest? :> 73 de KN6TD At 02:14 PM 6/11/00 -0700, you wrote: >On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:58:11PM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > > I'd love to get into more detail, but I don't think here is the place. But > > then again the networking SIG seems to be the place, but gets no traffic. > > Any ssuggestions? > >Well if you do it on a different list, can you please give some warning >so I can go subscribe? > >As someone else said, this list is low-traffic anyway, so maybe discussing >this would "stimulate" something. > >I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute myself, except that I >would like to do it. Was thinking of one of those links using >Proxim Symphony cards and dish antennas. > >-- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 01:23:02 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id BAA05650 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:23:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:20:40 +0200 From: Also-Antal Csaba X-Accept-Language: hu,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <39448138.BB10DE91@mail.matav.hu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Derek Lassen wrote: > > Here is a summary of my current thinking: > > Processor: AMD Elan SC520 with a optional AMD 186CC. > The 186CC would do AX.25 - four ports. > Memory of 16M to 256M bytes (1M for 186CC). > > LAN: 10/100 mb Ethernet > On air protocol: ATM. > Transmission in time slots with the central site being the arbiter of the time. > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star topologies. > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > Modulation: 16 QAM. > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. symbol rate... > Carrier: Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum on 10 GHz, appx 8 MHz occupied > bandwidth, > I am looking into DSSS of the carrier, but that is rather "problematic". :> > The actual on air bit rate would be 48M bps, but FEC drops that to 10M bps > thruput. What kind of circuit do you want to use for modulating and demodulating of the 16QAM ? On the basis of the data you gave you want to use a cable modem chip made for subscriber side. In this case the FHSS modulation is almost possible to realize in normal datarate because these chips do not function in burst mode. It losts the signal after every frequency change so it starts a new acquisition process. it takes for one or two seconds in good receiving conditions. It is the same in Tx/Rx. udv Csaba --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 02:50:08 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id CAA20923 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:50:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:46:34 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000612003554.00b1f1a0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The most promising device so far is the Intel 2176 (was Stanford Telecom). At 08:20 AM 6/12/00 +0200, you wrote: >Derek Lassen wrote: > > > > Here is a summary of my current thinking: > > > > Processor: AMD Elan SC520 with a optional AMD 186CC. > > The 186CC would do AX.25 - four ports. > > Memory of 16M to 256M bytes (1M for 186CC). > > > > LAN: 10/100 mb Ethernet > > On air protocol: ATM. > > Transmission in time slots with the central site being the arbiter of > the time. > > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star topologies. > > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > > Modulation: 16 QAM. > > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. > >symbol rate... ????? > > Carrier: Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum on 10 GHz, appx 8 MHz occupied > > bandwidth, > > I am looking into DSSS of the carrier, but that is rather "problematic". :> > > The actual on air bit rate would be 48M bps, but FEC drops that to 10M bps > > thruput. > >What kind of circuit do you want to use for modulating and demodulating >of the 16QAM ? On the basis of the data you gave you want to use a cable >modem chip made for subscriber side. In this case the FHSS modulation is >almost possible to realize in normal datarate because these chips do not >function in burst mode. It losts the signal after every frequency >change so it starts a new acquisition process. it takes for one or two >seconds in good receiving conditions. It is the same in Tx/Rx. > >udv >Csaba --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 06:23:03 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id GAA07847 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:23:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Broadband for hams? Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:17:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by bag-1.mail.digex.net id HAA10799 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCAC@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id GAA07847 Lee: I would like to see this taken to a common approach for both voice and data, i.e. a site that functions as both a voice repeater and data access point. The proliferation of old repeater technologies to support a couple of users seems to be the norm here in Florida, so for example it is very hard to get a 440 freq, they have started assigning our packet freqs for repeaters. There is a group of us here who would dearly like to see some sort of CDMA type approach to voice/data, but so far we are stuck with solutions which are not a real response to this issue. I also believe that if we could get a digital system up and running which would handle voice we would get support from the voice only side of the house, but that part which is interested in new technologies and would get on board in order to play with the new boxes. At the same time those of us who operate the packet network would get much higher speed links and RF POP's. My belief is that unless we get a larger part of the ham population involved we will never get this off the ground. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee810@aol.com [SMTP:Lee810@aol.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 13:39 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Broadband for hams? > > The most recent 'lively' discussion on the amsat-bb was related to further > > promoting digital communications which generated more than 60 responses. > (entitled "Going Digital....Ham Radio?) > > In reading through the responses, it seems that some folks believe that we > > should just stick to what we have because it's 'good enough' for what hams > > need, i.e., simple, low bandwidth digital communications and that's > certainly > true for modes like APRS and PSK31. But ever since I've read the keynote > speech by Lyle Johnson at the 1996 Digital Communications Conference > (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Flyle.banquet.html), which I highly > recommend, > I've been wondering if hams will ever be able to 'advance the radio art' > with > respect to broadband digital communications. I have subscribed to the > TAPR > spread spectrum email list and it is almost without any discussion. (I > will > cross post this message for the sake of trying to stimulate some). I am > not > talking about technological advances, but rather having access to > something > for which the rest of the world will have to wait, the way we did with > repeaters, phone patches, HTs, satellite communications, email (via > packet), > etc. > > I ran across a web site today (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) > that > is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is quietly > beating > us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and antennas. Just > think of what we could do if we were able to pool together our resources > and > co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater tower. We > could > have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams within line > of > sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for those of us who > live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are never going to > be > an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham radio'...but it seems > silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny ourselves the > same > privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit for us is that > we > could have better power and antenna systems (and hence greater distance). > We > could have portable broadband Internet connections years before anyone > else. > > The problem in moving forward may stem from the 'no commercial' activity > of > ham radio. Accessing a manufacturer's web site presumably would violate > that > rule. Reading email has similar problems if the sender is not a ham. > However, unlicensed operators are utilizing the same frequencies with no > restrictions. Why are we holding ourselves back? It would be fairly easy > to > police against abuses, by periodically monitoring activity logs and > preventing resource hogging amongst the ranks of our members. > > For all I know, there may be some hams doing just this but perhaps are > reluctant to speak about it publicly for fear of stirring up a hornet's > nest > with respect to the non-commercial policy we have with ham radio. I know > that even suggesting Internet email access through packet got a lot of > people > in an uproar because of the third party traffic implications. This > thinking > is based on the scarcity principle of bandwidth. Well, how scarce are the > > microwave bands we are not even utilizing? > > I realize that this message was a bit 'off topic' for the satellite group, > so > if anyone has a problem with that, we can just move it in the spread > spectrum > group. If you don't have access to the TAPR ss group, you can join > without > worrying about getting a ton of email. The ss group generates only a few > email messages a month. > > 73, > > Lee Devlin, KØLEE (K0LEE) > Greeley, CO > http://members.aol.com/lee810/ham.html > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 06:54:43 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id GAA13916 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:54:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: rwmcgwier@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:53:14 -0400 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Robert McGwier Subject: [ss] Broadcom, broadband, etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.1.20000612073947.0093c440@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk www.broadcom.com has an up to 256 QAM transceiver which is used in cable modems and digital cable TV transceivers. The part is cheap (about $100 in amateur quantities, an eval board costs $200-ish). With an FPGA attached (Xilinx, 1 Mega gate) one is able to do a ton of stuff, including FEC, put in a n-FSK modem, etc. Very interesting stuff. Hams are not able to contribute anything at all given the current needs of consumers for these kinds of parts. My company which has been paying tens of thounsands for modems like these is now going to pay about $5000 per copy for the same capability. This is not the last offering (part) in this area and with more stuff being crammed down our cable/fibres, these devices will become more widespread, capable, and cheaper. At 256 QAM, and with Reed Solomon and FEC, 16 mbps DATA rate seems easily achievable. You get about 32+ feedforward and 32+ feedback taps in an FFE/DFE equalizer built into the thing with a very acceptable symbol error rate in these tests I've participated in, even on multiple ray multipath. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 13:15:37 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA13832 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:15:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:10:08 -0500 From: Steve Lampereur Organization: GBPPR - www.qsl.net/n9zia X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <39452780.574CEE2D@yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk We are already doing it. And so are others. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR > I ran across a web site today (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that > is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is quietly beating > us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and antennas. Just > think of what we could do if we were able to pool together our resources and > co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater tower. We could > have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams within line of > sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for those of us who > live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are never going to be > an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham radio'...but it seems > silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny ourselves the same > privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit for us is that we > could have better power and antenna systems (and hence greater distance). We > could have portable broadband Internet connections years before anyone else. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 13:24:57 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA17919 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:24:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:07:22 +0200 From: Also-Antal Csaba X-Accept-Language: hu,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadcom, broadband, etc. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <394526DA.2B8B987@mail.matav.hu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id NAA17919 Robert McGwier wrote: > > www.broadcom.com > > has an up to 256 QAM transceiver which is used in > cable modems and digital cable TV transceivers. > We have already tried to buy cable modem chips from that company, we wrote an NDA and we got the documentation about the chips. When we wanted to order for our development, they said that we could not order any chips without buying the eval board ( costed §2000-14000 ). The other big problem is that each function is done with a separate chip still the STE-2176 includes all these function and it is very cheap. > The part is cheap (about $100 in amateur quantities, an > eval board costs $200-ish). With an FPGA attached (Xilinx, > 1 Mega gate) one is able to do a ton of stuff, including > FEC, put in a n-FSK modem, etc. Very interesting > stuff. Hams are not able to contribute anything at all > given the current needs of consumers for these kinds of > parts. My company which has been paying tens of > thounsands for modems like these is now going to pay > about $5000 per copy for the same capability. This > is not the last offering (part) in this area and with more > stuff being crammed down our cable/fibres, these devices > will become more widespread, capable, and cheaper. At 256 > QAM, and with Reed Solomon and FEC, 16 mbps DATA > rate seems easily achievable. You get about 32+ feedforward > and 32+ feedback taps in an FFE/DFE equalizer built into > the thing with a very acceptable symbol error rate > in these tests I've participated in, even on multiple ray > multipath. The 16 QAM needs 14 dB SNR, 256 QAM needs about 40 dB SNR with the same BER. udv Csaba > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: antalcs@mail.matav.hu > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 13:25:00 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA17921 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:24:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:20:13 +0200 From: Also-Antal Csaba X-Accept-Language: hu,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <394529DD.AD77105C@mail.matav.hu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Derek Lassen wrote: > > The most promising device so far is the Intel 2176 (was Stanford Telecom). It is.Do you have working register set for these chip? We use this chip on our own wireless isp card development. This time we have isa type card, with these chips, xcs20 and some ram. The final product works on external device with sc400 +usb/eth +linux. On the basis of my idea we use this chip for sending and receiving data with 16qam modulation. We can modulate the output wave. But the receiver can't go into acquisition state if we modulate random data, or switch on the scambler. This chip can lock to the signal about 1-2sec. > > > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star topologies. > > > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > > > Modulation: 16 QAM. > > > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. > > > >symbol rate... > > ????? The 16qam is 4 simultanous bit in one symbol. The 12 megasymbol is 4*12MHz -> 48MBps and this is a date rate. You wrote this in your first mail. The doc guarants max 165megz masterclock, we can drive succesful this chip on 320MHz. udv Csaba --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 17:37:25 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA20807 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:37:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:28:34 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000612143422.00b29ed0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 08:20 PM 6/12/00 +0200, you wrote: >Derek Lassen wrote: > > > > The most promising device so far is the Intel 2176 (was Stanford Telecom). > >It is.Do you have working register set for these chip? We use this chip I have the data book from Stel and the (essentially same) pdf form from Intel. If you don't already have it, go to ftp://download.intel.com/design/cable/datashts/24537601.pdf >on our own wireless isp card development. This time we have isa type >card, >with these chips, xcs20 and some ram. The final product works on >external >device with sc400 +usb/eth +linux. On the basis of my idea we use this >chip for sending and >receiving data with 16qam modulation. We can modulate the output wave. For those who may not know: The SC400 and SC520 are AMD high integration x86 processors. Just add RAM, ROM and an OS. The SC400 has a 486 class processor and generates a 16 bit bus. The SC520 has a Pentium class processor and generates a PCI bus, which I need, because I intend to do the RF protocol with a PCI based ATM chip (IDT 77252 ATM SAR). The 10/100M bps Ethernet and HiFN 7751 compression processor are on the PCI bus as well. >But the receiver can't go into acquisition state if we modulate random >data, >or switch on the scambler. This chip can lock to the signal about >1-2sec. One or two *seconds* ?!?!?!?!?!?! There is something really, really, badly wrong. I am under the impression that the receiver should lock within a few symbols! My protocol plans call for bursts of less than 10 milliseconds. > > > > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star > topologies. > > > > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > > > > Modulation: 16 QAM. > > > > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. > > > > > >symbol rate... > > > > ????? > >The 16qam is 4 simultanous bit in one symbol. The 12 megasymbol is >4*12MHz -> 48MBps and this is a date rate. You wrote this in your first >mail. The doc Yes. 48M bps before FEC. >guarants max 165megz masterclock, we can drive succesful this chip on >320MHz. No shit? Now, that's what I call conservative! Maybe the final critter could do something like 25M bps thru put? How do you do it? Feed 66 MHz where the 25 MHz reference is supposed to go? >udv >Csaba --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 17:37:30 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA20825 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:37:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:32:18 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Broadcom, broadband, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000612152911.00b27dc0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id RAA20825 They wouldn't even talk to me. And I asked real nice. :) At 08:07 PM 6/12/00 +0200, you wrote: >Robert McGwier wrote: > > > > www.broadcom.com > > > > has an up to 256 QAM transceiver which is used in > > cable modems and digital cable TV transceivers. > > >We have already tried to buy cable modem chips from that company, we >wrote an NDA and we got the documentation about the chips. When we >wanted to order for our development, they said that we could not order >any chips without buying the eval board ( costed §2000-14000 ). >The other big problem is that each function is done with a separate chip >still the STE-2176 includes all these function and it is very cheap. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 23:08:44 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA02956 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:08:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hall, Daniel Ross" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] - Re: Broadband for hams? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:01:33 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <2149A0BABC77D311AF890090274E00B28C464A@salex005.dsto.defence.gov.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk QAM waveforms dont have a huge carrier component (when data is being sent) and you need to use a costas loop circuit to lock onto the phase of the carrier (rather than a PLL) - from memory this does take a second or so to happen. Dan. -----Original Message----- From: Derek Lassen [mailto:kn6td@clubnet.net] Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2000 7:59 To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? At 08:20 PM 6/12/00 +0200, you wrote: >Derek Lassen wrote: > > > > The most promising device so far is the Intel 2176 (was Stanford Telecom). > >It is.Do you have working register set for these chip? We use this chip I have the data book from Stel and the (essentially same) pdf form from Intel. If you don't already have it, go to ftp://download.intel.com/design/cable/datashts/24537601.pdf >on our own wireless isp card development. This time we have isa type >card, >with these chips, xcs20 and some ram. The final product works on >external >device with sc400 +usb/eth +linux. On the basis of my idea we use this >chip for sending and >receiving data with 16qam modulation. We can modulate the output wave. For those who may not know: The SC400 and SC520 are AMD high integration x86 processors. Just add RAM, ROM and an OS. The SC400 has a 486 class processor and generates a 16 bit bus. The SC520 has a Pentium class processor and generates a PCI bus, which I need, because I intend to do the RF protocol with a PCI based ATM chip (IDT 77252 ATM SAR). The 10/100M bps Ethernet and HiFN 7751 compression processor are on the PCI bus as well. >But the receiver can't go into acquisition state if we modulate random >data, >or switch on the scambler. This chip can lock to the signal about >1-2sec. One or two *seconds* ?!?!?!?!?!?! There is something really, really, badly wrong. I am under the impression that the receiver should lock within a few symbols! My protocol plans call for bursts of less than 10 milliseconds. > > > > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star > topologies. > > > > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > > > > Modulation: 16 QAM. > > > > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. > > > > > >symbol rate... > > > > ????? > >The 16qam is 4 simultanous bit in one symbol. The 12 megasymbol is >4*12MHz -> 48MBps and this is a date rate. You wrote this in your first >mail. The doc Yes. 48M bps before FEC. >guarants max 165megz masterclock, we can drive succesful this chip on >320MHz. No shit? Now, that's what I call conservative! Maybe the final critter could do something like 25M bps thru put? How do you do it? Feed 66 MHz where the 25 MHz reference is supposed to go? >udv >Csaba --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: daniel.hall@dsto.defence.gov.au To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 12 23:32:02 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA12592 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:31:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "jeff millar" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:19:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4029.2901 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <004801bfd4ee$954204e0$0201a8c0@home> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Although a someone or team out there might be able to produce the modem described in the mail attached below, the system and software effort is massive and probably results in less performance and existing $150 products...soon to fall to $50. I think hams would better spend their time with antennas, linking, feedlines, amplifiers, and frequency changing instead of the complexities of modulation structure and software. We can get about the same performance from an 802.11b wireless lan card. 11M bps at 2.4 GHz Standardized and interoperable across manufacturers pc-card interface to processor, ISA and PCI bus adapters available Voice, video, data interface capability Centralized ("infrastructure") and Ad-hoc (peer to peer) networking Works with Linux, Windows, etc, etc. Good wireless lan cards include Lucent Wavelan, and Prism chipset based, see http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_Tourrilhes/Linux/ for a lot of good info besides the linux drivers The units put out about 50-100 mW, amplifiers available, http://www.ydi.com/a2440.htm, http://www.teletronics.com/Products/Amplifiers/2400MHz/smartamp2400.htm Ranges at 100 mw 100 ft advertised 700 ft free space with 0 dB antenna 3.5 Miles with 14 dBi at each end (24") VE3JF put together a list of links...a bit dated now but interesting http://hydra.carleton.ca/info/2400tbl.html For the hacker^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ham, it possible to build a card from scratch using the Intersil Prism II chip set, see http://www.intersil.com/prism/11mbps.asp Hams might also consider embedded the wireless lan card in a microwave transmitter using the 2.4 GHz signals as the exciter. At my work, we hacked the prism cards to access the 240 MHz IF on one product and generated a 5.8 GHz data link using prisms on another project. food for thought, jeff, wa1hco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek Lassen" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 8:41 PM Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? > Here is a summary of my current thinking: > > Processor: AMD Elan SC520 with a optional AMD 186CC. > The 186CC would do AX.25 - four ports. > Memory of 16M to 256M bytes (1M for 186CC). > > LAN: 10/100 mb Ethernet > On air protocol: ATM. > Transmission in time slots with the central site being the arbiter of the time. > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star topologies. > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > Modulation: 16 QAM. > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. > Carrier: Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum on 10 GHz, appx 8 MHz occupied > bandwidth, > I am looking into DSSS of the carrier, but that is rather "problematic". :> > The actual on air bit rate would be 48M bps, but FEC drops that to 10M bps > thruput. > > I think the thing (I call it TOS (TNC On Steroids) would fit on a 20 to 30 > sq inch board. > > Any interest? > > :> > > 73 de KN6TD > > > At 02:14 PM 6/11/00 -0700, you wrote: > >On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:58:11PM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > > > I'd love to get into more detail, but I don't think here is the place. But > > > then again the networking SIG seems to be the place, but gets no traffic. > > > Any ssuggestions? > > > >Well if you do it on a different list, can you please give some warning > >so I can go subscribe? > > > >As someone else said, this list is low-traffic anyway, so maybe discussing > >this would "stimulate" something. > > > >I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute myself, except that I > >would like to do it. Was thinking of one of those links using > >Proxim Symphony cards and dish antennas. > > > >-- > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: JEFF@WA1HCO.MV.COM > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 00:19:17 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA01525 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:19:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:17:03 +0200 From: Also-Antal Csaba X-Accept-Language: hu,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3945C3CF.802C7A96@mail.matav.hu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > >It is.Do you have working register set for these chip? We use this chip > > I have the data book from Stel and the (essentially same) pdf form from > Intel. If you don't already have it, go to > ftp://download.intel.com/design/cable/datashts/24537601.pdf We get these doc-s from stel, but these are not enough. If you look this doc you can see many missing data, and not documented function. > For those who may not know: > The SC400 and SC520 are AMD high integration x86 processors. Just add RAM, > ROM and an OS. The SC400 has a 486 class processor and generates a 16 bit > bus. The SC520 has a Pentium class processor and generates a PCI bus, which > I need, because I intend to do the RF protocol with a PCI based ATM chip > (IDT 77252 ATM SAR). The 10/100M bps Ethernet and HiFN 7751 compression > processor are on the PCI bus as well. The sc400 can work with 32bit vesa local bus. But we don't need this. The sc400 work well with isa bus, we only would like to put on cheap isa type ethernet card. > >But the receiver can't go into acquisition state if we modulate random > >data, > >or switch on the scambler. This chip can lock to the signal about > >1-2sec. > One or two *seconds* ?!?!?!?!?!?! > There is something really, really, badly wrong. If the SNR is about 20dB, it locks in shorter time, but they do not take for a few symbols. Before the chip locks it tunes its own filters so as to get better performance. > I am under the impression that the receiver should lock within a few symbols! > My protocol plans call for bursts of less than 10 milliseconds. This will work if you use headend receiver. > >guarants max 165megz masterclock, we can drive succesful this chip on > >320MHz. > > No shit? Now, that's what I call conservative! Maybe the final critter > could do something like 25M bps thru put? > > How do you do it? Feed 66 MHz where the 25 MHz reference is supposed to go? We use 10MHz xtal, the on chip pll multiplier makes this clock rate from M/N value. When the chip runs on in normal 144MHz master clock then the temperature is 50C. If we make this on 320MHz then it will be really hot. It can work steadily for hours. udv Csaba --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 01:34:04 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id BAA25669 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:33:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:30:35 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000612231536.00bdf8e0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Yes. Except for one very big problem. The 802.11 cards are trying to emulate a hardwired cable link with a variable RF link. Great if you want to link to your bud's house 'cause you are to cheap to buy a DSL line. This does not scale well, and will never work beyond a few nodes. I am trying to build something that will work with hundreds to thousands of nodes. I regard 802.11 as the CB of Ham RF networking. The routing is where I am interested in working. But the pipe has to be worthy of the effort. I am also looking ahead to when the repeater is not on a 8000 foot tall tower, but on one that is 117,744,000 feet tall. :> I am not the kind of ham that is content with the latest appliance. Even if it does do what I want it to do. (Little red hen story comes to mind) 73 de KN6TD At 12:19 AM 6/13/00 -0400, you wrote: >Although a someone or team out there might be able to produce the modem >described in the mail attached below, the system and software effort >is massive and probably results in less performance and existing >$150 products...soon to fall to $50. > >I think hams would better spend their time with antennas, linking, >feedlines, >amplifiers, and frequency changing instead of the complexities of modulation >structure and software. > >We can get about the same performance from an 802.11b wireless lan card. > 11M bps at 2.4 GHz > Standardized and interoperable across manufacturers > pc-card interface to processor, ISA and PCI bus adapters available > Voice, video, data interface capability > Centralized ("infrastructure") and Ad-hoc (peer to peer) networking > Works with Linux, Windows, etc, etc. > >Good wireless lan cards include > Lucent Wavelan, and Prism chipset based, see > http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_Tourrilhes/Linux/ > for a lot of good info besides the linux drivers > >The units put out about 50-100 mW, amplifiers available, > http://www.ydi.com/a2440.htm, > http://www.teletronics.com/Products/Amplifiers/2400MHz/smartamp2400.htm > >Ranges at 100 mw > 100 ft advertised > 700 ft free space with 0 dB antenna > 3.5 Miles with 14 dBi at each end (24") > >VE3JF put together a list of links...a bit dated now but interesting > http://hydra.carleton.ca/info/2400tbl.html > >For the hacker^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ham, it possible to build a card from scratch >using the Intersil Prism II chip set, see >http://www.intersil.com/prism/11mbps.asp > >Hams might also consider embedded the wireless lan card in a microwave >transmitter >using the 2.4 GHz signals as the exciter. > >At my work, we hacked the prism cards to access the 240 MHz IF on one >product >and generated a 5.8 GHz data link using prisms on another project. > >food for thought, > >jeff, wa1hco > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Derek Lassen" >To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" >Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 8:41 PM >Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? > > > > Here is a summary of my current thinking: > > > > Processor: AMD Elan SC520 with a optional AMD 186CC. > > The 186CC would do AX.25 - four ports. > > Memory of 16M to 256M bytes (1M for 186CC). > > > > LAN: 10/100 mb Ethernet > > On air protocol: ATM. > > Transmission in time slots with the central site being the arbiter of the >time. > > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star topologies. > > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > > Modulation: 16 QAM. > > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. > > Carrier: Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum on 10 GHz, appx 8 MHz occupied > > bandwidth, > > I am looking into DSSS of the carrier, but that is rather "problematic". >:> > > The actual on air bit rate would be 48M bps, but FEC drops that to 10M bps > > thruput. > > > > I think the thing (I call it TOS (TNC On Steroids) would fit on a 20 to 30 > > sq inch board. > > > > Any interest? > > > > :> > > > > 73 de KN6TD > > > > > > At 02:14 PM 6/11/00 -0700, you wrote: > > >On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:58:11PM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > > > > I'd love to get into more detail, but I don't think here is the place. >But > > > > then again the networking SIG seems to be the place, but gets no >traffic. > > > > Any ssuggestions? > > > > > >Well if you do it on a different list, can you please give some warning > > >so I can go subscribe? > > > > > >As someone else said, this list is low-traffic anyway, so maybe >discussing > > >this would "stimulate" something. > > > > > >I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute myself, except that I > > >would like to do it. Was thinking of one of those links using > > >Proxim Symphony cards and dish antennas. > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: JEFF@WA1HCO.MV.COM > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 01:37:59 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id BAA26828 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:37:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:35:15 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000612233118.00bf8100@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 07:17 AM 6/13/00 +0200, you wrote: > > >It is.Do you have working register set for these chip? We use this chip > > > > I have the data book from Stel and the (essentially same) pdf form from > > Intel. If you don't already have it, go to > > ftp://download.intel.com/design/cable/datashts/24537601.pdf > >We get these doc-s from stel, but these are not enough. If you look this >doc you can see many missing data, and not documented function. No. you GOT them. Stel sold all of this stuff to intel. > > For those who may not know: > > The SC400 and SC520 are AMD high integration x86 processors. Just add RAM, > > ROM and an OS. The SC400 has a 486 class processor and generates a 16 bit > > bus. The SC520 has a Pentium class processor and generates a PCI bus, which > > I need, because I intend to do the RF protocol with a PCI based ATM chip > > (IDT 77252 ATM SAR). The 10/100M bps Ethernet and HiFN 7751 compression > > processor are on the PCI bus as well. > >The sc400 can work with 32bit vesa local bus. But we don't need this. >The sc400 work well with isa bus, we only would like to put on cheap isa >type ethernet card. Not enough responsiveness on ISA. > > >But the receiver can't go into acquisition state if we modulate random > > >data, > > >or switch on the scambler. This chip can lock to the signal about > > >1-2sec. > > One or two *seconds* ?!?!?!?!?!?! > > There is something really, really, badly wrong. > >If the SNR is about 20dB, it locks in shorter time, but they do not take >for a few symbols. Before the chip locks it tunes its own filters so as >to get better performance. > > > I am under the impression that the receiver should lock within a few > symbols! > > My protocol plans call for bursts of less than 10 milliseconds. > >This will work if you use headend receiver. > > > >guarants max 165megz masterclock, we can drive succesful this chip on > > >320MHz. > > > > No shit? Now, that's what I call conservative! Maybe the final critter > > could do something like 25M bps thru put? > > > > How do you do it? Feed 66 MHz where the 25 MHz reference is supposed to go? > >We use 10MHz xtal, the on chip pll multiplier makes this clock rate from >M/N value. When the chip runs on in normal 144MHz master clock then the >temperature is 50C. If we make this on 320MHz then it will be really >hot. >It can work steadily for hours. Except that it has errors. Have you run it at normal speed and still cant get it to lock up in a few symbols? >udv >Csaba > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 02:24:53 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id CAA05843 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:24:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] FW: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:35:32 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Here's an email I wrote just before I subscribed to the list. The subject is the future of digital ham radio, a thread that's been going on a while in AMSAT circles. Tony Langdon. Systems Development and Support. ATC Training Australasia. Level 2 321 Exhibition St Melbourne 3000. Phone: 1300 13 1983 WWW: http://www.atctraining.com.au -----Original Message----- From: Tony Langdon Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2000 9:51 To: 'Lee810@aol.com' Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? > The most recent 'lively' discussion on the amsat-bb was > related to further > promoting digital communications which generated more than 60 > responses. > (entitled "Going Digital....Ham Radio?) Guess it's one area some people still have problems with. :-) The amount of activity is a good sign though. people care. :-) > In reading through the responses, it seems that some folks > believe that we > should just stick to what we have because it's 'good enough' > for what hams > need, i.e., simple, low bandwidth digital communications and > that's certainly > true for modes like APRS and PSK31. But ever since I've read > the keynote > speech by Lyle Johnson at the 1996 Digital Communications Conference I'm more for advancing the art, and doing something different. Sure, keep what we've got, but we have to go places too. > (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Flyle.banquet.html), which I > highly recommend, > I've been wondering if hams will ever be able to 'advance the > radio art' with > respect to broadband digital communications. I have > subscribed to the TAPR > spread spectrum email list and it is almost without any > discussion. (I will > cross post this message for the sake of trying to stimulate > some). I am not > talking about technological advances, but rather having > access to something > for which the rest of the world will have to wait, the way we > did with > repeaters, phone patches, HTs, satellite communications, > email (via packet), > etc. I tend to agree. I see a lot of potential in voice over IP technology, and (unbeknown to 99% of hams) are actually in a good position to make it work _really_ well. It's a case of we have the advantage that the network doesn't exist (yet), which means we can spec the network to suit our needs (maybe IPv6 as the network protocol, or at least IPv4 multicast, you get the drift). The end result is that certain types of traffic can flow more efficiently on our network than they can on the existing Internet. And what would one do with a wireless IP voice link? Sure, you could load up Iphone and have a chat (I know how to make Iphone work with a non Vocaltec server - it's just an IRC server, and you just need to tweak the Registry... :) ). But more exciting is the possibility for integration with the voice repeater network. With multicast technology, it is feasible to link repeaters on an ad-hoc basis, and even connect in fully digital users, on a "virtual repeater", all without bogging the network down with duplicate copies of the same data. Multicast is the key to this magic. Same goes for digital ATV. Modern compression algorithms can get a reasonable picture in 56kbps. And that one 56kbps channel can then be distributed to any randomly selected group of stations, regardless of where they are on the network. If one of the stations is an ATV trepeater, it can also be viewed by TV viewers in the repeater's coverage area... > > I ran across a web site today > (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that > is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is > quietly beating > us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and > antennas. Just This is starting to happen here, and hobbyist groups are experimenting with 2.4 GHz wireless networking. As an example, take a look at http://www.air.net.au. These guys should be on the ham bands playing with real WANs. :-) > think of what we could do if we were able to pool together > our resources and > co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater > tower. We could > have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams > within line of > sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for > those of us who > live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are > never going to be > an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham > radio'...but it seems > silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny > ourselves the same > privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit > for us is that we > could have better power and antenna systems (and hence > greater distance). We > could have portable broadband Internet connections years > before anyone else. I see Internet connections as a potential minefield that could have all sorts of ramifications. I'd say give the Internet a miss at this stage, and re-evaluate that down the track. It could work, however, with a loosening of the regulations, and a charter similar to that of APANA, which is a non profit networking group for hobbyists (sort of like a networking club, which currently uses conventional wired technology). Http://www.apana.org.au for more information on that one. :) > > The problem in moving forward may stem from the 'no > commercial' activity of > ham radio. Accessing a manufacturer's web site presumably > would violate that > rule. Reading email has similar problems if the sender is not a ham. > However, unlicensed operators are utilizing the same > frequencies with no > restrictions. Why are we holding ourselves back? It would > be fairly easy to > police against abuses, by periodically monitoring activity logs and > preventing resource hogging amongst the ranks of our members. A suitable set of rules would help here. > I realize that this message was a bit 'off topic' for the > satellite group, so > if anyone has a problem with that, we can just move it in the > spread spectrum > group. If you don't have access to the TAPR ss group, you > can join without > worrying about getting a ton of email. The ss group > generates only a few > email messages a month. I might have to join, and get a few others down here to join. Count me in! :-) --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 02:50:17 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id CAA09296 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:50:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:47:44 +0200 From: "Marius Hauki" Organization: Data Respons X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3945E720.C118CD3E@datarespons.no> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Derek, do you have a prototype up and running with thew SC520 ? 73 DE LA9EEA Marius Derek Lassen wrote: > Here is a summary of my current thinking: > > Processor: AMD Elan SC520 with a optional AMD 186CC. > The 186CC would do AX.25 - four ports. > Memory of 16M to 256M bytes (1M for 186CC). > > LAN: 10/100 mb Ethernet > On air protocol: ATM. > Transmission in time slots with the central site being the arbiter of the time. > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star topologies. > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > Modulation: 16 QAM. > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. > Carrier: Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum on 10 GHz, appx 8 MHz occupied > bandwidth, > I am looking into DSSS of the carrier, but that is rather "problematic". :> > The actual on air bit rate would be 48M bps, but FEC drops that to 10M bps > thruput. > > I think the thing (I call it TOS (TNC On Steroids) would fit on a 20 to 30 > sq inch board. > > Any interest? > > :> > > 73 de KN6TD > > At 02:14 PM 6/11/00 -0700, you wrote: > >On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:58:11PM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > > > I'd love to get into more detail, but I don't think here is the place. But > > > then again the networking SIG seems to be the place, but gets no traffic. > > > Any ssuggestions? > > > >Well if you do it on a different list, can you please give some warning > >so I can go subscribe? > > > >As someone else said, this list is low-traffic anyway, so maybe discussing > >this would "stimulate" something. > > > >I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute myself, except that I > >would like to do it. Was thinking of one of those links using > >Proxim Symphony cards and dish antennas. > > > >-- > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: MARIUS@DATARESPONS.NO > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 03:13:27 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id DAA13303 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:13:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:09:35 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000613010822.00b0d5d0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk No. The guy who was to do the PC board up and got married. His current list of honneydos doesn't include board layout. At 09:47 AM 6/13/00 +0200, you wrote: >Derek, >do you have a prototype up and running with thew SC520 ? > >73 DE LA9EEA >Marius > > > >Derek Lassen wrote: > > > Here is a summary of my current thinking: > > > > Processor: AMD Elan SC520 with a optional AMD 186CC. > > The 186CC would do AX.25 - four ports. > > Memory of 16M to 256M bytes (1M for 186CC). > > > > LAN: 10/100 mb Ethernet > > On air protocol: ATM. > > Transmission in time slots with the central site being the arbiter of > the time. > > Point to point links could automagically scale to hub / star topologies. > > Lots of FEC (Reed/Solomon,Trellis / Viterbi, and Spectrum Whitening). > > Modulation: 16 QAM. > > Data Rate: 12 Million Symbols per Second. > > Carrier: Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum on 10 GHz, appx 8 MHz occupied > > bandwidth, > > I am looking into DSSS of the carrier, but that is rather "problematic". :> > > The actual on air bit rate would be 48M bps, but FEC drops that to 10M bps > > thruput. > > > > I think the thing (I call it TOS (TNC On Steroids) would fit on a 20 to 30 > > sq inch board. > > > > Any interest? > > > > :> > > > > 73 de KN6TD > > > > At 02:14 PM 6/11/00 -0700, you wrote: > > >On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:58:11PM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > > > > I'd love to get into more detail, but I don't think here is the > place. But > > > > then again the networking SIG seems to be the place, but gets no > traffic. > > > > Any ssuggestions? > > > > > >Well if you do it on a different list, can you please give some warning > > >so I can go subscribe? > > > > > >As someone else said, this list is low-traffic anyway, so maybe discussing > > >this would "stimulate" something. > > > > > >I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute myself, except that I > > >would like to do it. Was thinking of one of those links using > > >Proxim Symphony cards and dish antennas. > > > > > >-- > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: MARIUS@DATARESPONS.NO > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 07:09:32 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA05880 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:09:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: FW: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:04:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCB1@DALLAS> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Tony is going down the path that a group of us in the Tampa Bay FL area are interested in. Though my interest is in mainly data, there is a group here who is interested in doing SS voice, the greatest interest is in doing some sort of SS voice/data repeater. My interest is in doing such a device we now have a common access point for any information which we can digitize and send over this device, or use the same as a network access point. The point being that the voice guys have $$ along with the DX guys, These people will toss $$ at something if it will give them a solution to their problem. The interest is there, now how to get something going that will bring in more interest, and allow us to build larger facilities. I believe that using SS instead of conventional narrow band facilities, allows for much better spectrum usage, and also makes it much easier to contemplate a series of "back yard" repeater type devices covering a smaller area, but providing much greater bandwidth than what is presently offered. If off of the same repeater/network access point you can provide voice and data in the same bit stream, the voice being both access to distant voice systems and a local repeater, with the ability to selectively call and group people you now have the ultimate voice machine. And at the same time a device which provides good bandwidth for data and a network connection, now it gets even better. Folks we have the bandwidth but if we do not use it, we stand to see it sold off. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Langdon [SMTP:tlangdon@atctraining.com.au] > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 21:36 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] FW: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? > > Here's an email I wrote just before I subscribed to the list. The subject > is the future of digital ham radio, a thread that's been going on a while > in > AMSAT circles. > > Tony Langdon. > Systems Development and Support. > ATC Training Australasia. Level 2 321 Exhibition St Melbourne 3000. > Phone: 1300 13 1983 WWW: http://www.atctraining.com.au > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Langdon > Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2000 9:51 > To: 'Lee810@aol.com' > Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? > > > > The most recent 'lively' discussion on the amsat-bb was > > related to further > > promoting digital communications which generated more than 60 > > responses. > > (entitled "Going Digital....Ham Radio?) > > Guess it's one area some people still have problems with. :-) The amount > of > activity is a good sign though. people care. :-) > > > In reading through the responses, it seems that some folks > > believe that we > > should just stick to what we have because it's 'good enough' > > for what hams > > need, i.e., simple, low bandwidth digital communications and > > that's certainly > > true for modes like APRS and PSK31. But ever since I've read > > the keynote > > speech by Lyle Johnson at the 1996 Digital Communications Conference > > I'm more for advancing the art, and doing something different. Sure, keep > what we've got, but we have to go places too. > > > (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Flyle.banquet.html), which I > > highly recommend, > > I've been wondering if hams will ever be able to 'advance the > > radio art' with > > respect to broadband digital communications. I have > > subscribed to the TAPR > > spread spectrum email list and it is almost without any > > discussion. (I will > > cross post this message for the sake of trying to stimulate > > some). I am not > > talking about technological advances, but rather having > > access to something > > for which the rest of the world will have to wait, the way we > > did with > > repeaters, phone patches, HTs, satellite communications, > > email (via packet), > > etc. > > I tend to agree. I see a lot of potential in voice over IP technology, > and > (unbeknown to 99% of hams) are actually in a good position to make it work > _really_ well. It's a case of we have the advantage that the network > doesn't exist (yet), which means we can spec the network to suit our needs > (maybe IPv6 as the network protocol, or at least IPv4 multicast, you get > the > drift). The end result is that certain types of traffic can flow more > efficiently on our network than they can on the existing Internet. > > And what would one do with a wireless IP voice link? Sure, you could load > up Iphone and have a chat (I know how to make Iphone work with a non > Vocaltec server - it's just an IRC server, and you just need to tweak the > Registry... :) ). But more exciting is the possibility for integration > with > the voice repeater network. With multicast technology, it is feasible to > link repeaters on an ad-hoc basis, and even connect in fully digital > users, > on a "virtual repeater", all without bogging the network down with > duplicate > copies of the same data. Multicast is the key to this magic. Same goes > for > digital ATV. Modern compression algorithms can get a reasonable picture > in > 56kbps. And that one 56kbps channel can then be distributed to any > randomly > selected group of stations, regardless of where they are on the network. > If > one of the stations is an ATV trepeater, it can also be viewed by TV > viewers > in the repeater's coverage area... > > > > > I ran across a web site today > > (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that > > is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is > > quietly beating > > us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and > > antennas. Just > > This is starting to happen here, and hobbyist groups are experimenting > with > 2.4 GHz wireless networking. As an example, take a look at > http://www.air.net.au. These guys should be on the ham bands playing with > real WANs. :-) > > > think of what we could do if we were able to pool together > > our resources and > > co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater > > tower. We could > > have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams > > within line of > > sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for > > those of us who > > live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are > > never going to be > > an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham > > radio'...but it seems > > silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny > > ourselves the same > > privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit > > for us is that we > > could have better power and antenna systems (and hence > > greater distance). We > > could have portable broadband Internet connections years > > before anyone else. > > I see Internet connections as a potential minefield that could have all > sorts of ramifications. I'd say give the Internet a miss at this stage, > and > re-evaluate that down the track. It could work, however, with a loosening > of the regulations, and a charter similar to that of APANA, which is a non > profit networking group for hobbyists (sort of like a networking club, > which > currently uses conventional wired technology). Http://www.apana.org.au > for > more information on that one. :) > > > > > The problem in moving forward may stem from the 'no > > commercial' activity of > > ham radio. Accessing a manufacturer's web site presumably > > would violate that > > rule. Reading email has similar problems if the sender is not a ham. > > However, unlicensed operators are utilizing the same > > frequencies with no > > restrictions. Why are we holding ourselves back? It would > > be fairly easy to > > police against abuses, by periodically monitoring activity logs and > > preventing resource hogging amongst the ranks of our members. > > A suitable set of rules would help here. > > > I realize that this message was a bit 'off topic' for the > > satellite group, so > > if anyone has a problem with that, we can just move it in the > > spread spectrum > > group. If you don't have access to the TAPR ss group, you > > can join without > > worrying about getting a ton of email. The ss group > > generates only a few > > email messages a month. > > I might have to join, and get a few others down here to join. Count me > in! > :-) > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 13:07:55 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA28251 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:07:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:28:53 +0200 From: Also-Antal Csaba X-Accept-Language: hu,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Broadband for hams? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <39464525.7507D283@mail.matav.hu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > >It can work steadily for hours. > > Except that it has errors. Have you run it at normal speed and still cant > get it to lock up in a few symbols? Not any difference. udv Csaba --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 13 17:47:47 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA25057 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:47:47 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:32:15 -0500 From: Chris Elmquist To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: amsat-bb@AMSAT.Org, ss@lists.tapr.org Subject: [ss] Re: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? Message-ID: References: <26.6dc35a8.267528cf@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <26.6dc35a8.267528cf@aol.com>; from Lee810@aol.com on Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:39:27PM -0400 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000613173215.A24288@n0jcf.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Sunday (06/11/2000 at 01:39PM -0400), Lee810@aol.com wrote: > The most recent 'lively' discussion on the amsat-bb was related to further > promoting digital communications which generated more than 60 responses. > (entitled "Going Digital....Ham Radio?) > [snip] > > I ran across a web site today (http://www.midcoast.net/wirelessfaq.html) that > is just full of information generated by a local ISP who is quietly beating > us to the 2.4 Ghz band with non-licensed power levels and antennas. Just > think of what we could do if we were able to pool together our resources and > co-locate a broadband connection with an existing repeater tower. We could > have high speed, persistent Internet connections for any hams within line of > sight of the repeater. This would be especially nice for those of us who > live far enough from town that DSL or even cable modems are never going to be > an option. Maybe this violates the 'spirit of ham radio'...but it seems > silly to share spectrum with commercial services and deny ourselves the same > privileges that non-licensed users enjoy. The main benefit for us is that we > could have better power and antenna systems (and hence greater distance). We > could have portable broadband Internet connections years before anyone else. I would offer that we have alot of catching up to do in this area. There are many companies now directly addressing this market need. Specifically they are building part 15 equipment to solve the "last mile" problem for broadband connections to the end user. The most interesting approach I have seen (and have even invested in!) are companies who build this equipment and sell it to cellular phone providers. The cellphone providers can deploy the stuff (license free) on their existing towers (which are everywhere right?) and then offer highspeed Internet access over these links. Suddenly, cellphone providers are now also Internet providers and people are getting highspeed access without involving the phone company or the cable company. Big win I think... Here's a couple urls just for reference: http://www.waverider.com/ http://www.ampwave.com/ -- Chris Elmquist chrise@n0jcf.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 14 04:56:44 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA05627 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:56:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: FW: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:45:57 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Tony is going down the path that a group of us in the Tampa > Bay FL area are interested in. Though my interest is in mainly > data, there is a group here who is interested in doing SS voice, > the greatest interest is in doing some sort of SS voice/data > repeater. My interest is in doing such a device we now have > a common access point for any information which we can > digitize and send over this device, or use the same as a > network access point. I have interest more in voice myself, mainly because voice is the more "immediate", emotional form of comms. Data is great, but it's more "mechanical" in feel... And digital voice combines the best of data and voice, with the flexibility and robustness of SS data and the human touch of voice. :-) > The point being that the voice guys have $$ along with the > DX guys, These people will toss $$ at something if it will give > them a solution to their problem. The interest is there, now > how to get something going that will bring in more interest, > and allow us to build larger facilities. I believe that using > SS instead of conventional narrow band facilities, allows > for much better spectrum usage, and also makes it much > easier to contemplate a series of "back yard" repeater type > devices covering a smaller area, but providing much greater > bandwidth than what is presently offered. Pooling $$ makes a lot of sense. I've always said that though voice and video are the modes I'd be more interested in playing with, I'd welcome (to the point of saying "jump on and have a play") anyone who wanted to do some serious data work on such a network. I believe an integrated digital network has a lot to offer most hams, and once a small scale version, able to demonstrate the benefits to the general ham community is operational, I believe it will gain wide support from a large proportion of hams (whiners notwithstanding). > If off of the same repeater/network access point you can > provide voice and data in the same bit stream, the voice > being both access to distant voice systems and a local > repeater, with the ability to selectively call and group people > you now have the ultimate voice machine. And at the same > time a device which provides good bandwidth for data and > a network connection, now it gets even better. That's what I envisage. And high efficiencies and flexibility can be obtained by using technologies such as multicast IP, which can't be used over the entire Internet at this stage (due to some routers not supporting IGMP). Multicast can be used for voice groups (ad hoc repeater links anyone? :)), or datacasting (could be useful for DX clusters, news bulletins, general network information and the like). Hmm, we might be able to outpush the big "pushers" on the Internet, with less bandwidth. ;-) Another area of experimentation is with topology, and finding ways to lower the maintenance costs. For example, if linear transponders or OCARs can be utilised on mountaintops to link bases located in ham shacks or club rooms, it could be cheaper to run (at possible some performance cost) than having all the routing "smarts" up on the mountain. A couple of RF amplifiers are much more reliable than a complex microprocessor based router (look at AO-10, the IHU has been trashed by radiation, the batteries are dead, but the transponder lives on, after 17 years in the harsh environment of space!). > > Folks we have the bandwidth but if we do not use it, we > stand to see it sold off. Agreed. This is one of my motivations. And the bandwidth where we have most room (i.e. above 1 GHz) is ideally suited to these sort of links. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 14 07:33:26 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA09674 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:33:25 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: FW: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:27:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCB5@DALLAS> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Looking for a example, I would say in this country (USA) the CDMA network is probably a good example of a starting point. Each channel is 1.25mhz wide, there is normally one/tower unless the demand on a given tower exceeds the amount of time available on that channel. If I remember right each channel can support 40 simultaneous users, I do not think we have 40 people on the air at the same time in the Tampa Bay area on any given day at any given time between 2m 220 and 440mhz. (Sounds like a single "high site" could more than handle the average traffic demand for this area) > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Langdon [SMTP:tlangdon@atctraining.com.au] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 19:46 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: FW: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? > > I have interest more in voice myself, mainly because voice is the more > "immediate", emotional form of comms. Data is great, but it's more > "mechanical" in feel... And digital voice combines the best of data and > voice, with the flexibility and robustness of SS data and the human touch > of > voice. :-) > [Hast, Chuck] I enjoy doing the data end of things, but gain the most fun from seeing other people use the system, I do not care what the data stream carries, just use it. DX spotting, Voice, computer data, whatever just use it, and let me work with the bits and pieces of it and make it work. Voice by nature will probably always have a larger following than a data box, though the palm devices could change that though I tend to view those devices on a integrated system as being "icing on the cake" just the window through which someone sends a picture or other non-voice data perhaps as they describe it on the voice side of things. > Pooling $$ makes a lot of sense. I've always said that though voice and > video are the modes I'd be more interested in playing with, I'd welcome > (to > the point of saying "jump on and have a play") anyone who wanted to do > some > serious data work on such a network. I believe an integrated digital > network has a lot to offer most hams, and once a small scale version, able > to demonstrate the benefits to the general ham community is operational, I > believe it will gain wide support from a large proportion of hams (whiners > notwithstanding). > [Hast, Chuck] Yes!! I believe that is the secrete to building a true digital network, make it handle not just computer data but anything that can be turned into a data stream. I think the small scale version is perhaps what some of us are calling "back yard repeaters" might be going to. The idea being that you install many small "cells" like the commercial people have done, and thereby get better coverage and less possibility that you have a massive failure because some high site went way. > > That's what I envisage. And high efficiencies and flexibility can be > obtained by using technologies such as multicast IP, which can't be used > over the entire Internet at this stage (due to some routers not supporting > IGMP). Multicast can be used for voice groups (ad hoc repeater links > anyone? :)), or datacasting (could be useful for DX clusters, news > bulletins, general network information and the like). Hmm, we might be > able > to outpush the big "pushers" on the Internet, with less bandwidth. ;-) > > Another area of experimentation is with topology, and finding ways to > lower > the maintenance costs. For example, if linear transponders or OCARs can > be > utilised on mountaintops to link bases located in ham shacks or club > rooms, > it could be cheaper to run (at possible some performance cost) than having > all the routing "smarts" up on the mountain. A couple of RF amplifiers > are > much more reliable than a complex microprocessor based router (look at > AO-10, the IHU has been trashed by radiation, the batteries are dead, but > the transponder lives on, after 17 years in the harsh environment of > space!). > [Hast, Chuck] Yes, when I lived in Costa Rica, that was one of the tricks we did to keep out switches out of lightning's way, we would keep the switches down in the valley where we could service them and put a digital regenerative repeater up on a mountain, it was simple and would not need to have tables or other software parameters uploaded to the device, it was just a dumb bent pipe repeater with packet regeneration built into it. > Agreed. This is one of my motivations. And the bandwidth where we have > most room (i.e. above 1 GHz) is ideally suited to these sort of links. > [Hast, Chuck] Yes, I see 70cm as being a user access point band along with the 33 cm (in the USA) ,25 cm and 12.5 cm bands. The higher ones are our links or very wide band access points for point to point and point to multipoint type drops. Sad thing is that this is already all out there we just have to get our hands on it and start implementing. I carry a radio around that pretty much fits the description of a good part of what we are talking about. It is CDMA (DSSS) it handles both voice and data, though it does not do group calls but now that Nextel is out there selling that service on TDMA, the competition is busy trying to get phones on the other systems that will respond to that piece. Meantime here we hams are running 30-50 year old voice repeater technology and 99% of those who are running data are doing so at 1k2 or at best 9k6 data rates B-b, even worse here in Florida the repeater council just confiscated a part of the 70cm band that was designated for packet and digital links for more of that same old voice technology. Yes we are retrograde and setting our selves up for a big fall unless we get our heads out of the sand. > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 14 11:05:10 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA04700 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:05:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [204.68.140.34] From: "Mark Barner" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 13, 2000 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:04:04 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000614160404.87388.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This discussion is all well and good. Let's see some schematics for implementation! PDF files, preferably ... Also, I have some 33cm-band antennae and digital transceivers. Is there any interest in L.A./Orange county of California for this line of research if it were centered around 915 MHz? Thanx. KE6BOL sends. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 14 18:43:12 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA25920 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:43:09 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: FW: [amsat-bb] Broadband for hams? Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:41:37 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Looking for a example, I would say in this country (USA) the > CDMA network is probably a good example of a starting point. > Each channel is 1.25mhz wide, there is normally one/tower > unless the demand on a given tower exceeds the amount of > time available on that channel. If I remember right each channel > can support 40 simultaneous users, I do not think we have > 40 people on the air at the same time in the Tampa Bay area > on any given day at any given time between 2m 220 and 440mhz. > (Sounds like a single "high site" could more than handle the > average traffic demand for this area) I think the situation would be similar for most Australian cities. Melbourne is the city which would be most likely to experience any congestion, because of our tendancy to use VHF/UHF more per population (Syfdney may be larget, but VHF is quiet and UHF is dead, whereas they're both pretty busy down here :) ). Still, 40 channels would be quite adequate, I think. probably 15-20 simultaneous QSOs max at any given time, counting simplex, packet and other stuff. > > voice, with the flexibility and robustness of SS data and > the human touch > > of > > voice. :-) > > > [Hast, Chuck] I enjoy doing the data end of things, > but gain the > most > fun from seeing other people use the system, I do not > care what the > data > stream carries, just use it. DX spotting, Voice, computer data, > whatever > just use it, and let me work with the bits and pieces > of it and make > it work. That's a bit of a thrill for me too. One reason I got into (phone) BBSs years ago and tinker with servers of various kinds and run the odd mailing list. :-) I'm also looking at setting up a temporary 70cm repeater, to be used as a "proof of concept" test bed for interlinking with digital networks. Saves having to negotiate with an existing repeater owner, and prefectly legal, as long as it's attended and the appropriate procedure is followed. > > Voice by nature will probably always have a larger > following than a > data box, > though the palm devices could change that though I tend to view > those devices > on a integrated system as being "icing on the cake" > just the window > through > which someone sends a picture or other non-voice data perhaps as > they > describe it on the voice side of things. I think palmtop devices can have a lot of uses, especially as an ancilliary communications channel alongside voice. And this is one area an integrated network could have a lot of potential benefits. > [Hast, Chuck] Yes!! I believe that is the secrete to building a > true digital > network, make it handle not just computer data but > anything that can > be turned into a data stream. I think the small scale version is > perhaps > what some of us are calling "back yard repeaters" might > be going to. > The idea being that you install many small "cells" like the > commercial > people have done, and thereby get better coverage and less > possibility > that you have a massive failure because some high site went way. Yes. The problem with "cells" is traditionally, in a circuit switched environment, they are complex to manage. perhaps something clever can be done with multicast on the network side and CDMA on the SS side to easily switch cells and maintain the same data stream, perhaps with a slight interruption (this is the ham version, and we don't have $$$$$ to ensure a 20 mS handoff, but I'm sure a good, cost effective system is possible). > [Hast, Chuck] Yes, when I lived in Costa Rica, that > was one of the > tricks > we did to keep out switches out of lightning's way, we > would keep > the switches > down in the valley where we could service them and put a digital > regenerative > repeater up on a mountain, it was simple and would not > need to have > tables > or other software parameters uploaded to the device, it > was just a > dumb bent > pipe repeater with packet regeneration built into it. I see this is a way to go. We have to keep the equipment on the hilltops simple. Site access is becoming a scarce commodity, and the simpler the gear on the mountain, the less often we'll have to service it onsite. > [Hast, Chuck] Yes, I see 70cm as being a user access point band > along with > the 33 cm (in the USA) ,25 cm and 12.5 cm bands. The > higher ones are > our links > or very wide band access points for point to point and point to > multipoint type > drops. Sad thing is that this is already all out there > we just have > to get our hands > on it and start implementing. Yes. The fun doesn't really start until 70cm, where many users will first access the system. With the relatively short range in metro areas, bands up to 13cm will be good candidates. I'd also like to see existing repeaters, especially in rural areas connected to the system, as well as the odd HF gateway. And make sure the packet network is well catered for. Perhaps we'll all have ampr.org email addresses on 44.x IP addresses, but we'll need to ensure existing packet systems can intercommunicate with the new network. One of my beliefs is that the system will have to be as backwards compatible as possible. As this will be a radical change in amateur technology, backwards compatible will mean building gateways to allow existing voice and data users to access the new network in useful ways. Examples include: 1. Repeater linking, especially over long distances. 2. Simplex gateways. Could be especially useful for news transmissions. 3. Packet email gateways. 4. Packet "portals" into popular applications (e.g. DX clusters, chat rooms, etc). 5. Limited by our imagination! :-) > I carry a radio around that pretty much fits the > description of a > good part of what > we are talking about. It is CDMA (DSSS) it handles both > voice and > data, though > it does not do group calls but now that Nextel is out > there selling > that service > on TDMA, the competition is busy trying to get phones > on the other > systems > that will respond to that piece. We're all on GSM here. CDMA is out there, but not popular in the cities yet. > Meantime here we hams are running 30-50 year old voice repeater > technology Which in itself isn't necessarily bad, as I feel there is a place for FM repeaters in the new network. They have the advantage of simplicity, just the thing for emergency local area comms. The network will enhance the capabilities of FM repeaters. > and 99% of those who are running data are doing so at > 1k2 or at best > 9k6 Which doesn't do a lot for me, except for APRS, which is an application that works well at these low data rates. > data rates B-b, even worse here in Florida the repeater > council just > confiscated > a part of the 70cm band that was designated for packet > and digital > links for > more of that same old voice technology. Yes we are > retrograde and > setting our > selves up for a big fall unless we get our heads out of > the sand. I agree. It'a time to move forward. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 19 09:28:27 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA05843 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:28:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:24:37 -0400 From: esjatharvee X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-loughney-sigtran-ip-ran-00.txt] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0F8242138F4865E57C73BEC4" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <394E2D25.5211265E@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0F8242138F4865E57C73BEC4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------0F8242138F4865E57C73BEC4 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from motgate2.mot.com (motgate2.mot.com [136.182.1.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12041 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:58:13 -0400 Received: [from pobox2.mot.com (pobox2.mot.com [136.182.15.8]) by motgate2.mot.com (motgate2 2.1) with ESMTP id DAA06467; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:57:59 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from relay2.cig.mot.com (relay2.cig.mot.com [136.182.15.24]) by pobox2.mot.com (MOT-pobox2 2.0) with ESMTP id DAA07912; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:57:58 -0700 (MST)] Received: (majord@localhost) by relay2.cig.mot.com (8.9.0/SCERG-RELAY-1.11b) id FAA00129 for obast-list-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:57:54 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: relay2.cig.mot.com: majord set sender to owner-obast-list@majordomo.cig.mot.com using -f Received: from relay1.cig.mot.com (root@relay1 [136.182.15.23]) by relay2.cig.mot.com (8.9.0/SCERG-RELAY-1.11b) with ESMTP id FAA00124 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:57:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pobox.mot.com (pobox.mot.com [129.188.137.100]) by relay1.cig.mot.com (8.8.8+Sun/SCERG-RELAY-1.11b) with ESMTP id FAA01021 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:57:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: [from motgate.mot.com (motgate.mot.com [129.188.136.100]) by pobox.mot.com (MOT-pobox 2.0) with ESMTP id DAA04738 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:57:32 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by motgate.mot.com (motgate 2.1) with ESMTP id DAA11322 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:57:31 -0700 (MST)] Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA28739; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006191057.GAA28739@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce:; CC: sigtran@standards.nortelnetworks.com, obast-list@cig.mot.com From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-loughney-sigtran-ip-ran-00.txt Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:57:30 -0400 Sender: owner-obast-list@cig.mot.com Precedence: list Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org X-List: obast-list (Majordomo 1.94.4) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : IP based Signaling Needs in Radio Access Networks Author(s) : J. Loughney Filename : draft-loughney-sigtran-ip-ran-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 16-Jun-00 In developing IP-based Radio Access Networks, there are needs for reliable signaling. It is assumed that SCTP would provide the transport bearer for any signaling. This draft presents a general signaling architecture for IP-based Radio Access Networks. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loughney-sigtran-ip-ran-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-loughney-sigtran-ip-ran-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-loughney-sigtran-ip-ran-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20000616133724.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-loughney-sigtran-ip-ran-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-loughney-sigtran-ip-ran-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20000616133724.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- | | | | ---------------------- Mailing List commands -------------------------------- Send the following in the body of a message to Majordomo@majordomo.cig.mot.com SUBSCRIBE TO LIST : subscribe list-name | LIST OF LISTS : lists UNSUBSCRIBE TO LIST : unsubscribe list-name | RETRIEVE HELP : help WHO ON ON THE LIST : who list-name | GET DESCRIPTION : info list-name | | Or you can use http://majordomo.cig.mot.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------0F8242138F4865E57C73BEC4-- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 22 13:32:17 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA00561 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:32:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:30:08 -0500 From: Steve Lampereur Organization: GBPPR - http://www.qsl.net/n9zia X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <39525B30.A0283EC4@yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Don't beleive everything you read on TAPR's webpage. Most of it is outdated. Here is an outdated excerpt from http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html#wp15 > Amateurs should realize that under the present Part 97 rules and regulations governing amateur > spread spectrum today, taking a Part 15 spread spectrum device and adding an amplifier to it > would break the rules. Even though it would be transmitting within the amateur spectrum, it more > than likely would not be using one of the specified spreading codes assigned to amateur operation > (refer to Sec. 97.311 Section (d) - SS emission types). However, this should not deter the radio > amateur from using Part 15 devices in their experimentation or use in the amateur service. The > device should be monitored to ensure that it remains under the Part 15 regulations and as such, no > Part 97 regulations apply. Amateur traffic can flow though Part 15 devices, and they do not require > a callsign since they do not require a license. However, the radio amateur should realize that when > the traffic enters the amateur bands, for example, through a gateway, then Part 97 rules begin to > apply. Almost a full year ago the SS rules where relaxed.. So I highly recommend adding an amplifier to a Part 15 spread spectrum device. I'm begining to think TAPR dosen't want to advance the digital radio art. They seem happy with ARPS. Also the so-called 900 MHz FHHS radio kit/project, (it's been 4 years now guys) dosen't seem to be going anywhere. Besides the average ham population won't want to mess with a kit, they either won't have the time or knowledge to do it. So why not buy a part 15 SS ethernet card, add a high gain antenna/amplifer and do 2 MBs and up TODAY.... and STOP talking about it! It's affordable, & easy to implement.. It makes sense to me Here is a brief overview/comaprison of the current rules from: http://www.qsl.net/kb9wmr/projects/wireless/plan.html Parts 15.205, 15.209 & 15.247 FCC Rules for ISM bands: ****************************************************** - Connectors must be hard to find - +36 dBm (3.981 Watts) EIRP RF output power (1 watt w/ 6dBi antenna gain) - Maximum +30 dBm (1 W) RF power output at product's connector - Spurious emissions in the 2390 and 2483.5 MHz bands must be lower than -41 dBm - ISM Bands are: 902 - 928 MHz, 2400 - 2483.5 MHz, 5725 - 5875 MHz Part 97.311 Spread Spectum FCC Rules for Ham bands: *************************************************** 97.311 SS emission types (a) SS emission transmissions by an amateur station are authorized only for communications between points within areas where the amateur service is regulated by the FCC and between an area where the amateur service is regulated by the FCC and an amateur station in another country that permits such communications. SS emission transmissions must not be used for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. (b) A station transmitting SS emissions must not cause harmful interference to stations employing other authorized emissions, and must accept all interference caused by stations employing other authorized modes. (c) When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with this Part, a station licensee must: (1) Cease SS emission transmissions; (2) Restrict SS emission transmissions to the extent instructed; and (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information (voice, test, image, etc.) of all spread spectrum communications transmitted. (d) The transmitter power must not exceed 100 W under any circumstances. If more than 1 W is used, automatic transmitter control shall limit output power to that which is required for the communication. This shall be determined by the use of the ratio, measured at the receiver, of the received energy per user data bit (Eb) to the sum of the received power spectral densities of noise (N0) and co-channel interference (I0). Average transmitter power over 1 W shall be automatically adjusted to maintain an Eb/(N0+I0) ratio of no more than 23 dB at the intended receiver. Amateur Band Allocations: ************************* 902 - 928 MHz Secondary to industrial, scientific and medical devices; automatic vehicle monitoring systems, and government stations. 2300 - 2305 MHz Secondary - No primary amateur service 2305 - 2310 MHz Secondary to fixed, mobile and radiolocation services 2390 - 2400 MHz Primary 2400 - 2402 MHz Secondary - No primary amateur service 2402 - 2417 MHz Primary 2417 - 2450 MHz Co-secondary with government radiolocation (industrial, scientific and medical are primary) 2450 - 2483.5 MHz Industrial, scientific and medical 5650 - 5725 MHz Co-secondary with space research (deep space) service 5725 - 5850 MHz Secondary - No primary amateur service 5850 - 5925 MHz Secondary to non-government fixed-satellite service ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary: [note: some drivers for various cards let you control how/where they hop] [Direct sequence systems can be set for frequencies centered below 2.45.] [Proxim will change the country code to that of Australia if you provide a] [copy of your ham license. That puts it in frequencies below 2.45.] -You need to ID in a known and accepted form every 10 min. (I suggest using an AXIP driver set to send and AX.25 ID frame every 10 min) -100 watts (PEP) max for spread modes -More than 1 watt (PEP) requires automatic transmitter power control What it boils donw to in my book is this: Ham radio is far behind the modern radio world, its time for a big kick in the butt.. Or you can keep your 1200 baud AX.25, and watch the hobby die. Your choice. Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 22 18:37:05 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA15767 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:37:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:35:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Jack Kerouac Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000622233541.14301.qmail@web1901.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --- Steve Lampereur wrote: > Don't beleive everything you read on TAPR's webpage. > Most of it is outdated. > > Almost a full year ago the SS rules where relaxed.. > So I highly > recommend adding an amplifier to > a Part 15 spread spectrum device. I'm begining to > think TAPR dosen't > want to advance the digital > radio art. They seem happy with ARPS. Also the > so-called 900 MHz FHHS > radio kit/project, (it's been > 4 years now guys) dosen't seem to be going anywhere. > Besides the > average ham population won't want to > mess with a kit, they either won't have the time or > knowledge to do it. > So why not buy a part 15 SS > ethernet card, add a high gain antenna/amplifer and > do 2 MBs and up > TODAY.... and STOP talking about > it! It's affordable, & easy to implement.. It > makes sense to me You are right! Until I came across the GBPPR web page, I was hesitant to question TAPR's "authority". But I can now see the light. I have produced a web page; "History and Future of Amateur High-Speed Wireless Networking" that describes the present situation, and how we got here. http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html TAPR's place in history is beginning to become tarnished. > What it boils donw to in my book is this: Ham radio > is far behind the > modern radio > world, its time for a big kick in the butt.. Or you > can keep your 1200 > baud AX.25, > and watch the hobby die. Your choice. > > Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR Good show, Steve. Stewart Teaze, N0MHS -------------------- Wireless High-Speed Networking Information: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jun 23 20:07:07 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA10408 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:07:07 -0500 (CDT) From: N8xlr@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:03:32 EDT Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <68.4ccd967.268562e4@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Steve , I agree completely. I have been waiting patienty for TAPR to set a standard protocol and I am tired of being restricted to low baud rates by the FCC. Go for it Steve and thanks for speaking out. Lew N8XLR --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jun 24 08:57:29 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA08073 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 08:57:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:56:19 -0400 x-sender: sdimse@m1.sprynet.com From: Steve Dimse To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200006241356.JAA17188@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >Steve , I agree completely. I have been waiting patienty for TAPR to set a >standard protocol and I am tired of being restricted to low baud rates by >the >FCC. Go for it Steve and thanks for speaking out. > There seems to be some misunderstanding about what TAPR is. The standard phrase is a "membership supported research and development organization". What we do is assist amateurs that wish to do some sort of developmental effort pertaining to digital communications. If one of YOU wishes to set a "standard protocol", whatever that means, we stand ready to help. However, the dues from a couple thousand members does not pay for a cadre of engineers and technical writers which we can assign to tasks. We are dependent on volunteer efforts for all of our projects. I'm sure any of you would be most upset were you to get a call from TAPR stating you have been assigned to work on project xyz. You simply cannot do this to volunteers, they must pick their tasks for themselves. In the 5 years or so I have been associated with TAPR, a single spread spectrum project has been brought to us. This has been very heavily supported, but even then, we are at the mercy of those voluteers working on the project. I wish TAPR commanded a multi-million dollar R&D budget, I think amateur radio would have a very different look. If any of you have a few mill you don't need, give us a call, we could put it to good use. Until then, TAPR is doing the best we can with what we have. If any of you have something you want to work on, ss or otherwise, and are willing to do the work but need some sort of assistance, then please consider contacting us. Steve K4HG TAPR Board Member --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jun 24 12:28:11 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA17695 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:28:10 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:26:15 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200006241726.e5OHQFM22512@faulkner.netnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >Steve , I agree completely. I have been waiting patienty for TAPR to set a >standard protocol and I am tired of being restricted to low baud rates by >the FCC. Go for it Steve and thanks for speaking out. Lew N8XLR Well.. regardless of what TAPR does: Here is a breakdown of the speed/ bandwith constraints for data. [97.307(f)] 50.1 - 148 MHz 19.6 kilobauds - 20 kHz bandwidth 222 - 450 MHz 56 kilobauds - 100 kHz bandwidth Above 900 MHz - No speed limit also no bandwith limit The above 900 MHz part, is again a wake up call for us. Every year they try to take away/modify out allocations for the UHF/SHF spectrum since we hardly use them. Also the Part 15 (ISM) wireless cards start at 900 MHz and go up.. (also 2.4 & 5.7 GHz) Obviously following what the commercial world does by using the TCP/IP protocol is smart thinking. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jun 24 15:19:42 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA23530 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 15:19:41 -0500 (CDT) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:20:39 -0400 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <39551817.A81F22D1@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk These are more general comments, and should be taken as such. Also copying them to taprorg. Steve Dimse wrote: > >Steve , I agree completely. I have been waiting patienty for TAPR to set a > >standard protocol and I am tired of being restricted to low baud rates by > >the > >FCC. Go for it Steve and thanks for speaking out. > > > There seems to be some misunderstanding about what TAPR is. I think you lost the "message" in all the postings so far. This "mis-understanding" seems to be ongoing. > The standard phrase is a "membership supported research and development > organization". Meaningless as most "standard phrases" go. > What we do is assist amateurs that wish to do some sort of > developmental effort pertaining to digital communications. OK, that is better. But, it might be helpful, if you could explain in detail what this is. I don't ever recall this being explained in detail in the PSR. I know the times I have asked about it privately, the explanation wasn't much better then this. Very vague. > In the 5 years or so I have been associated with TAPR, a single spread > spectrum project has been brought to us. This has been very heavily > supported, but even then, we are at the mercy of those voluteers working > on the project. Hmmm.... that's not true. What about Randy Roberts offer in Feb of 1997? See: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/9702/msg00004.html Now.... at the risk of being compared to space aliens and Elvis again., what many don't know is the TAPR SS radio was a "black" project at or very near that time. Meaning the project was funded, but not yet announced to the membership (I had been told this firsthand by one of the BOD members at the time). More then a few of the membership got upset when this was discovered. > If any of you have something you want to work on, ss or otherwise, and > are willing to do the work but need some sort of assistance, then please > consider contacting us. I know three times I offered to get a group buy together with little/no help from TAPR for commercial SS radios. The first in July of 96 was for the FreeWave radio, which I later found out TAPR was talking with, and then I was told to stand down. See: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/9607/msg00011.html The second in Jan of 1997 after TAPR tanked the FreeWave deal: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/9701/msg00172.html And the third time just this year: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/0001/msg00033.html Now, the second time I never heard back from anyone from TAPR.... so I just went ahead and did it myself. What ended up happening is I got some people upset within TAPR as unknown to me they where doing the same thing. I was told to stop. So, the third time I wanted to make sure this didn't happen again, so I asked for some specific constraints. In private mail, a BOD member keep telling me he would get back to me, but never did. I eventually gave up. I'm not sure how relevant this is anymore, since these WLAN cards are commodity items anyways. None the less, still it would have been good to get some input. I can go on with other examples, but my point is that its just not as simple as volunteering or asking for help.... BTW, these people that made these disparaging remarks about TAPR, they are not TAPR members, at least the two of the three I wrote off SIG. Yet they *were* TAPR members. I just don't think they should be dismissed this quickly.... yes there is nothing that can be done about the past, but what about the future? Exam the successes and failures of past years, make real efforts to get new blood within the organization (term limits?), and reach out to other organizations( what about my Nord-Link question Steve?). I'd like to see TAPR return to its distant roots....a organization that is more a peer based R&D organization. Then, and only then, will the statement "membership supported research and development organization" not have a hollow meaning. We all need to work together and the TAPR membership *can* contribute alot to this. Give it some thought. You and the board are now in a unique position to change the course. Take advantage of it. 73 Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jun 24 16:42:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA12644 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:42:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:40:48 -0400 x-sender: sdimse@m1.sprynet.com From: Steve Dimse To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200006242140.RAA27568@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On 6/24/00 4:20 PM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote: > >> What we do is assist amateurs that wish to do some sort of >> developmental effort pertaining to digital communications. > >OK, that is better. But, it might be helpful, if you could explain in >detail what >this is. I don't ever recall this being explained in detail in the PSR. I >know the >times I have asked about it privately, the explanation wasn't much better >then >this. Very vague. It has to be vague, because there are no rigid rules. If someone comes to us with a proposal, it is evaluated based on available manpower and resources. Generally, the available manpower is zero, aside from a few specific tasks like board layout and kit documentation. So the first thing is a project must be fully staffed. This eliminates most ideas, which are generally phrased like "Why don't you...". An idea is not the same as a project. Much as I wish it were otherwise, TAPR can't do much with ideas, only with projects. > >> In the 5 years or so I have been associated with TAPR, a single spread >> spectrum project has been brought to us. This has been very heavily >> supported, but even then, we are at the mercy of those voluteers working >> on the project. > >Hmmm.... that's not true. What about Randy Roberts offer in Feb of 1997? > >See: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/9702/msg00004.html > There are a couple key clauses in this offer that explain why this never happened: ----------- (2) TAPR (or any other Bona Fide Amateur Radio Organization) and other assorted / interested volunteers supply labor and materials, as needed, to fully develop and test this new design. (3) TAPR (or any other Bona Fide Amateur Radio Organization) sets up a Project / Team organization to provide direction, guidance and start on a "Ham Radio SS" Standard, ASAP! ----------- No one, including you, took the responsibility of meeting these two clauses. Again, if TAPR had a back room full of employees that could be assigned tasks, the story might be different. As the offer was presented, this would be a major effort for which TAPR lacked the necessary personel resources. So, as far as I am concerned, this is not an offer for a TAPR supported project...it was an offer to turn over an incomplete design and have TAPR take over responsibility for completing and debugging the design. We couldn't do it, and apparently neither could you. >Now.... at the risk of being compared to space aliens and Elvis again., what >many don't know is the TAPR SS radio was a "black" project at or very >near that time. Meaning the project was funded, but not yet announced to the >membership (I had been told this firsthand by one of the BOD members at the >time). More then a few of the membership got upset when this was discovered. > I do not want to imply something into your words that is not there, but are you saying that the above offer was not accepted because there was already an SS project being supported by TAPR? Please clarify.... I can say that were this offer presented now, it would again have to be turned down, because there are still not the manpower resources to staff the project. It would have nothing to do with any other project. >> If any of you have something you want to work on, ss or otherwise, and >> are willing to do the work but need some sort of assistance, then please >> consider contacting us. > >I know three times I offered to get a group buy together >with little/no help from TAPR for commercial SS radios. > Several attempts at group buys have been made. All fell through for one reason or another. Generally, the manufacturers are uninterested in dealing with low volume purchases (and even if every member of TAPR buys 2, the manufacturers consider this low volume), especially when the equipment is to be used for other than its intended purpose. > >I can go on with other examples, but my point is that its just not as >simple as >volunteering or asking for help.... > When such negotations are being attempted, they can be very sensitive. Too much disclosure can poison the deal. I too am sorry none of these worked out, but the attempts were made to the best of TAPR's ability. I'm sorry if you feel that you were left out of the process. >I'd like to see TAPR return to its distant roots....a organization that is >more a peer based >R&D organization. Then, and only then, will the statement "membership >supported research >and development organization" not have a hollow meaning. We all need to >work together >and the TAPR membership *can* contribute alot to this. > >Give it some thought. You and the board are now in a unique position to >change the course. >Take advantage of it. > I think it _is_ a peer-based R&D organization. The peers are those people doing R&D...people with ideas that are willing to dedicate their own time to developing those ideas. To people that are not in that group it may sound like elitism, but unless we get a multi-million dollar endowment, there is simply no choice. This is not a new development...the first president of TAPR, Lyle Johnson, has a saying: "He who codes or builds, rules". This means that because TAPR is dependent on volunteer developers for its R&D, they are the ones, who by deciding what to work on, set the priorities. It is totally open to people that want to get involved in this constructive manner. I certainly had no problems, and I've seen plenty of others get involved over the last few years. It doesn't matter how great a need is, or how many people want to buy a product, unless there are volunteers that have the skills, time, and drive to produce it, TAPR can't do it. Wishing won't change that, only a few million will. Steve K4HG --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jun 24 17:30:41 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA22685 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:30:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 15:28:24 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html Cc: netsig@lists.tapr.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000624150617.00bbb5f0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk In addition we have to contend with the narrow mindedness of the spectrum cops. The coordination commitees fail to see the need for a very wide segment of spectrum. Their idea of wideband is TV (AM at that - ugh). I think that a useful solution requires five points: 1) Very high bandwidth (10M bps or more). 2) Roam ability. 3) Easy attachment. 4) Robustness. 5) Fairly cheap. Attacking TAPR gets nowhere - TAPR does what TAPR was intended to do - act as a forum. What I think is needed is a coordinated attack on the problem. We'll need: 1) An interface that goes fast enough. 2) Drivers for that interface. 3) A protocol stack. 4) A router. 5) A modem 6) An RF deck. 7) Antennas. And finally, I really think this discussion shhould be in the networking SIG. Rant off. 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek .At 12:26 PM 6/24/00 -0500, you wrote: > >Steve , I agree completely. I have been waiting patienty for TAPR to set a > >standard protocol and I am tired of being restricted to low baud rates by > >the FCC. Go for it Steve and thanks for speaking out. Lew N8XLR > >Well.. regardless of what TAPR does: > >Here is a breakdown of the speed/ bandwith constraints for data. > >[97.307(f)] >50.1 - 148 MHz 19.6 kilobauds - 20 kHz bandwidth >222 - 450 MHz 56 kilobauds - 100 kHz bandwidth >Above 900 MHz - No speed limit also no bandwith limit > >The above 900 MHz part, is again a wake up call for us. Every year they >try to >take away/modify out allocations for the UHF/SHF spectrum since we hardly >use them. Also the Part 15 (ISM) wireless cards start at 900 MHz and go >up.. (also 2.4 & 5.7 GHz) > >Obviously following what the commercial world does by using the TCP/IP >protocol is smart thinking. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Jun 24 18:36:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA07470 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:36:20 -0500 (CDT) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:37:22 -0400 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <39554632.6B9856E0@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Again, please consider the broader issues here even though some "old news" specifics (as examples) where listed. Steve Dimse wrote: > On 6/24/00 4:20 PM Jeff King (jeff@aerodata.net) wrote: > >> In the 5 years or so I have been associated with TAPR, a single spread > >> spectrum project has been brought to us. This has been very heavily > >> supported, but even then, we are at the mercy of those voluteers working > >> on the project. > > > >Hmmm.... that's not true. What about Randy Roberts offer in Feb of 1997? > > > >See: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/9702/msg00004.html > > > There are a couple key clauses in this offer that explain why this never > happened: HOLD ON now. Your now admitting there was indeed another offer!! That's what I was saying. The fellow was handing you a design that was quite far along. His clauses seemed quite reasonable to me and they were publicly stated (we still don't know what the clauses where on the TAPR SS radio) I think the real issue is he was a TAPR outsider *and* he just wanted to release his design for amateur use (i.e. no Part 15 commercial sales). It was also clear to me their were some amount of friction between him and one of the TAPR SS team members. Of course that's my opinion based on observation.... And I'm not even saying this declining of his offer (through neglect) was a bad choice at the time, its just disingenuous of you to state that no-one has come forward to TAPR with a spread spectrum project. > >Now.... at the risk of being compared to space aliens and Elvis again., what > >many don't know is the TAPR SS radio was a "black" project at or very > >near that time. Meaning the project was funded, but not yet announced to the > >membership (I had been told this firsthand by one of the BOD members at the > >time). More then a few of the membership got upset when this was discovered. > > > I do not want to imply something into your words that is not there, but > are you saying that the above offer was not accepted because there was > already an SS project being supported by TAPR? Please clarify.... As a member of the BOD, your in a better position that answer that question then me. All I know for a fact is that TAPR officers and board members organized a design team for "their" spread spectrum project where as Randy was left to his own resources to assemble one. This is fairly well documented so no need for me to imply anything there as the timelines speak for themselves. And here we are today. Can't change the past, but we can change the future...... only if we are willing. As a TAPR BOD member, are you willing? > I>I know three times I offered to get a group buy together > >with little/no help from TAPR for commercial SS radios. > > > Several attempts at group buys have been made. All fell through for one > reason or another. I know about FreeWave (and I also know both sides of the story on that one) .... what other ones fell through? > Generally, the manufacturers are uninterested in > dealing with low volume purchases (and even if every member of TAPR buys > 2, the manufacturers consider this low volume), especially when the > equipment is to be used for other than its intended purpose. Since your cutting and pasting Greg's original message, why don't you just cut and paste my response to this blanket claim? What your really saying here is TAPR is not interested in doing a group purchase. Which is FINE, just say that instead of whining how no-one volunteers. > > > >I can go on with other examples, but my point is that its just not as > >simple as > >volunteering or asking for help.... > > > When such negotations are being attempted, they can be very sensitive. Your making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Like I said, go back and read the message you where cutting and pasting (here is my earlier response to these defeatist type comments) http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/ss/0001/msg00033.html The point is, if there is a will, there is a way. And the point I believe these modern day posters was raising is there was no will. > I too am sorry none of these > worked out, but the attempts were made to the best of TAPR's ability. I'm > sorry if you feel that you were left out of the process. Sorry? Thanks, but I'm OK. Didn't stop me from buying FreeWave radios (10 so far) or Wavelans or Proxims or... Not the point. At the risk of displaying alot of bravado, I'm sorry for TAPR for not taking advantage of the skills of their membership. I'm confident I could have made a deal go through. Its my _opinion_ that TAPR avoided/suppressed group buys so as not to dilute the user base for the TAPR, now Dandin, SS radio. From a business perspective, I can understand how TAPR would have done this as it would have diluted there then as yet unannounced TAPR SS radios user base. Yet when you and others start hooting off how you don't get enough volunteers, I need to point out its not always as simple as volunteering. Which was my modern day point. > >I'd like to see TAPR return to its distant roots....a organization that is > >more a peer based > >R&D organization. Then, and only then, will the statement "membership > >supported research > >and development organization" not have a hollow meaning. We all need to > >work together > >and the TAPR membership *can* contribute alot to this. > > > >Give it some thought. You and the board are now in a unique position to > >change the course. > >Take advantage of it. > > > I think it _is_ a peer-based R&D organization. The peers are those people > doing R&D...people with ideas that are willing to dedicate their own time > to developing those ideas. > To people that are not in that group it may > sound like elitism, You have had four people in as many days question this, and it appears all four have done SS projects on their own. Yet, all four seem to have a problem with the way TAPR has done things in the past. http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/ http://www.gbonline.com/~multiplx/wireless/ http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html Or you just don't care? > It doesn't matter how great a need is, or how many people want to buy a > product, unless there are volunteers that have the skills, time, and > drive to produce it, TAPR can't do it. Wishing won't change that, only a > few million will. What I am "wishing" for won't take a few million. Here were some of my specific suggestions that I will outline clearly so you don't miss them this time. These are questions specifically for the BOD, which the BOD can only address 1. What do you think about some sort of term limits for TAPR BOD/Officers? This is more complicated then it looks, efforts will have to be made to increase the number of people running for the board. Yet it is doable and will promote diversity of views within TAPR 2. What do you think about TAPR reaching out to other organizations (my unanswered NordLink question might be a good place to start)? There really is alot that TAPR, and its membership, is missing. 3. Better communications with the membership. (The much tauted TAPR-ORG board has only had one previous posting on it, my question about the Dayton update) I see you didn't even bother to use it yourself in responding to this message..... better suited although I suspect the audience would be far less. How many people even know that the TAPR president resigned in May (that didn't go to Dayton)? As a TAPR member it disturbs me when I see comments such as Steve Lampereur, Jack Kerouac, N8xlr and others make. Yet, there is some basis to truth in these. All these fellows have given up on TAPR, they let their memberships lapse. I've been a member for 16 years, and hope the organization can return to its roots. Yet when I see a BOD member so quickly dismiss these concerns, it really bothers me. This whole "Dandin issue", or more specifically the mindset that allowed it to happen, I had hoped had gone away. It seems like it still lives on. I hope this changes and now seemed like a good time in "TAPR history" for the board to take proactive measures to change the future. Flame me all you want, but I hope the BOD considers some of the issues at a later date. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 25 14:25:30 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA29694 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:25:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:27 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200006251924.e5PJORM02743@faulkner.netnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Well first off I want to apologize. Obviously I opened a can of worms. I would also like to clarify that I don't expect TAPR to do anything, other than use their power of influence to promote the future of digital communications properly. They don't need to build anything or spend any money to make me happy. Nor do I care about the internal affairs of TAPR in anyway. A lot of hams look at TAPR and what they are doing and promoting. And when TAPR's web material is outdated, hams are led astray. It's just my observation that TAPR doesn't seem to be promoting the idea of using modified part 15 wireless devices as much as they should be. Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 25 16:03:42 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA20882 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:03:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: From: "Marcelo Puhl" Organization: Computec Ltda To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:04:37 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [ss] Innomedia ? Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Priority: normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <200006252104.e5PL4UW16842@bigbox.plug-in.com.br> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi, I think this company has some interesting SS high-speed modems that could be used by hams : http://www.innomedia.com/wireless/products.html 73, Marcelo - PY3SS --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 25 17:45:57 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA07316 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:45:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: http://tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.qexss.html Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:44:15 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > [97.307(f)] > 50.1 - 148 MHz 19.6 kilobauds - 20 kHz bandwidth > 222 - 450 MHz 56 kilobauds - 100 kHz bandwidth > Above 900 MHz - No speed limit also no bandwith limit Gee, we're even better off down here, where "wideband and pulse modes are only permitted above 420 MHz", so we can start seriously looking at SS from 70cm and up. > The above 900 MHz part, is again a wake up call for us. > Every year they try to > take away/modify out allocations for the UHF/SHF spectrum > since we hardly > use them. Also the Part 15 (ISM) wireless cards start at 900 > MHz and go > up.. (also 2.4 & 5.7 GHz) > > Obviously following what the commercial world does by using > the TCP/IP > protocol is smart thinking. nd also lookm at the low cost devices already out there. Surely there's a way to utilise these in our networks. As the old saying goes... "Use it or lose it", and we'd better start with the using. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Jun 25 21:20:47 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA19224 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:20:46 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:19:35 -0700 From: Everett F Batey To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: Mark Barner Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 13, 2000 Message-ID: Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Mark Barner on Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 09:04:04AM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD gcpacix.cotdazr.org 2.2.8-RELEASE FreeBSD 2.2.8-RELEASE X-Tele: +1 805 985.3146 / 805 340.6471 Pg 805 655.2017 X-URL: http://www.cotdazr.org List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <20000625191935.A4016@cotdazr.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Gee Mark,, I.m near the water in southern Oxnard is that worth a try .. can you see chan 63 which is little further inland ? /Everett/ Ventura County .. On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 09:04:04AM -0700, Mark Barner wrote: > Also, I have some 33cm-band antennae and digital transceivers. Is there any > interest in L.A./Orange county of California for this line of research if it > were centered around 915 MHz? Thanx. > > KE6BOL sends. -- + http://www.vhwy.com efb@vhwy.com WA6CRE@arrl.net http://www.cotdazr.org + + PocketNet Mail 8053406471@mobile.att.net / Cell/VoiceMail 805 340-6471 + + Unix BSD, Sun, HP SCO Linux Security Cisco Routing DataFellows QMail DNS + --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 11:01:36 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA26022 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:01:36 -0500 (CDT) From: Daven6ojj@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:00:20 EDT Subject: [ss] Part 15 device conversions To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk For those who have not checked the FCC website lately... In a posting from the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), no. DA 00-1087, dated May 22, 2000; Since MMCX, MCX, and reverse polarity SMA, BNC and TNC have become readily available... (excerpted) "However, because these connectors have become readily available, they are no longer considered sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Section 15.203. Therefore, 30 days from the date of this Public Notice, we will no longer accept MMCX, MCX, and reverse polarity SMA, BNC, and TNC type antenna connector for meeting the requirements in Section 15.203 for all Part 15 transmitters. This action is being taken to inform applicants and manufacturers of this change in policy with respect to the aforementioned connectors." In light of the mass market, large scale manufacturing world we now live in, it is the OPINION of this amateur operator that the FCC will be repeatedly pushed into making similar Public Notices for products that do not have fixed antennas. The presence of a fixed antenna has not prevented me from converting a Part 15 device into a Part 97 device but a little more creativity may be called for with products newly Certified since last week. By the way, don't forget to make sure your callsign is routinely sent to keep notes from Mr. Hollingsworth out of your mailbox. Cheers, Dave McBrayer, N6OJJ in the heart of the San Francisco Bay metro area --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 11:07:00 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA27443 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:06:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Part 15 device conversions Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:01:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCE3@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Does this mean that the load of stuff in production now will be dumped at reduced cost (windfall for us?) > -----Original Message----- > From: Daven6ojj@aol.com [SMTP:Daven6ojj@aol.com] > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:00 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Part 15 device conversions > > For those who have not checked the FCC website lately... > > In a posting from the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), no. DA > 00-1087, dated May 22, 2000; > > Since MMCX, MCX, and reverse polarity SMA, BNC and TNC have become readily > > available... > > (excerpted) > "However, because these connectors have become readily available, they are > no > longer considered sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Section > 15.203. > Therefore, 30 days from the date of this Public Notice, we will no longer > accept MMCX, MCX, and reverse polarity SMA, BNC, and TNC type antenna > connector for meeting the requirements in Section 15.203 for all Part 15 > transmitters. This action is being taken to inform applicants and > manufacturers of this change in policy with respect to the aforementioned > connectors." > > In light of the mass market, large scale manufacturing world we now live > in, > it is the OPINION of this amateur operator that the FCC will be repeatedly > > pushed into making similar Public Notices for products that do not have > fixed > antennas. The presence of a fixed antenna has not prevented me from > converting a Part 15 device into a Part 97 device but a little more > creativity may be called for with products newly Certified since last > week. > > By the way, don't forget to make sure your callsign is routinely sent to > keep > notes from Mr. Hollingsworth out of your mailbox. > > Cheers, > Dave McBrayer, N6OJJ > in the heart of the San Francisco Bay metro area > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 11:13:21 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA29421 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:13:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: hansen@postoffice.cc.fredonia.edu Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:13:21 -0400 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: John Hansen Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000626121147.02745550@postoffice.cc.fredonia.edu> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk What I don't understand is why the BreezeCom units that I've bought have standard SMA connectors on them. Even the unit I had repaired last year (with a brand new transmitter board and connectors) came with standard SMA. Hmmmm. John W2FS At 12:00 PM 6/26/00 -0400, you wrote: >For those who have not checked the FCC website lately... > >In a posting from the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), no. DA >00-1087, dated May 22, 2000; > >Since MMCX, MCX, and reverse polarity SMA, BNC and TNC have become readily >available... > >(excerpted) >"However, because these connectors have become readily available, they are no >longer considered sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Section 15.203. >Therefore, 30 days from the date of this Public Notice, we will no longer >accept MMCX, MCX, and reverse polarity SMA, BNC, and TNC type antenna >connector for meeting the requirements in Section 15.203 for all Part 15 >transmitters. This action is being taken to inform applicants and >manufacturers of this change in policy with respect to the aforementioned >connectors." > >In light of the mass market, large scale manufacturing world we now live in, >it is the OPINION of this amateur operator that the FCC will be repeatedly >pushed into making similar Public Notices for products that do not have fixed >antennas. The presence of a fixed antenna has not prevented me from >converting a Part 15 device into a Part 97 device but a little more >creativity may be called for with products newly Certified since last week. > >By the way, don't forget to make sure your callsign is routinely sent to keep >notes from Mr. Hollingsworth out of your mailbox. > >Cheers, >Dave McBrayer, N6OJJ >in the heart of the San Francisco Bay metro area > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: john@hansen.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 12:08:03 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA14903 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:08:01 -0500 (CDT) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:06:49 -0400 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <39578DA8.73DCA3C5@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Daven6ojj@aol.com wrote: > In light of the mass market, large scale manufacturing world we now live in, > it is the OPINION of this amateur operator that the FCC will be repeatedly > pushed into making similar Public Notices for products that do not have fixed > antennas. Kind of like chasing your tail. Isn't that what keeps most in government employed? ;-) But one thing I have noted, is that the actually PCB lands are EXCACTLY the same for standard SMA connectors for many of the oddball connectors. (at least on the FreeWave and the WaveLan). So, get you trusting soldering iron and desoldering wick out, remove the connector, and order a standard connector from DigiKey. Easy. Lots easier then using human engineeriing to get the oddball OEM connectors. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 12:16:08 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA16624 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:16:03 -0500 (CDT) Errors-To: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:14:29 -0400 From: Jeff King Organization: Aero Data Systems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <39578F74.1EDEA2E2@aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk John: John Hansen wrote: > What I don't understand is why the BreezeCom units that I've bought have > standard SMA connectors on them. Even the unit I had repaired last year > (with a brand new transmitter board and connectors) came with standard SMA. I can't speak for BreezeCom, but Cycomm(sp?) had a N connector on their unit for some time, the unit had a exemption for "professional installation" only, whatever that means. FreeWave also has the same thing, although at quite a premium over the normal unit. See: http://www.freewave.com/professionalseries.html Changing the subject, would you be so kind as to give a few comments on the BreezeCom's? Your link distance, terrain, antennas, height, model number, cost etc. Also if you did any work with them in Urban environments, with one end having a antenna less then optimal and/or mobile. Thanks! Jeff P.S. You get those 16F877's? --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 12:51:33 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA28263 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:51:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:50:31 -0700 From: Bob Nielsen To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jeff@aerodata.net on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:14:29PM -0400 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000626105031.A20237@oz.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:14:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Changing the subject, would you be so kind as to give a few comments on the > BreezeCom's? Your link distance, terrain, antennas, height, model number, cost etc. Also > if you did any work with them in Urban environments, with one end having a antenna > less then optimal and/or mobile. It would be great if this type of data on the various available hardware could be compiled (and possibly put on the TAPR web site). Along that line, does anyone have any information on 900 MHz propagation through trees, etc. I know that 440 isn't too bad, while 2.4 GHz is quite lossy, but have not had any experience at 900. Since relocating from the desert, I have come across some new challenges. Bob -- Bob Nielsen, N7XY nielsen@oz.net Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.oz.net/~nielsen --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 13:04:13 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA00942 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:04:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:58:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCE4@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I agree with Bob, if we just had a list of this stuff, as people find it if there was a place they could send that data to and have it added to a page, that would be a excellent idea. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Nielsen [SMTP:nielsen@oz.net] > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 13:51 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions > > It would be great if this type of data on the various available > hardware could be compiled (and possibly put on the TAPR web site). > > Along that line, does anyone have any information on 900 MHz > propagation through trees, etc. I know that 440 isn't too bad, while > 2.4 GHz is quite lossy, but have not had any experience at 900. Since > relocating from the desert, I have come across some new challenges. > > Bob > > -- > Bob Nielsen, N7XY nielsen@oz.net > Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.oz.net/~nielsen > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 13:15:47 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA05152 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:15:45 -0500 (CDT) From: adesjard@cme.com Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:14:14 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60FE67D@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60C1B99@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Precedence: bulk Aironet's Website http://www.aironet.com has a link calculation tool, and it should work for most 2.4 Ghz part 15 SS units. My experience is that at any distance over 1/2 mile at 2.4Ghz your path must be absolutely clear - no leaves at all. 900 Mhz seems to be more forgiving, going through many obstruction. Metricom " http://www.metricom.com " is deploying a lot of 900 Mhz SS units in many cities, about 20 major metros as I recall. It could make things interesting for us Hams, as they are using Omni and Planar antennas. Alan DesJardins N5VXL RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems 30 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Bob Nielsen Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:51 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:14:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Changing the subject, would you be so kind as to give a few comments on the > BreezeCom's? Your link distance, terrain, antennas, height, model number, cost etc. Also > if you did any work with them in Urban environments, with one end having a antenna > less then optimal and/or mobile. It would be great if this type of data on the various available hardware could be compiled (and possibly put on the TAPR web site). Along that line, does anyone have any information on 900 MHz propagation through trees, etc. I know that 440 isn't too bad, while 2.4 GHz is quite lossy, but have not had any experience at 900. Since relocating from the desert, I have come across some new challenges. Bob -- Bob Nielsen, N7XY nielsen@oz.net Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.oz.net/~nielsen --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 13:17:52 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA05895 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:17:51 -0500 (CDT) From: adesjard@cme.com Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:16:14 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60FE67E@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60C1B9A@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Precedence: bulk One reference you MUST have if you're looking at converting Part 15 units is the Pasternack Enterprises catalog. Check them at http://www.pasternack.com . They are probably the single biggest reason the FCC wants to get away from reverse polarity connectors. Alan DesJardins N5VXL RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems 30 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Hast, Chuck Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:58 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions I agree with Bob, if we just had a list of this stuff, as people find it if there was a place they could send that data to and have it added to a page, that would be a excellent idea. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Nielsen [SMTP:nielsen@oz.net] > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 13:51 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions > > It would be great if this type of data on the various available > hardware could be compiled (and possibly put on the TAPR web site). > > Along that line, does anyone have any information on 900 MHz > propagation through trees, etc. I know that 440 isn't too bad, while > 2.4 GHz is quite lossy, but have not had any experience at 900. Since > relocating from the desert, I have come across some new challenges. > > Bob > > -- > Bob Nielsen, N7XY nielsen@oz.net > Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.oz.net/~nielsen > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 13:34:05 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA11086 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:34:03 -0500 (CDT) From: "Kenneth H. Sinclair" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:32:21 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The figure I've seen is 1dB loss per meter of "dense foliage" at 915mhz. I think that comes from William Lee's Mobile Communications Engineering somewhere. Rappaport's done some 900mhz analysis. I'm doing my first 900mhz part 15 project now and for propagation in suburban environments we're assuming path loss exponents of 2 for first meter, 3 for next 10 meters, and 4 beyond that. Just a simple guess but it seems to match other empirical studies reasonably well. Much of the existing work is from cellular industry and assumes one high antenna, so you need to be careful. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-9486@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-9486@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Bob Nielsen Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:51 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:14:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Changing the subject, would you be so kind as to give a few comments on the > BreezeCom's? Your link distance, terrain, antennas, height, model number, cost etc. Also > if you did any work with them in Urban environments, with one end having a antenna > less then optimal and/or mobile. It would be great if this type of data on the various available hardware could be compiled (and possibly put on the TAPR web site). Along that line, does anyone have any information on 900 MHz propagation through trees, etc. I know that 440 isn't too bad, while 2.4 GHz is quite lossy, but have not had any experience at 900. Since relocating from the desert, I have come across some new challenges. Bob -- Bob Nielsen, N7XY nielsen@oz.net Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.oz.net/~nielsen --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: khs@ieee.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 13:52:59 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA15980 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:52:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "Kenneth H. Sinclair" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:51:23 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I thought that Metricom was moving to licensed spectrum. IMO they had no business using part 15 rules for omni fixed poletop installations in the first place. Their site does seem like they're going ahead with 900mhz and 2.4ghz deployments, though I'm pretty sure they've got some UHF licenses. What'll they do when Bluetooth saturates 2.4ghz? -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-9486@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-9486@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of adesjard@cme.com Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 2:14 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Aironet's Website http://www.aironet.com has a link calculation tool, and it should work for most 2.4 Ghz part 15 SS units. My experience is that at any distance over 1/2 mile at 2.4Ghz your path must be absolutely clear - no leaves at all. 900 Mhz seems to be more forgiving, going through many obstruction. Metricom " http://www.metricom.com " is deploying a lot of 900 Mhz SS units in many cities, about 20 major metros as I recall. It could make things interesting for us Hams, as they are using Omni and Planar antennas. Alan DesJardins N5VXL RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems 30 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Bob Nielsen Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:51 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:14:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Changing the subject, would you be so kind as to give a few comments on the > BreezeCom's? Your link distance, terrain, antennas, height, model number, cost etc. Also > if you did any work with them in Urban environments, with one end having a antenna > less then optimal and/or mobile. It would be great if this type of data on the various available hardware could be compiled (and possibly put on the TAPR web site). Along that line, does anyone have any information on 900 MHz propagation through trees, etc. I know that 440 isn't too bad, while 2.4 GHz is quite lossy, but have not had any experience at 900. Since relocating from the desert, I have come across some new challenges. Bob -- Bob Nielsen, N7XY nielsen@oz.net Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.oz.net/~nielsen --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: khs@ieee.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 14:10:15 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA22119 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:10:14 -0500 (CDT) From: adesjard@cme.com Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:08:30 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60FE683@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D619B313@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Precedence: bulk As I heard it the UHF Licensed freqs were to connect the remote access points back to the network station. I'm sure I'm not using the correct terms for their stuff, but the jist is that the licensed stuff is backbone. Alan DesJardins N5VXL RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems 30 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Kenneth H. Sinclair Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:51 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions I thought that Metricom was moving to licensed spectrum. IMO they had no business using part 15 rules for omni fixed poletop installations in the first place. Their site does seem like they're going ahead with 900mhz and 2.4ghz deployments, though I'm pretty sure they've got some UHF licenses. What'll they do when Bluetooth saturates 2.4ghz? -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-9486@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-9486@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of adesjard@cme.com Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 2:14 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Aironet's Website http://www.aironet.com has a link calculation tool, and it should work for most 2.4 Ghz part 15 SS units. My experience is that at any distance over 1/2 mile at 2.4Ghz your path must be absolutely clear - no leaves at all. 900 Mhz seems to be more forgiving, going through many obstruction. Metricom " http://www.metricom.com " is deploying a lot of 900 Mhz SS units in many cities, about 20 major metros as I recall. It could make things interesting for us Hams, as they are using Omni and Planar antennas. Alan DesJardins N5VXL RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems 30 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Bob Nielsen Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:51 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:14:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Changing the subject, would you be so kind as to give a few comments on the > BreezeCom's? Your link distance, terrain, antennas, height, model number, cost etc. Also > if you did any work with them in Urban environments, with one end having a antenna > less then optimal and/or mobile. It would be great if this type of data on the various available hardware could be compiled (and possibly put on the TAPR web site). Along that line, does anyone have any information on 900 MHz propagation through trees, etc. I know that 440 isn't too bad, while 2.4 GHz is quite lossy, but have not had any experience at 900. Since relocating from the desert, I have come across some new challenges. Bob -- Bob Nielsen, N7XY nielsen@oz.net Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.oz.net/~nielsen --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: khs@ieee.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 14:58:06 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA04113 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:58:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [204.68.140.34] From: "Mark Barner" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:56:47 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000626195647.37258.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk An open letter to all interested parties. Fellow Hams; With all due respect to those opposed and allied... TAPR is doing what TAPR does best - serve its members. Since I am not a member of TAPR (I live in Anaheim, CA) I am in no position to criticize or praise their efforts. However, some of their SS projects have provided useful information for my own SS project, so I have no complaint with TAPR. Instead, my complaint is against the local Amateur Radio Operator comunity. Recently, I acquired some equipment and set up shop for SS R&D. Then I discretely approached a couple of Ham clubs in my area (L.A./Orange Counties) with the suggestion of starting a local SS repeater project similar to TAPR's. Whether or not the club already has an SS project going, the responses have been consistently underwhelming - usually along the lines of, "Pay our fees, join our club, learn The Code, get your 2 by 2, and then we'll discuss it." It seems to me that there is considerable inertia amongst the established club memberships in favor of the "traditional" realms of Amateur Radio interest - "The Code", Amtor, HFSSB, and VHF/UHF-FM, as well as a distinct proprietary attitude toward Amateur Radio technology. Merely to suggest interest in something as esoteric as Packet, Ham TV and Spread-Spectrum technology is to invite derision and condescension from the more established individual Amateur Radio Operators. Hiram Percy Maxim made many of his advances without the burden of an amateur radio club. Hedy Lamarr did not even have a ham license when she invented spread-spectrum technology back in the early 1940's, yet 60 years later, her invention is being ignored en masse by the ham community while commercial interests use it to acquire more of our spectrum space. TAPR, or a few essential members thereof, are doing the rest of us a favor by publishing any of the results of their research. Since the local clubs seem to have little interest in outsider research in SS, I will proceed to develop an SS/IP system on my own, however accurate or inaccurate my information may be. So please stop bickering about who is more accurate, why SS development should or should not occur within the ham community, whether or not clubs have more right to spectrum space over individuals, or which commercial system is better. Just do the *&^%$#@ research and develop a viable SS/IP system for Amateur Radio! Respectfully; KE6BOL op Mark ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 15:29:29 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA14267 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:29:28 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon Jun 26 16:27:58 2000 From: Daven6ojj@aol.com Subject: [ss] RE: Part 15 device conversions To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Chuck Hast asked if the FCC position on "reverse connectors" affects any products previously Certified and in current production - No, the Public Notice affects only new Certifications issued after June 23, 2000. It would seem current production is not affected. cheers, Dave McBrayer, N6OJJ In the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 17:14:57 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA22004 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:14:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:13:53 -0700 From: Bob Nielsen To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from barnermark@hotmail.com on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 12:56:47PM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000626151353.B20436@oz.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 12:56:47PM -0700, Mark Barner wrote: > An open letter to all interested parties. > > Fellow Hams; > > With all due respect to those opposed and allied... > > TAPR is doing what TAPR does best - serve its members. Since I am not a > member of TAPR (I live in Anaheim, CA) I am in no position to criticize or > praise their efforts. However, some of their SS projects have provided > useful information for my own SS project, so I have no complaint with TAPR. Mark, There are probably more TAPR members in Anaheim than in Tucson, so don't let that deter you. In spite of the name, TAPR is truly an international organization (there are several local ham clubs in Tucson, as well). None of the current TAPR board officers or members reside in Tucson and the TAPR office moved to Denton, TX several years ago. 73, Bob (formerly of Tucson) -- Bob Nielsen, N7XY nielsen@oz.net Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.oz.net/~nielsen --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 17:17:13 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA22526 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:17:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:14:41 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] SS Unpopular Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000626145930.00b155c0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Count me in. And I personalty know of several others. Were you at the SS symposia when the ARRL SW convention was on the QM the year before it was in Rverside (Five years ago, IIRC)? The reaction to SS was absolutly intolerant! I have given several pro-SS at ham clubs. The usual rank and file reaction is "gee this is a good idea - where can I buy an appliance so my head won't hurt?". I think there are three problems: It is counterintuitive... A lot of fuss was made about spectrum efficiency re SSB. It is experimental (ie no appliance)... If A&A or Ramsey or Hamtronics or Kanga, or Whoever would just put out a kit Very few clubs are technical... I tried teaching a technical class at my club - hard core. BTW, What difference does it make that you live in Anaheim being a member of TAPR? TAPR isn't in Arizona either!!! :> 73 de KN6TD (who builds gear) (s) Derek --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 17:18:51 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA22603 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:18:50 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:16:37 -0700 From: "Shawn T. Rutledge" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Bob Nielsen on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:50:31AM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000626151637.A26186@electron.quantum.int> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:50:31AM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 01:14:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > > Changing the subject, would you be so kind as to give a few comments on the > > BreezeCom's? Your link distance, terrain, antennas, height, model number, cost etc. Also > > if you did any work with them in Urban environments, with one end having a antenna > > less then optimal and/or mobile. > > It would be great if this type of data on the various available > hardware could be compiled (and possibly put on the TAPR web site). Sounds like TAPR needs a wiki. See http://gw.kb7pwd.ampr.org:9673/zwiki/SlateComputers/ for an example of what one looks like. It allows people to collaborate and add information to web pages. Better mechanisms for this will evolve but for now, this is the best I've seen. You cannot build communities by having only a privileged few who can actually post information. -- _______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD ecloud@bigfoot.com (_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud kb7pwd@kb7pwd.ampr.org __) | | \________________________________________________________________ Get money for spare CPU cycles at http://www.ProcessTree.com/?sponsor=5903 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 18:06:32 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA08570 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:06:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Part 15 device conversions Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:05:00 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hmm, better keep an eye on this one... Hopefully our agencies take a bit longer to come to similar decisions, and we can get some of them "dumped" on our shores at bargainn basement prices while the window of opportunity exists. ;-) Tony Langdon. Systems Development and Support. ATC Training Australasia. Level 2 321 Exhibition St Melbourne 3000. Phone: 1300 13 1983 WWW: http://www.atctraining.com.au > -----Original Message----- > From: Hast, Chuck [mailto:wchast@utilpart.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2000 2:01 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: Part 15 device conversions > > > Does this mean that the load of stuff in production now will be > dumped at reduced cost (windfall for us?) --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Jun 26 19:02:42 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA23299 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:02:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@localhost Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:59:43 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions In-Reply-To: References: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60FE67D@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000626174914.0503ec30@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Yes, Metricom is monopolizing the 900 MHz band in many cities precisely because signals in that range can penetrate walls and trees somewhat. The company is not nearly as interested in 2.4 GHz because it has more problems with that. The problem is that by deploying hundreds of 900 MHz hoppers in a relatively small geographic area, Metricom ruins the band for most or all other point-to-multipoint users. It is possible to do point-to-point links with highly directional antennas, but the deployment of other networks similar to Metricom's becomes infeasible because those networks will be subject to dropouts, long latencies (due to retransmission) and interference. What's more, Metricom's transmitters appear to be programmed to increase power to the maximum legal limit in the presence of a competing signal. Any other user of the band may be "swarmed" by Metricom's army of transmitters when he speaks up. If you're a licensed amateur and are operating under Part 97, you can simply jack up YOUR power to get over the noise and you will win the "arms race." But this hurts other unlicensed users still more. Any investment they may have made in unlicenced spread spectrum equipment -- as much as $3K per node -- may be lost. It's a tragedy of the commons. --Brett At 12:14 PM 6/26/2000, adesjard@cme.com wrote: >Aironet's Website http://www.aironet.com has a link calculation tool, and >it should work for most 2.4 Ghz part 15 SS units. My experience is that at >any distance over 1/2 mile at 2.4Ghz your path must be absolutely clear - no >leaves at all. 900 Mhz seems to be more forgiving, going through many >obstruction. Metricom " http://www.metricom.com " is deploying a lot of 900 >Mhz SS units in many cities, about 20 major metros as I recall. It could >make things interesting for us Hams, as they are using Omni and Planar >antennas. > > >Alan DesJardins N5VXL >RF Network Engineer >Chicago Mercantile Exchange >MIS Systems >30 S. Wacker Drive >Chicago, IL 60606 >312-338-2853 >adesjard@cme.com --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 00:00:22 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA26958 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:00:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:10:42 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Kind of like chasing your tail. Isn't that what keeps most in > government > employed? ;-) Hehe, sounds like paper shuffling is as much a sport on your side of the Pacific as it is here. :-) > > But one thing I have noted, is that the actually PCB lands > are EXCACTLY the > same for standard SMA connectors for many of the oddball > connectors. (at least > on the FreeWave and the WaveLan). So, get you trusting > soldering iron and > desoldering wick out, remove the connector, and order a > standard connector > from DigiKey. Easy. > > Lots easier then using human engineeriing to get the oddball > OEM connectors. Seems the way to go. If you go SMA, then it's easy to interface the devices with a lot of other gear, and avoid having to make a whole heap of special adapter cables. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 06:25:55 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id GAA04096 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:25:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "Kenneth H. Sinclair" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Metricom (renamed) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:22:12 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Yeah, but they are hoppers, and other hoppers can contend with them somewhat successfully. Do you have any info about their emitted spectrum? -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-9486@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-9486@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Brett Glass Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 8:00 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: Part 15 device conversions Yes, Metricom is monopolizing the 900 MHz band in many cities precisely because signals in that range can penetrate walls and trees somewhat. The company is not nearly as interested in 2.4 GHz because it has more problems with that. The problem is that by deploying hundreds of 900 MHz hoppers in a relatively small geographic area, Metricom ruins the band for most or all other point-to-multipoint users. It is possible to do point-to-point links with highly directional antennas, but the deployment of other networks similar to Metricom's becomes infeasible because those networks will be subject to dropouts, long latencies (due to retransmission) and interference. What's more, Metricom's transmitters appear to be programmed to increase power to the maximum legal limit in the presence of a competing signal. Any other user of the band may be "swarmed" by Metricom's army of transmitters when he speaks up. If you're a licensed amateur and are operating under Part 97, you can simply jack up YOUR power to get over the noise and you will win the "arms race." But this hurts other unlicensed users still more. Any investment they may have made in unlicenced spread spectrum equipment -- as much as $3K per node -- may be lost. It's a tragedy of the commons. --Brett --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 07:33:36 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA15853 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:33:35 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:32:25 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > An open letter to all interested parties. > > Fellow Hams; > > With all due respect to those opposed and allied... > So please stop bickering about who is more accurate, why SS > development > should or should not occur within the ham community, whether > or not clubs > have more right to spectrum space over individuals, or which > commercial > system is better. Just do the *&^%$#@ research and develop a > viable SS/IP > system for Amateur Radio! Well said! What we need is more R&D. If more of us can work together, it might make it faster, otherwise we'll have to plod along slowly. As for club involvements, I wish we had more (cost effective) access to some of the SS devices down here in VK. Wouldn't take long to rostlu up a handful of people willing to experiment, if we can get the gear without breaking the band... (unfortunately, the exchange rate between the US dollar and the 'South pacific Peso' (AKA Aussie dollar) almost doubles the price when the stuff hits our shores. :-(). We're just taking it slowly until the opportunity comes along --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 08:21:12 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA24904 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:21:11 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:20:03 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: ss@lists.tapr.org Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tlangdon@atctraining.com.au on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:32:25AM +1000 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000627232003.A13187@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:32:25AM +1000, Tony Langdon wrote: > As for club involvements, I wish we had more (cost effective) access to some > of the SS devices down here in VK. Wouldn't take long to rostlu up a > handful of people willing to experiment, if we can get the gear without > breaking the band... (unfortunately, the exchange rate between the US Count me in in any experimentation. I've been reading up on DSSS. Quite interesting stuff. I'm intrigued by the digital side of it (I work as an electronics engineer on digital stuff). FPGAs would make a good test platform, but an FPGA evaluation board is very expensive, especially in Australian dollars. For example the cheapest I've seen is $159 US (from a company in Brazil, www.aee.com.br), with a Xilinx XCS05-4 FPGA with 32kB of 100ns RAM. An XCS05 FPGA contains 360 flip flops. A PN generator with a L = 7 bit word has 2^L-1 = 127 combinations, so a single matched filter will use 127 of those 360 flip flops. It's very difficult to use all of them anyway due to limited routing resources. For an extra $18 US you can get an 4005E FPGA, which has 616 flip flops (well worth the extra money). For $79 US extra (above the $159), you can get a 4010E FPGA, which has 1,120 flip flops. If you wanted to make your own board, 4K devices up to the 4010 are available in 84-pin PLCC packages; 61 of these pins are available for user I/O. Bigger devices are only available in quad flat pack or BGA packages. You can buy a XC5202-PC84 FPGA for about $20 (in 1 off) here in Australia.. nice and cheap. Same FPGA used in the YAM packet modem (www.microlet.com/yam). It only has 360 flip flops though. The best FPGA for this sort of thing is the Virtex, but the cheapest evaluation board I saw was about US$575 (with an XCV50-6 FPGA, the smallest and flowest of the family). You can readily get up to an XCV800, which costs about US$900 extra. (XCV50 has about 1536 flip flops). Don't ask the price of the software tools to work with these things. Just a few things I've discovered in some recent research. Hope these figures are of use to someone. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 08:39:06 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA28306 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:39:06 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:37:38 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from hamish@cloud.net.au on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 11:20:03PM +1000 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000627233738.A13693@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 11:20:03PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > FPGAs would make a good test platform, but an FPGA evaluation > board is very expensive, especially in Australian dollars. For example > the cheapest I've seen is $159 US (from a company in Brazil, www.aee.com.br), > with a Xilinx XCS05-4 FPGA with 32kB of 100ns RAM. Update: you can get a board with 32KB of RAM and an XCS10 FPGA (616 flip flops) from www.xess.com for $159, or with 128kb RAM for $189. That's a better deal than the Brazilian company. Or with a 4010E (1120 flip flops) for $209/$239. Not a bad deal. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 08:42:05 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA28996 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:42:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "Lyle Johnson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:38:15 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >The best FPGA for this sort of thing is the Virtex, but the cheapest >evaluation board I saw was about US$575 (with an XCV50-6 FPGA, the smallest >and flowest of the family). You can readily get up to an XCV800, >which costs about US$900 extra. (XCV50 has about 1536 flip flops). The APrtan 2 is much more cost effective and is based on VIrtex technology. 150,000 gate version is $21.60 in signel qty here in the U.S. >Don't ask the price of the software tools to work with these things. $95 from Xilinx for their entry level system, licensed for 1 year, schematic entry, not Verilog/VHDL. Enjoy! Lyle --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 08:46:00 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA29669 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:46:00 -0500 (CDT) From: "Lyle Johnson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:44:11 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Gotta learn to type... >The APrtan 2 is much more cost effective and is based on VIrtex technology. >150,000 gate version is $21.60 in signel qty here in the U.S. Make that: The Spartan 2 is much more cost effective and is based on Virtex technology. 150,000 gate version is $21.60 in single qty here in the U.S. Lyle --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 08:55:46 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA00497 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:55:45 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:54:14 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from wa7gxd@email.msn.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 06:44:11AM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000627235414.A14165@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 06:44:11AM -0700, Lyle Johnson wrote: > The Spartan 2 is much more cost effective and is based on Virtex technology. > 150,000 gate version is $21.60 in single qty here in the U.S. Sounds nice. Questions: Which device is that -- XC2S15? 4 flip flops per CLB * 96 CLBs = 384 flip flops. (That's a lot smaller than the smallest Virtex. Interesting.) Anyone doing prototype boards with these devices? I don't know much about Spartan; the area I work in is in the Virtex target market instead. Thanks Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 08:58:30 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA01105 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:58:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:55:30 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from wa7gxd@email.msn.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 06:38:15AM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000627235530.B14165@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 06:38:15AM -0700, Lyle Johnson wrote: > $95 from Xilinx for their entry level system, licensed for 1 year, schematic > entry, not Verilog/VHDL. OK, quite reasonable. I have what I thought was Foundation base, but it has VHDL/Verilog. Much better than schematic entry, IMHO. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 09:00:26 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA01890 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:00:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:53:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCE6@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk There have been a small group of us carrying on off to one side, about some of this. Our main point is that if we narrow this down to data only (computer type data) then we narrow our audience down too. Here in the Tampa area there is a growing group (many of them disgusted with the good old boy antics of the repeater council) who are interested in SS from a voice/repeater view. But since SS is inherently digital they can see quite readily that the data stream could be a mix of both voice and data. >From talking about the country (I travel a lot, was in Phoenix, El Paso, and LA all last week) I am finding similar sentiments all across this country and it appears that there are similar feelings at least down in AU land (See some of Tony's comments). I am sure that there are similar situations in other places, I can well remember my years in Costa Rica, and some of the people there who were interested in non-traditional modes of communications. I believe if we widen our view a bit and can pull these people into this activity we will gain a lot more interest and also a growing pool of people who though not interested in the data side of it are quite interested in doing voice through a SS system. It is these other groups, who are looking around for a solution to their problem that I believe we can use to help move this forward. Here in Tampa the voice group has told me to find all I can about it, find out about the equipment and they will work with me to try to bring on line a SS device, sure initially we are probably going to have to kludge something up, but once up and running we feel we can attract a significant number of people over just because it is different, and flies in the face of the "good old boy network" When you have a major chunk of 440 pulled out of the digital area and re-assigned to repeaters just to keep a group that is basically using this spectrum for "private" and "commercial" use (if you go to Miami and speak Spanish take a listen, there is stuff that will make you go postal on 440) and yet they can not find spectrum for real amateur work something is drastically wrong, and some one or something has to come along and upset the cart. We believe that this (SS) technology can do just that. For you all that are working on the data side only, take a few days and poke around, you might be real surprised at what comes to you, that was my position, one person who I never would have thought to have been interested in SS has turned out to be a major backer, and this person is interested in voice only activities (well a system that handles both voice and data has some very interesting possibilities for him) the fact is a lot of these people see SS wireless LAN gear and come to me and ask if this can be done using voice, and the answer is of course, that is what CDMA is all about. Then of course comes the next question, "why are we still dinking around with this 30-50 year old technology?" my quick response is because most hams are old farts that do not care to keep up with technology, but I think that is wrong, because several of the hams that kept me pressing on to new stuff were "old farts" but their brain was young, and of course I ain't no spring chicken my self. Most hams like most people do not like change, view past history with am vs. ssb, cw, vs. TTY, vs. amtor, vs. packet and so on and so forth. Hey I was on the initial STA for AMTOR and can remember the TTY and CW stations jamming us. For most of them CHANGE=BAD... Sad but that is certainly how it appears, but this should not stop us. Think about where and how we can use SS beyond the traditional packet switch/node replacement, as much as I love packet, I would also like to get these voice guys involved, hey voice is just more bits for our network to handle... And most voice guys have $$ to spare. Just my USD $0.02 worth > -----Original Message----- > From: Derek Lassen [SMTP:kn6td@clubnet.net] > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 18:15 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] SS Unpopular > > Count me in. > And I personalty know of several others. > > Were you at the SS symposia when the ARRL SW convention was on the QM the > year before it was in Rverside (Five years ago, IIRC)? > > The reaction to SS was absolutly intolerant! > > I have given several pro-SS at ham clubs. > The usual rank and file reaction is "gee this is a good idea - where can I > > buy an appliance so my head won't hurt?". > > I think there are three problems: > It is counterintuitive... > A lot of fuss was made about spectrum efficiency re SSB. > > It is experimental (ie no appliance)... > If A&A or Ramsey or Hamtronics or Kanga, or Whoever would just put > out a kit > > Very few clubs are technical... > I tried teaching a technical class at my club - hard core. > > BTW, What difference does it make that you live in Anaheim being a member > of TAPR? > TAPR isn't in Arizona either!!! :> > > > 73 de KN6TD (who builds gear) > > (s) Derek > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 09:23:46 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA07621 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:23:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:22:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Dave Pomeroy Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000627142248.22212.qmail@web1101.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Chuck, I'm new to this wireless group and have a question. When you say voice do you mean a digital repeater with Analog to digital and digital to analog on the users end? I think I have worded that right. Thanks for your time. --- "Hast, Chuck" wrote: > There have been a small group of us carrying on off > to one side, > about some of this. Our main point is that if we > narrow this down > to data only (computer type data) then we narrow our > audience > down too. > > Here in the Tampa area there is a growing group > (many of them > disgusted with the good old boy antics of the > repeater council) > who are interested in SS from a voice/repeater view. > But since > SS is inherently digital they can see quite readily > that the data > stream could be a mix of both voice and data. > > >From talking about the country (I travel a lot, was > in Phoenix, El > Paso, and LA all last week) I am finding similar > sentiments all > across this country and it appears that there are > similar feelings > at least down in AU land (See some of Tony's > comments). I am > sure that there are similar situations in other > places, I can well > remember my years in Costa Rica, and some of the > people there > who were interested in non-traditional modes of > communications. > > I believe if we widen our view a bit and can pull > these people into > this activity we will gain a lot more interest and > also a growing > pool of people who though not interested in the data > side of it are > quite interested in doing voice through a SS system. > > It is these other groups, who are looking around for > a solution to > their problem that I believe we can use to help move > this forward. > Here in Tampa the voice group has told me to find > all I can about > it, find out about the equipment and they will work > with me to try > to bring on line a SS device, sure initially we are > probably going > to have to kludge something up, but once up and > running we feel > we can attract a significant number of people over > just because > it is different, and flies in the face of the "good > old boy network" > > When you have a major chunk of 440 pulled out of the > digital area > and re-assigned to repeaters just to keep a group > that is basically > using this spectrum for "private" and "commercial" > use (if you go > to Miami and speak Spanish take a listen, there is > stuff that will > make you go postal on 440) and yet they can not find > spectrum > for real amateur work something is drastically > wrong, and some one > or something has to come along and upset the cart. > We believe > that this (SS) technology can do just that. > > For you all that are working on the data side only, > take a few days > and poke around, you might be real surprised at what > comes to you, > that was my position, one person who I never would > have thought > to have been interested in SS has turned out to be a > major backer, > and this person is interested in voice only > activities (well a system > that handles both voice and data has some very > interesting possibilities > for him) the fact is a lot of these people see SS > wireless LAN gear > and come to me and ask if this can be done using > voice, and the > answer is of course, that is what CDMA is all about. > Then of course > comes the next question, "why are we still dinking > around with this > 30-50 year old technology?" my quick response is > because most > hams are old farts that do not care to keep up with > technology, but > I think that is wrong, because several of the hams > that kept me > pressing on to new stuff were "old farts" but their > brain was young, > and of course I ain't no spring chicken my self. > Most hams like > most people do not like change, view past history > with am vs. ssb, > cw, vs. TTY, vs. amtor, vs. packet and so on and so > forth. Hey I was > on the initial STA for AMTOR and can remember the > TTY and CW > stations jamming us. For most of them CHANGE=BAD... > Sad but > that is certainly how it appears, but this should > not stop us. > > Think about where and how we can use SS beyond the > traditional > packet switch/node replacement, as much as I love > packet, I would > also like to get these voice guys involved, hey > voice is just more bits > for our network to handle... And most voice guys > have $$ to spare. > > Just my USD $0.02 worth > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Derek Lassen [SMTP:kn6td@clubnet.net] > > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 18:15 > > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > > Subject: [ss] SS Unpopular > > > > Count me in. > > And I personalty know of several others. > > > > Were you at the SS symposia when the ARRL SW > convention was on the QM the > > year before it was in Rverside (Five years ago, > IIRC)? > > > > The reaction to SS was absolutly intolerant! > > > > I have given several pro-SS at ham clubs. > > The usual rank and file reaction is "gee this is a > good idea - where can I > > > > buy an appliance so my head won't hurt?". > > > > I think there are three problems: > > It is counterintuitive... > > A lot of fuss was made about spectrum > efficiency re SSB. > > > > It is experimental (ie no appliance)... > > If A&A or Ramsey or Hamtronics or Kanga, or > Whoever would just put > > out a kit > > > > Very few clubs are technical... > > I tried teaching a technical class at my > club - hard core. > > > > BTW, What difference does it make that you live in > Anaheim being a member > > of TAPR? > > TAPR isn't in Arizona either!!! :> > > > > > > 73 de KN6TD (who builds gear) > > > > (s) Derek > > > > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > wchast@utilpart.com > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > dave_pomeroy@voyager.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > ===== Dave Pomeroy K8DNP Southwest Michigan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 09:28:13 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA07802 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:28:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:21:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCE7@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Yes, a codec between the voice user and the data stream. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Pomeroy [SMTP:dave_pomeroy@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 10:23 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular > > Chuck, > I'm new to this wireless group and have a question. > When you say voice do you mean a digital repeater with > Analog to digital and digital to analog on the users > end? I think I have worded that right. > Thanks for your time. > > --- "Hast, Chuck" wrote: > > There have been a small group of us carrying on off > > to one side, > > about some of this. Our main point is that if we > > narrow this down > > to data only (computer type data) then we narrow our > > audience > > down too. > > > > Here in the Tampa area there is a growing group > > (many of them > > disgusted with the good old boy antics of the > > repeater council) > > who are interested in SS from a voice/repeater view. > > But since > > SS is inherently digital they can see quite readily > > that the data > > stream could be a mix of both voice and data. > > > > >From talking about the country (I travel a lot, was > > in Phoenix, El > > Paso, and LA all last week) I am finding similar > > sentiments all > > across this country and it appears that there are > > similar feelings > > at least down in AU land (See some of Tony's > > comments). I am > > sure that there are similar situations in other > > places, I can well > > remember my years in Costa Rica, and some of the > > people there > > who were interested in non-traditional modes of > > communications. > > > > I believe if we widen our view a bit and can pull > > these people into > > this activity we will gain a lot more interest and > > also a growing > > pool of people who though not interested in the data > > side of it are > > quite interested in doing voice through a SS system. > > > > It is these other groups, who are looking around for > > a solution to > > their problem that I believe we can use to help move > > this forward. > > Here in Tampa the voice group has told me to find > > all I can about > > it, find out about the equipment and they will work > > with me to try > > to bring on line a SS device, sure initially we are > > probably going > > to have to kludge something up, but once up and > > running we feel > > we can attract a significant number of people over > > just because > > it is different, and flies in the face of the "good > > old boy network" > > > > When you have a major chunk of 440 pulled out of the > > digital area > > and re-assigned to repeaters just to keep a group > > that is basically > > using this spectrum for "private" and "commercial" > > use (if you go > > to Miami and speak Spanish take a listen, there is > > stuff that will > > make you go postal on 440) and yet they can not find > > spectrum > > for real amateur work something is drastically > > wrong, and some one > > or something has to come along and upset the cart. > > We believe > > that this (SS) technology can do just that. > > > > For you all that are working on the data side only, > > take a few days > > and poke around, you might be real surprised at what > > comes to you, > > that was my position, one person who I never would > > have thought > > to have been interested in SS has turned out to be a > > major backer, > > and this person is interested in voice only > > activities (well a system > > that handles both voice and data has some very > > interesting possibilities > > for him) the fact is a lot of these people see SS > > wireless LAN gear > > and come to me and ask if this can be done using > > voice, and the > > answer is of course, that is what CDMA is all about. > > Then of course > > comes the next question, "why are we still dinking > > around with this > > 30-50 year old technology?" my quick response is > > because most > > hams are old farts that do not care to keep up with > > technology, but > > I think that is wrong, because several of the hams > > that kept me > > pressing on to new stuff were "old farts" but their > > brain was young, > > and of course I ain't no spring chicken my self. > > Most hams like > > most people do not like change, view past history > > with am vs. ssb, > > cw, vs. TTY, vs. amtor, vs. packet and so on and so > > forth. Hey I was > > on the initial STA for AMTOR and can remember the > > TTY and CW > > stations jamming us. For most of them CHANGE=BAD... > > Sad but > > that is certainly how it appears, but this should > > not stop us. > > > > Think about where and how we can use SS beyond the > > traditional > > packet switch/node replacement, as much as I love > > packet, I would > > also like to get these voice guys involved, hey > > voice is just more bits > > for our network to handle... And most voice guys > > have $$ to spare. > > > > Just my USD $0.02 worth > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Derek Lassen [SMTP:kn6td@clubnet.net] > > > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 18:15 > > > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > > > Subject: [ss] SS Unpopular > > > > > > Count me in. > > > And I personalty know of several others. > > > > > > Were you at the SS symposia when the ARRL SW > > convention was on the QM the > > > year before it was in Rverside (Five years ago, > > IIRC)? > > > > > > The reaction to SS was absolutly intolerant! > > > > > > I have given several pro-SS at ham clubs. > > > The usual rank and file reaction is "gee this is a > > good idea - where can I > > > > > > buy an appliance so my head won't hurt?". > > > > > > I think there are three problems: > > > It is counterintuitive... > > > A lot of fuss was made about spectrum > > efficiency re SSB. > > > > > > It is experimental (ie no appliance)... > > > If A&A or Ramsey or Hamtronics or Kanga, or > > Whoever would just put > > > out a kit > > > > > > Very few clubs are technical... > > > I tried teaching a technical class at my > > club - hard core. > > > > > > BTW, What difference does it make that you live in > > Anaheim being a member > > > of TAPR? > > > TAPR isn't in Arizona either!!! :> > > > > > > > > > 73 de KN6TD (who builds gear) > > > > > > (s) Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > > wchast@utilpart.com > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: > > dave_pomeroy@voyager.net > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > > leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > Dave Pomeroy K8DNP Southwest Michigan > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! > http://mail.yahoo.com/ > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 17:57:14 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA19520 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:57:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: ss@lists.tapr.org Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:55:59 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Count me in in any experimentation. I'll keep that in mind. BTW, are you on the VK SS list? > > I've been reading up on DSSS. Quite interesting stuff. I'm intrigued > by the digital side of it (I work as an electronics engineer > on digital > stuff). OK, wasn't sure what you did. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, I didn't go on with engineering, and am in the networking side of things. My interesta in SS are: 1. The potential for data networking 2. Voice transmission (whether that be VoIP or direct onto the SS signal) 3. The experimental nature of SS (at least from an amateur standpoint) 4. Lots of potential uses for microwave frequencies that we need to use more. And more. :) As for something to build, to include more people in the longer term, the designs need to be reasonably cost effective and readily reproducible. Unfortunately, I'm a bit rusty on the R&D side. :( --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 19:28:29 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA12816 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:28:28 -0500 (CDT) From: "Lyle Johnson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:25:24 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-14410@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-14410@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Hamish Moffatt Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 6:54 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 >On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 06:44:11AM -0700, Lyle Johnson wrote: >> The Spartan 2 is much more cost effective and is based on Virtex technology. >> 150,000 gate version is $21.60 in single qty here in the U.S. >Sounds nice. >Questions: >Which device is that -- XC2S15? No, the XC2S150 >4 flip flops per CLB * 96 CLBs = 384 flip flops. (That's a lot >smaller than the smallest Virtex. Interesting.) 864 CLBs; 3,888 logic gates; 12 RAM blocks; 49,152 RAM bits; 260 user I/O. >Anyone doing prototype boards with these devices? Don't know. >I don't know much about Spartan; the area I work in is >in the Virtex target market instead. The Spartan2 is based on Virtex, unlike the earlier SPartans which were based loosely on the 4000 series parts. Enjoy! Lyle --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 20:10:16 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA22256 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:10:16 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:05:35 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from wa7gxd@email.msn.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 05:25:24PM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000628110535.A24180@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 05:25:24PM -0700, Lyle Johnson wrote: > >Questions: > >Which device is that -- XC2S15? > > No, the XC2S150 For $21? That's amazingly cheap. Xilinx would probably charge several hundred for a similar sized Virtex. thanks Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 20:27:58 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA25606 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:27:57 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:26:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Ussailis Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 26, 2000 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" cc: ss digest recipients In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Propagation thru trees... About a year ago (May, I think) there was an article on ISM band propagation in Antennas & Propagation Mag. (Not the transactions). There have also been several articles in Trans of A & P on this subject in the past ten years. All (I believe) thru buildings, and done at Bell lab, or whatever they call it now. Another interesting article in Radio Science on 50 MHz propagation thru jungle foilage on the Indian Sub-continent appeared sometime about 5 to 8 years ago. Part 15 connectors... Isn't a 6-32 screw still accecptable? JIm Ussailis, W1EQO --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 20:44:46 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA29543 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:44:44 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:33:59 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: [ss] The Role of Amateur Radio in the New Century Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk The Role of Amateur Radio in the New Century Remarks by Dale N. Hatfield (W0IFO) Chief, Office on Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission at AMRAD's 25th Anniversary Dinner Falls Church, VA June 17, 2000 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 21:29:44 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA06874 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:29:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Graeme Zimmer" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:04:24 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <012201bfe0a8$89a54320$935b868b@zimslaptop> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > BTW, are you on the VK SS list? What? Who? VK SS List ? Tony, where do I find this beast please ? ................... Zim ............ VK3GJZ --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 22:20:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id WAA15651 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:20:20 -0500 (CDT) From: "Lyle Johnson" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:18:41 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello again! >On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 05:25:24PM -0700, Lyle Johnson wrote: >> >Questions: >> >Which device is that -- XC2S15? >> >> No, the XC2S150 > >For $21? That's amazingly cheap. Yes, it is. But that is an accurate price! I have confirmed it from three sources. Enjoy even more! Lyle --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Jun 27 23:09:22 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA22324 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:09:21 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:07:29 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk It's on egroups.com, and the list name to look for is vk-ssg Tony Langdon. Systems Development and Support. ATC Training Australasia. Level 2 321 Exhibition St Melbourne 3000. Phone: 1300 13 1983 WWW: http://www.atctraining.com.au > -----Original Message----- > From: Graeme Zimmer [mailto:gzimmer@bigpond.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2000 12:04 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 > > > > > BTW, are you on the VK SS list? > > What? Who? VK SS List ? > > Tony, where do I find this beast please ? > > ................... Zim ............ VK3GJZ > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: tlangdon@atctraining.com.au > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 03:11:57 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id DAA05343 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:11:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:23:42 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Chuck, > I'm new to this wireless group and have a question. > When you say voice do you mean a digital repeater with > Analog to digital and digital to analog on the users > end? I think I have worded that right. > Thanks for your time. I see two ways this can be achieved. The voice repeater could be digital, as you state. This is particularly suitable for inter-repeater links and voice networks. The alternate approach (which may be interesting for 'SS repeaters') is to apply SS techniques to a conventional analog signal. More than one way to skin a cat. :) --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 03:12:58 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id DAA05354 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:12:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:20:42 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > There have been a small group of us carrying on off to one side, > about some of this. Our main point is that if we narrow this down > to data only (computer type data) then we narrow our audience > down too. Agreed. I made the point elsewhere that for many people, voice is more attractive, due to the "human" element involved (i.e. talking directly to other people in a natural manner, as opposed to interacting with a machine). > Here in the Tampa area there is a growing group (many of them > disgusted with the good old boy antics of the repeater council) > who are interested in SS from a voice/repeater view. But since > SS is inherently digital they can see quite readily that the data > stream could be a mix of both voice and data. It only makes sense. As I mentioned in my message to Hamish, I work with networks, and see technologies like voice over IP on a regular basis (and, in fact, relay our club news transmissions via the Internet every week). This technology on a suitable network has real possibilities, and what's not being used for voice is capacity to handle other data traffic. Even video is realistic, using modern compression algorithms to keep the data rate down to ISDN levels (linked ATV repeaters anyone? ;) ). > From talking about the country (I travel a lot, was in Phoenix, El > Paso, and LA all last week) I am finding similar sentiments all > across this country and it appears that there are similar feelings > at least down in AU land (See some of Tony's comments). I am > sure that there are similar situations in other places, I can well > remember my years in Costa Rica, and some of the people there > who were interested in non-traditional modes of communications. Which is where this list comes in, it can be a focus to bring people with common interests together. > I believe if we widen our view a bit and can pull these people into > this activity we will gain a lot more interest and also a growing > pool of people who though not interested in the data side of it are > quite interested in doing voice through a SS system. Agreed. the wider we cast the net, the more interested people we're likely to catch. > It is these other groups, who are looking around for a solution to > their problem that I believe we can use to help move this forward. > Here in Tampa the voice group has told me to find all I can about > it, find out about the equipment and they will work with me to try > to bring on line a SS device, sure initially we are probably going > to have to kludge something up, but once up and running we feel > we can attract a significant number of people over just because > it is different, and flies in the face of the "good old boy network" For me, the attraction of SS is that it _is_ different, and it also has the possibility to open up whole new avenues for amateurs. Reminds me of my packet history. I got into packet in a big way in 1991. Back then, it was novel, landline speeds were 1200-2400 bps, with the odd lucky person having 9600, and 1200 bps packet was really something. Especially when wormholes came, and the modem users of the day were only calling their local BBS, with limited real time interaction (meanwhile I was off on a conference bridge in the US chatting away, and not even spending the 25c local call charge! :) ). For various reasons (financial), the old packet setup went, and when I became more active in the hobby in recent years, packet was well down the prioority list, because by the late 90's, the Internet was commonplace (I've been on the Net since 1994), and landline speeds are 56/33 kbps for much less than the cost of a 1200 bps TNC. Packet didn't hold much interest until "something different" came along, which is APRS. SS and high speed data would make me _very_ interested in digital work. > When you have a major chunk of 440 pulled out of the digital area > and re-assigned to repeaters just to keep a group that is basically > using this spectrum for "private" and "commercial" use (if you go > to Miami and speak Spanish take a listen, there is stuff that will > make you go postal on 440) and yet they can not find spectrum > for real amateur work something is drastically wrong, and some one > or something has to come along and upset the cart. We believe > that this (SS) technology can do just that. Indeed. SS can do a lot, both in filling the spectrum with users (even if that's initially only for data/voice links, until more people get the gear together), and providing reasons to become a ham, and have the opportunity to play with new technology in ways that others can't. > and this person is interested in voice only activities (well a system > that handles both voice and data has some very interesting > possibilities Tell me about it! (think multicast and voice over IP, then patch in a few existing (narrowband FM) repeaters, and you should see what I mean. ;) ). > for him) the fact is a lot of these people see SS wireless LAN gear > and come to me and ask if this can be done using voice, and the > answer is of course, that is what CDMA is all about. Then of course > comes the next question, "why are we still dinking around with this > 30-50 year old technology?" my quick response is because most > hams are old farts that do not care to keep up with technology, but > I think that is wrong, because several of the hams that kept me > pressing on to new stuff were "old farts" but their brain was young, > and of course I ain't no spring chicken my self. Most hams like > most people do not like change, view past history with am vs. ssb, > cw, vs. TTY, vs. amtor, vs. packet and so on and so forth. Hey I was > on the initial STA for AMTOR and can remember the TTY and CW > stations jamming us. For most of them CHANGE=BAD... Sad but > that is certainly how it appears, but this should not stop us. Agreed. Those of us with the incentive need to push the barrow of change. Sure, there is a time and place for the old modes (e.g. CW still shines under certain circumstances, and will have its place on the bands for a long time), but we need to advance the radio art, get back in the saddle and move into the future. History has shown that most groundbreaking inventions have been created by amateur experimenters in their own workshops. And we're supposed to be the licenced experimenters of the airwaves. I find it rather disappointing that there are not enough people pushing the envelope. It's true that in these networked days, it takes more cooperation, and traditionally amateurs have been solitary workers, when it comes to R&D. However, the success of Linux shows what can be done with cooperation on a large scale. Why not hams? It's time to lay the old bogeyman of the Internet (which some say is killing ham radio) to rest and use it for what it is, a tool for collaboration on a scale never seen before. I'll place a bet that the Internet is going to be one of the factors that will _stimulate_ the future growth of ham radio! > Think about where and how we can use SS beyond the traditional > packet switch/node replacement, as much as I love packet, I would > also like to get these voice guys involved, hey voice is just > more bits > for our network to handle... And most voice guys have $$ to spare. Given the changes over the last year or so, I'll have to write up an update to my networking page and put the case forward for high speed network. :-) --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 05:15:58 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id FAA28039 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:15:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:12:34 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000628020927.00c52ce0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk OK here is a forming idea: I'm gong to call it R2K (Radio 2000). R2K/R is q Repeater, R2K/H is a Handheld, R2K/M is a mobile. Use your imagination for where a R2K/O is. :> It should work on 440 to 450 MHz (all of it) :> It should refuse to go below 440 or above 450. It should have a 256KB bps hybrid DS/FH SS Modem, maybe 2 MHz chipping rate. DS for gain, FH for loss (of hassles to land mobile). I think the Zilog / Stel part (aka Z2000) would be good for this. However I am beginning to think the prizm chipset might be better. A transverter for baseband vs RF conversion. Suggested codec / compression engine: Qualcom Q4413. Rabbit 2000 for the processor. Its kinda like a z80 on steroids, a development kit is $99, and it can be cold loaded thru its first serial port. Display from a cell phone (4 lines of 14 characters, plus status displays). The keyboard and housing from said cell phone could be a good head start. Used cell phones can be had on ebay for $1 up. And you get a battery and charger too. There would be lots of irony if we uses Startac's.... :> Peak power: For a R2K/H: +35 dBm, For a R2K/M: +45 dBm, For a R2K/R:+55 dBm, For a R2K/O: +70 dBM. Automatic power negotiation - less is better. Protocol: Fixed length blocks (short), short addresses, Viterbi / Trellis and Reed/Solomon Forward Error Correction. Sort of like ATM. R2K/H will typically have one modem, but R2K/R will have several. Every unit is a router. Every ham is an island. But he is part of an island chain. There would need to a protocol (and matching servers) developed, like ARP, but which says "Ok, who's nearby who knows where we are?". Like a Time Server, but returning Latitude / Longitude / Altitude. (What should bigmamma.ampr.org return? Earth's current sideral coordinates. :> ) Several audio streams could be mixed on an auxillary board at a R2K/R. We out to be able to get a R2K/O put aboard the ISS. Enough for now, gotta get some zzzzzzs. 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 05:24:31 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id FAA28817 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:24:28 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:23:20 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from kn6td@clubnet.net on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 03:12:34AM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000628202320.A32398@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 03:12:34AM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > OK here is a forming idea: > > I'm gong to call it R2K (Radio 2000). > R2K/R is q Repeater, R2K/H is a Handheld, R2K/M is a mobile. > Use your imagination for where a R2K/O is. :> Well, it's a grand plan. I like it though. > It should work on 440 to 450 MHz (all of it) :> > It should refuse to go below 440 or above 450. For the US, yes. Here in Australia we have all of 420-450; 432-440 is normal voice stuff (repeaters, simplex, data and weak signal). 440-450 is ATV. I think 420-430 is also reserved for ATV, but is less used than 440-450. So 420 would be better for us. > A transverter for baseband vs RF conversion. Yep. I think the modem itself should work on a 28 MHz IF or so (just as the Grapes 56K modem does --- www.da4dsy.net for info). Then a transverter can be used to select the band of interest. I estimate the batteries on the hand held model will last about five minutes with all the hardware you want to put in it :-) 73 Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 05:27:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id FAA29678 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:27:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:26:11 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tlangdon@atctraining.com.au on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:20:42AM +1000 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000628202611.C32398@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:20:42AM +1000, Tony Langdon wrote: > Agreed. I made the point elsewhere that for many people, voice is more > attractive, due to the "human" element involved (i.e. talking directly to > other people in a natural manner, as opposed to interacting with a machine). Yep. But I'd prefer to do voice as digital over SS, rather than modulating directly with voice. Then you can just replace the codec/ADC and use it for data as well. Wouldn't have to be VoIP -- I think that might be overkill initially. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 05:45:53 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id FAA02234 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:45:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Bloom, Jon, KE3Z" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:40:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <125490A005E3D3118C9C00805FC743CC06F203@mail.arrl.org> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > There have been a small group of us carrying on off to one side, > > about some of this. Our main point is that if we narrow this down > > to data only (computer type data) then we narrow our audience > > down too. > > Agreed. I made the point elsewhere that for many people, > voice is more > attractive, due to the "human" element involved (i.e. talking > directly to > other people in a natural manner, as opposed to interacting > with a machine). Interesting related quote from this morning's InternetWeek newsletter: "[Jeff] Hawkins, who invented the Palm computer, said the killer app for smart phones will be better voice calling rather than wireless data applications." Jon, KE3Z --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 06:41:59 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id GAA07110 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:41:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:31:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCE9@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Lets face reality, most folks don't really want to peck at a keyboard, they want to yack away into some sort of box. Last night I was thinking about the collection of stuff I have in the lab and the developers have out on the floor, here is what I have on my desk: 1 Palm Pilot 1 Aironet PC card 2.4 ghz FH radio 1 Aironet network access point (look at it as the repeater) Now it should not take much imagination to see a Palm like device with a PC card slot, a mic and a small speaker. The same device runs software which handles the voice side, and the data side is already part of the deal. It would look to me like I already have a low power handheld data device setting there on the bench. Am I not correct?? It would appear to me that getting the rest of this thing up and working is just software once you get a PC card voice enabled palm device going. You just route your data stream to whatever you want, if it is voice it goes to a destination address which could be another ham or a non ham on the land side network or if it is computer data it goes where all good computer data goes. Hmm I am on the top floor of a 167 foot building with 8 coax cables going to the roof, Guys I am off to find the developer who has the Aironet network access point device... And also see what kind of palm type devices we have out there, I will be back... > -----Original Message----- > From: Bloom, Jon, KE3Z [SMTP:jbloom@arrl.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 06:41 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular > > > > There have been a small group of us carrying on off to one side, > > > about some of this. Our main point is that if we narrow this down > > > to data only (computer type data) then we narrow our audience > > > down too. > > > > Agreed. I made the point elsewhere that for many people, > > voice is more > > attractive, due to the "human" element involved (i.e. talking > > directly to > > other people in a natural manner, as opposed to interacting > > with a machine). > > Interesting related quote from this morning's InternetWeek newsletter: > > "[Jeff] Hawkins, who invented the Palm computer, said the killer app for > smart phones will be better voice calling rather than wireless > data applications." > > Jon, KE3Z > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 06:50:31 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id GAA08954 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:50:31 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:48:48 -0500 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Texas A&M University X-Accept-Language: en, ru, be MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3959E620.15DADA95@cs.tamu.edu> Precedence: bulk Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 03:12:34AM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > > OK here is a forming idea: > > > > I'm gong to call it R2K (Radio 2000). > > R2K/R is q Repeater, R2K/H is a Handheld, R2K/M is a mobile. > > Use your imagination for where a R2K/O is. :> R2K/S, maybe? > Well, it's a grand plan. I like it though. Me too. > > It should work on 440 to 450 MHz (all of it) :> > > It should refuse to go below 440 or above 450. > > For the US, yes. Here in Australia we have all of 420-450; 432-440 > is normal voice stuff (repeaters, simplex, data and weak signal). > 440-450 is ATV. I think 420-430 is also reserved for ATV, but is > less used than 440-450. So 420 would be better for us. It looks more like a range than a hard rule, Hamish. Thus, we're saying a 10 MHz spreading domain, overall, with a 2 MHz chippping rate (which I'd prefer to see higher). > > A transverter for baseband vs RF conversion. > > Yep. I think the modem itself should work on a 28 MHz IF or so > (just as the Grapes 56K modem does --- www.da4dsy.net for info). > Then a transverter can be used to select the band of interest. Let's leave that as TBD (To Be Determined) and look at options. I agree that transverter is a preferred route for this, but while we need to pick an IF sometime, not on the first day of the project. > I estimate the batteries on the hand held model will last about > five minutes with all the hardware you want to put in it :-) Then we need to be looking at newer battery technology;-) 73, gerry -- Gerry Creager gerry@cs.tamu.edu, gerry@page4.cs.tamu.edu Network Engineering |Research focusing on Computer Science Department |Satellite Geodesy and Texas A&M University |Geodetic Control 979.458.4020 (Phone) -- 979.847.8578 (Fax) --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 07:20:04 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA15531 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:20:03 -0500 (CDT) From: adesjard@cme.com Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Interesting Idea Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:17:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60FE6AE@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D619B314@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Precedence: bulk You're on the right track. We've done some simmilar playing with our Casio PA-2400 Windows CE devices and Proxim RangeLan2 cards. The casio has a mic and a/d converter, but not being code writers the best we could to was to digitally record files and send them over the RL2. Incidentally, from the 20th floor of our building with an Access Point inside but near the window with a 2.5dbi antenna we could use the network almost 1 mile away, give or take for multipath and blockage. I would love to put one of our 8dbi omni antennas on the roof (33 floors I think) and really play with it. Alan DesJardins N5VXL RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems 30 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Hast, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 6:32 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Lets face reality, most folks don't really want to peck at a keyboard, they want to yack away into some sort of box. Last night I was thinking about the collection of stuff I have in the lab and the developers have out on the floor, here is what I have on my desk: 1 Palm Pilot 1 Aironet PC card 2.4 ghz FH radio 1 Aironet network access point (look at it as the repeater) Now it should not take much imagination to see a Palm like device with a PC card slot, a mic and a small speaker. The same device runs software which handles the voice side, and the data side is already part of the deal. It would look to me like I already have a low power handheld data device setting there on the bench. Am I not correct?? It would appear to me that getting the rest of this thing up and working is just software once you get a PC card voice enabled palm device going. You just route your data stream to whatever you want, if it is voice it goes to a destination address which could be another ham or a non ham on the land side network or if it is computer data it goes where all good computer data goes. Hmm I am on the top floor of a 167 foot building with 8 coax cables going to the roof, Guys I am off to find the developer who has the Aironet network access point device... And also see what kind of palm type devices we have out there, I will be back... > -----Original Message----- > From: Bloom, Jon, KE3Z [SMTP:jbloom@arrl.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 06:41 > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular > > > > There have been a small group of us carrying on off to one side, > > > about some of this. Our main point is that if we narrow this down > > > to data only (computer type data) then we narrow our audience > > > down too. > > > > Agreed. I made the point elsewhere that for many people, > > voice is more > > attractive, due to the "human" element involved (i.e. talking > > directly to > > other people in a natural manner, as opposed to interacting > > with a machine). > > Interesting related quote from this morning's InternetWeek newsletter: > > "[Jeff] Hawkins, who invented the Palm computer, said the killer app for > smart phones will be better voice calling rather than wireless > data applications." > > Jon, KE3Z > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: wchast@utilpart.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 07:24:46 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA16192 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:24:46 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:23:42 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from gerry@cs.tamu.edu on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 06:48:48AM -0500 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000628222342.B1377@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 06:48:48AM -0500, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > It looks more like a range than a hard rule, Hamish. Thus, we're saying > a 10 MHz spreading domain, overall, with a 2 MHz chippping rate (which > I'd prefer to see higher). Hmmm. Is the 10 MHz bandwidth enough to support a 2 MHz chipping rate? (Assuming DSSS, that seems to give fairly low processing gain.) > Let's leave that as TBD (To Be Determined) and look at options. I agree > that transverter is a preferred route for this, but while we need to > pick an IF sometime, not on the first day of the project. Fair enough. DSSS, FHSS, or hybrid? Personally, I find FHSS to be a bit crude, so I'd prefer DSSS. DSSS doesn't really lend itself to direct analog modulation (I think), but I prefer voice over digital anyway. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 07:33:22 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA17998 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:33:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:30:01 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] 2.4 GHz WaveLAN Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000628052654.00b3de60@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Anybody here know where I should put the SMA on the RF pod of the PCMCIA 2.4MHz WaveLAN (old varity)? 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 07:33:36 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA18018 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:33:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:29:49 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] R2k/H and R2K/M Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000628052344.00b394a0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Personalty, I'd use the 2K/H to link to my R2K/M in my Miata, then to the closest R2K/R when I am far from home (home would be the closest until more than 3 were built). 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 07:36:25 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA18131 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:36:25 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:33:54 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] 915 MHz WaveLAN Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000628053006.00b3a950@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Anybody know the keying characteristics of the long ISA 915 MHz WaveLAN? I want to build a receive preamp / transmitt power amp. I suppose that I could do RF sense, but somebody told me that the Voltage on the cable changes with tx/rx and diversity. Thanks. 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 07:42:59 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA19014 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:42:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:40:37 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal aka R2K In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000628053441.00a20a20@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Since this was a little off the cuff, I was swaging a set of params. Yes, 8 to one is too low a chipping rate. 10 MHz would be much better. I don't think it would get coordinated in S Cal, so I think it should be a fast hopper as well. My thinking is fuzzy right now, but I think 1000 Hops a second should be good. Again, the idea is to ignore the NBFM (except for receiver desense). Later. Really:> 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek At 10:23 PM 6/28/00 +1000, you wrote: >On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 06:48:48AM -0500, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > > It looks more like a range than a hard rule, Hamish. Thus, we're saying > > a 10 MHz spreading domain, overall, with a 2 MHz chippping rate (which > > I'd prefer to see higher). > >Hmmm. Is the 10 MHz bandwidth enough to support a 2 MHz chipping rate? >(Assuming DSSS, that seems to give fairly low processing gain.) > > > Let's leave that as TBD (To Be Determined) and look at options. I agree > > that transverter is a preferred route for this, but while we need to > > pick an IF sometime, not on the first day of the project. > >Fair enough. > >DSSS, FHSS, or hybrid? Personally, I find FHSS to be a bit crude, >so I'd prefer DSSS. DSSS doesn't really lend itself to direct analog >modulation (I think), but I prefer voice over digital anyway. > > > >Hamish >-- >Hamish Moffatt VK3SB > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 07:45:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA19258 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:45:21 -0500 (CDT) From: adesjard@cme.com Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: 915 MHz WaveLAN Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:41:54 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60FE6B6@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D619B316@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Precedence: bulk I'm not sure of the specs on this, but if you're interested in a pre-built amp look at http://www.hyperlinktech.com , and check out their HA900SE amp, 500mw TX & 20db gain RX. Alan DesJardins N5VXL RF Network Engineer Chicago Mercantile Exchange MIS Systems 30 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-338-2853 adesjard@cme.com -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Derek Lassen Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 7:34 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] 915 MHz WaveLAN Anybody know the keying characteristics of the long ISA 915 MHz WaveLAN? I want to build a receive preamp / transmitt power amp. I suppose that I could do RF sense, but somebody told me that the Voltage on the cable changes with tx/rx and diversity. Thanks. 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 08:15:19 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA25328 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:15:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:14:17 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal aka R2K Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from kn6td@clubnet.net on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 05:40:37AM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000628231417.A2301@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 05:40:37AM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > Since this was a little off the cuff, I was swaging a set of params. > Yes, 8 to one is too low a chipping rate. 10 MHz would be much better. > > I don't think it would get coordinated in S Cal, so I think it should be a > fast hopper as well. > > My thinking is fuzzy right now, but I think 1000 Hops a second should be good. > Again, the idea is to ignore the NBFM (except for receiver desense). I must be confused about the terminology somewhere -- I thought that for FHSS, the chipping rate was the hops rate. So 1000 hops per second means the chipping rate is 1kHz. You can still spread those hops over 10 MHz though. Most of my reading has been about DSSS. On DSSS, the bandwidth used is proportional to the chipping rate and the information rate. (I think!) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 10:06:48 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA19590 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:06:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: rschroeder@exchange01.bnl.gov Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:02:39 -0400 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Ron Schroeder Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000628110239.00a3b100@exchange01.bnl.gov> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >I see two ways this can be achieved. The voice repeater could be digital, >as you state. This is particularly suitable for inter-repeater links and >voice networks. The alternate approach (which may be interesting for 'SS >repeaters') is to apply SS techniques to a conventional analog signal. I am very interested in SS voice. I had a FHSS voice repeater on a number of years ago. I would love to get back into using SS mobile. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Ron Schroeder WD8CDH E. E. S. wd8cdh@bnl.gov rjs@bnl.gov ron@112motors.com 631 344-4561 Day 631 286-5677 Nite *note change of area code to 631 from 516 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 15:04:46 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA05757 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:04:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@localhost Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:45:52 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Metricom In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000628113400.00de7b70@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 05:22 AM 6/27/2000, Kenneth H. Sinclair wrote: >Yeah, but they are hoppers, and other hoppers can contend with them >somewhat successfully. Not very successfully. The "swarming" problem causes severe interference for other users of the band. > Do you have any info about their emitted spectrum? Metricom tells me that they are type-approved, and hence each transmitter presumably stays within the constraints of Part 15. The problem is that they deploy large NUMBERS of transmitters, and hence radiate an aggregate power far above the legal limit for a single transmitter. While these transmitters' hopping patterns can collide with one another, the units are physically spaced such that they are less likely to interfere with one another than with a third party. Metricom has patents on hopping sequence coordination, though Part 15 doesn't allow it. I have long wondered if there is de facto sequence coordination due to the algorithms used by the Metricom units to avoid interference, but haven't performed empirical tests. I have, however, personally observed the effect of the "swarming" phenomenon on DSSS equipment (whose emissions appear to the hoppers as noise). They all turn up the juice and can make DSSS transmission difficult if not impossible. It's sometimes possible to operate point-to-point links in the same band with directional antennas, but point-to-multipoint outdoor LANs are pretty much out of the question. --Brett --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 18:10:06 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA26310 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:10:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:08:16 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > I'm gong to call it R2K (Radio 2000). > > R2K/R is q Repeater, R2K/H is a Handheld, R2K/M is a mobile. > > Use your imagination for where a R2K/O is. :> > > Well, it's a grand plan. I like it though. Certainly worth a look. A little more "ad hoc" than my ideas, which could be good in an amateur context > > > It should work on 440 to 450 MHz (all of it) :> > > It should refuse to go below 440 or above 450. > > For the US, yes. Here in Australia we have all of 420-450; 432-440 > is normal voice stuff (repeaters, simplex, data and weak signal). > 440-450 is ATV. I think 420-430 is also reserved for ATV, but is > less used than 440-450. So 420 would be better for us. I agree, 420-430 would be the best band, as this is the lesser used ATV channel, though there's no reason why some systems couldn't use 440-450, if local conditions required. > > > A transverter for baseband vs RF conversion. > > Yep. I think the modem itself should work on a 28 MHz IF or so > (just as the Grapes 56K modem does --- www.da4dsy.net for info). > Then a transverter can be used to select the band of interest. Where would the chipping occur? I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of a 10 MHz wide signal centered at 28 MHz. :-) > > I estimate the batteries on the hand held model will last about > five minutes with all the hardware you want to put in it :-) Hmm, low power CMOS? Well, I'll be testing out the handheld model when it comes out. ;-) --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Wed Jun 28 20:10:37 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA26115 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:10:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal aka R2K Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:23:19 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Since this was a little off the cuff, I was swaging a set of params. > Yes, 8 to one is too low a chipping rate. 10 MHz would be much better. > > I don't think it would get coordinated in S Cal, so I think > it should be a > fast hopper as well. Well, I guess 440-450 is your repeater/NBFM voice band anyway... Down here, the main conflicts are going to be ATV and the odd point to point repeater link (which shouldn't have any real effect in most cases, because of their ptp nature). > > My thinking is fuzzy right now, but I think 1000 Hops a > second should be good. > Again, the idea is to ignore the NBFM (except for receiver desense). As I said, not an issue here. :-) Perhaps we need to draw up a table of options, constraints and the pros and cons of the options. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 04:17:32 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA28456 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:17:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:11:14 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Yep. But I'd prefer to do voice as digital over SS, rather than > modulating directly with voice. Then you can just replace the > codec/ADC > and use it for data as well. Digital is more flexible, that's for sure. But hey, if we get the chance, why not experiment? :) > > Wouldn't have to be VoIP -- I think that might be overkill initially. Depends what you want to do. Sure, for "end user" repeaters, VoIP is overkill, and adds overhead to the mobile units, but it is a readily available and _flexible_ technology that would do well on backbone inter-repeater links. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 04:19:53 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA28667 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:19:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:17:10 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > DSSS, FHSS, or hybrid? Personally, I find FHSS to be a bit crude, > so I'd prefer DSSS. DSSS doesn't really lend itself to direct analog > modulation (I think), but I prefer voice over digital anyway. My personal preference would be for DSSS voice over digital (at this stage, non IP, KISS applies here :) ). --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 04:20:56 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA28691 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:20:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: Proposal aka R2K Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:26:53 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > I must be confused about the terminology somewhere -- I thought that > for FHSS, the chipping rate was the hops rate. So 1000 hops per second > means the chipping rate is 1kHz. You can still spread those hops > over 10 MHz though. My understanding was that "chipping rate" wasn't really relevant to FH (instead, hopping rate is more important here, for obvious reasons!). > > Most of my reading has been about DSSS. On DSSS, the bandwidth used is > proportional to the chipping rate and the information rate. (I think!) AFAIK, that's the case for DSSS. In FHSS, the bandwidth depends mainly on the range of frequencies the hops cover (plus a little for the hop rate and pre-hop "baseband"). Kind of like the signal being FM'd by a tandom signal added to the baseband, with the peak deviation being 1/2 of the difference between the lowest and highest hop frequency. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 04:20:58 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA28690 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:20:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: Proposal Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:14:42 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > OK here is a forming idea: > > I'm gong to call it R2K (Radio 2000). > R2K/R is q Repeater, R2K/H is a Handheld, R2K/M is a mobile. > Use your imagination for where a R2K/O is. :> Heheheh. :-) > It should work on 440 to 450 MHz (all of it) :> > It should refuse to go below 440 or above 450. It should be configurable for the band of interest. s otherwise noted, 420-430 is more preferable down here. > It should have a 256KB bps hybrid DS/FH SS Modem, maybe 2 MHz > chipping rate. > DS for gain, FH for loss (of hassles to land mobile). Maybe have the FH an optional part of the spec? I doubt it'd be needed here. > I think the Zilog / Stel part (aka Z2000) would be good for this. > However I am beginning to think the prizm chipset might be better. > > A transverter for baseband vs RF conversion. Yes, a transverter would make the system more flexible, and easier to bulld into multiband equipment. Basically, you're creating a conventional SSB transceiver, as far as the frequency generation goes. Just that the IF is SS, rather than SSB. :) > Peak power: > For a R2K/H: +35 dBm, OK. > For a R2K/M: +45 dBm, OK, > For a R2K/R:+55 dBm, Do we need 300W for the repeater? I wouldn't think so if it acts as a conventional voice repeater and relays one SS signal at a time. OTOH, if it is designed to handle multiple QSOs (using CDMA techniques), then the extra power would be needed.. > For a R2K/O: +70 dBM. Might be a slight legal problem there! ;-) > > Automatic power negotiation - less is better. Especially for handhelds! A "must have" feature, in the long run. Also good for the "RF paranoid" out there in the community. Maybe they'd accept the repeater up the road when they realise it means the ham _next door_ is only transmitting milliwatts to get into it! :-) > Every unit is a router. Every ham is an island. But he is > part of an island > chain. Good idea, if relaying can be effectively done by normal hams, when they're active, it would create a useable system (hmm, starting to sound like a CDMA phone network - maybe this is for the 2nd or 3rd revision ;) ). > There would need to a protocol (and matching servers) > developed, like ARP, > but which says "Ok, who's nearby who knows where we are?". > Like a Time > Server, but returning Latitude / Longitude / Altitude. > (What should bigmamma.ampr.org return? Earth's current > sideral coordinates. Well, perhaps we can borrow a few ideas from things like APRS here. > We out to be able to get a R2K/O put aboard the ISS. Hmm, might be a power budget problem. ;-) The idea's worth considering, and seems a few others agree as well. How about start with a basic system which replaces the current NBFM components with SS ones. I.e. We build a number of stations, ans a repeater or two, and run it in much the same way as we do normal FM repeaters (perhaps with data as well). later, the more "network aware" features can be added, as well as CDMA channel access, and the like. Hopefully Moore's Law and mass production of the component parts (one would assume similar components are required for mass market devices) would make the enhancements cheaper in the future, and they'll probably be easier as better devices become available off the shelf. Hey, while we're at it, maybe we need an SS bird to play with. Would need to use 1.2 GHz and up to get the bandwidth... Mybe down the track for that too. :) --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 04:21:03 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA28703 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:21:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:28:21 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > I am very interested in SS voice. I had a FHSS voice > repeater on a number > of years ago. I would love to get back into using SS mobile. How did your FHSS repeater go? And can you give any reports for the benefit of the group? ny previous experience would be beneficial. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 04:21:36 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA28711 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:21:35 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: 915 MHz WaveLAN Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:19:31 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Anybody know the keying characteristics of the long ISA 915 > MHz WaveLAN? > > I want to build a receive preamp / transmitt power amp. If anyone does find out this sort of info for _any_ of the wireless LAN cards, please let me know, there are people down here interested. Similarly, detailed info on any of the existing power amps would be handy too. > I suppose that I could do RF sense, but somebody told me that > the Voltage > on the cable changes with tx/rx and diversity. Also potential speed problems, a direct switching signal would be much neater. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 04:36:32 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA29759 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:36:28 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:34:48 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tlangdon@atctraining.com.au on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 09:11:14AM +1000 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000629193448.A20431@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 09:11:14AM +1000, Tony Langdon wrote: > Depends what you want to do. Sure, for "end user" repeaters, VoIP is > overkill, and adds overhead to the mobile units, but it is a readily > available and _flexible_ technology that would do well on backbone > inter-repeater links. Sounds good. Inter-repeater links should be purely digital (carrying any traffic presented to them), including voice. Hmm, it's beginning to sound like an IP network already. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 05:29:23 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id FAA06601 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 05:29:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 03:27:04 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] re R2K Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000629031736.00c307e0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Cool. Ideas percolating! Excellent.... re Power: Yea, I know these numbers are pretty high, but remember that the spectrum / power product is still pretty low. +70 dBm s/b +60 dBm (hey, I was sleepy) (still big, but it'll have a lot of path loss). re Chipping vs Hopping: If possible, we should chip the PRN bit stream at 10 MHz and hop the carrier at 1 kHz. The PRN generator will have to be changeable. The Hop sequence will have to be changeable too (to avoid those ATVers). Later. Gotta get some sleep. Its 3:27 AM !!! 73 de KN6TD (s) Derek --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 07:43:55 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA29813 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:43:54 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:42:10 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: re R2K Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from kn6td@clubnet.net on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 03:27:04AM -0700 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20000629224210.A23358@silly.cloud.net.au> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 03:27:04AM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > +70 dBm s/b +60 dBm (hey, I was sleepy) (still big, but it'll have a lot of > path loss). Correct me if I'm wrong, but +60dBm is 1kW. Good luck getting 1kW on 70cm or higher easily. > re Chipping vs Hopping: > If possible, we should chip the PRN bit stream at 10 MHz and hop the > carrier at 1 kHz. > The PRN generator will have to be changeable. > The Hop sequence will have to be changeable too (to avoid those ATVers). Hmmm, hybrid huh? Intersil's PRISM 1 chipset looks quite interesting; I read the datasheet for their baseband DSSS processor last night. Programmable PN sequences of up to 12 bits (from memory). Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 08:03:56 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA07457 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:03:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Marshall.Alphonso@intelsat.int To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Cc: antoine.naaman@intelsat.int Subject: [ss] Questions: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:01:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <490B4C213EC8D211851F00105A29CA5A082C7920@admex1.adm.intelsat.int> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Would anyone be able to tell me the correlation between "actual transmitted power in term of noise density within a particular frequency" vs spread? Assuming an arbitrary RF waveform? Thanks, Marshall A. Alphonso Earth Stations Division INTELSAT Tel: (202)-944-7825 Fax: (202)-944-7121 Email: malphons@ecn.purdue.edu Marshall.Alphonso@INTELSAT.int --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 10:06:41 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA13009 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:06:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: rschroeder@exchange01.bnl.gov Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:03:21 -0400 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Ron Schroeder Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000629110321.00a96100@exchange01.bnl.gov> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 09:28 AM 6/29/00 +1000, you wrote: >> I am very interested in SS voice. I had a FHSS voice >> repeater on a number >> of years ago. I would love to get back into using SS mobile. > >How did your FHSS repeater go? And can you give any reports for the benefit >of the group? ny previous experience would be beneficial. > The repeater was a modified GE master II with a home brew synth. to replace the ICOMs. The mobiles were Icom 4ATs that hopped thru channels on a ROM thet replaced the thumbwheel switch. The loop was modified for faster lock-up. I did about 16 hops per second and the audio did have a bit of a buzz. Syncronization was from a very accurate hopping clock that was slipped into sync on first key up and only needed slight tweeking to stay in sync. It would actually stay in sync for many minutes even free running. The tx/rx offset was 5.0 MHz and the hopping range was about .75 MHz. The first person who transmitted had to hold down the PTT for about 5 seconds for the repeater to sync and the other mobiles to catch up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Ron Schroeder WD8CDH E. E. S. wd8cdh@bnl.gov rjs@bnl.gov ron@112motors.com 631 344-4561 Day 631 286-5677 Nite *note change of area code to 631 from 516 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 14:43:56 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA18048 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:43:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:42:14 Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Paul Van Wie" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Hello Lyle, I doubt you remember me, but I got into packet in 1984/5 when I built your first TNC. Len VE3FJB, Wes K7PYK and I used to drive down to Tucson every November for the big packet meeting. I have chatted with you every now and then at various ham fests. I work at Ft Huachuca with Mark McFadden. There are several hams here interested in playing with DSSS. Is there a source of the older (and cheaper) WLAN cards using DSSS? I have recently re subscribed to the reflector after being off for several years. At this time, we are not interested in building a system from scratch. If we can get hold of some cards out of a wireless LAN, we will be able to play with them and gain some experience before jumping to the next level. . I went from Packet to Pactor to Clover and used to chat with (gee forget his first name) Ray (?) Pettit up in WA now and then on Clover. Was very sad to hear he passed away. My home e mail is w8ox@sprynet.com and you can also send any reply to this work address. Thanks for the help. Paul --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 15:00:22 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA24114 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:00:21 -0500 (CDT) From: adesjard@cme.com Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Available for research Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:58:03 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60FE6EC@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D619B320@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Precedence: bulk All, I have a few Proxim 900 Mhz RDA-300 FH OEM modules that I can send to anyone interested in doing some work with them. There are no docs, nor have I been sucessfull in getting any. Interested? Let me know. Alan N5VXL -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Paul Van Wie Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 9:42 AM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 Hello Lyle, I doubt you remember me, but I got into packet in 1984/5 when I built your first TNC. Len VE3FJB, Wes K7PYK and I used to drive down to Tucson every November for the big packet meeting. I have chatted with you every now and then at various ham fests. I work at Ft Huachuca with Mark McFadden. There are several hams here interested in playing with DSSS. Is there a source of the older (and cheaper) WLAN cards using DSSS? I have recently re subscribed to the reflector after being off for several years. At this time, we are not interested in building a system from scratch. If we can get hold of some cards out of a wireless LAN, we will be able to play with them and gain some experience before jumping to the next level. . I went from Packet to Pactor to Clover and used to chat with (gee forget his first name) Ray (?) Pettit up in WA now and then on Clover. Was very sad to hear he passed away. My home e mail is w8ox@sprynet.com and you can also send any reply to this work address. Thanks for the help. Paul --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 16:04:49 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA11211 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:04:48 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:03:40 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: 915 MHz WaveLAN List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200006292103.e5TL3em30438@faulkner.netnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Derek Lassen wrote: >Anybody know the keying characteristics of the long ISA 915 MHz WaveLAN? > >I want to build a receive preamp / transmitt power amp. > >I suppose that I could do RF sense, but somebody told me that the Voltage >on the cable changes with tx/rx and diversity. > >Thanks. > >73 de KN6TD My 915 MHz WaveLAN's appear to use: http://www-us.semiconductors.com/pip/BLU86 Pin 11 of the Daedalus ASIC appears to be +5 VDC on receive, 0 VDC on transmit. For more info see: http://www.dct.com/~multiplx/wireless/appendixE.html --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 16:28:42 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA15322 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:28:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hast, Chuck" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Info on this gear Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:23:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <0D7B0EF78F72D311B95F0008C7F3D0A093FCF7@dallas.utilpart.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I have some Aironet ARLAN 025-1A and 025-1AB devices. These things appear to be some sort of OEM device. Calls to Aironet bring me nothing, they tell me to call Telxon who used to own Aironet before the sold it to Cisco... Now no one can tell me where to get docs on these devices. I know these devices are 2.4ghz, and suspect that they are DSSS devices, since so far all the Aironet devices that are FH have that indicated somewhere on the label. If anyone can tell me anything about them I would be most appreciative. By way the outside world connections are 12v DC and a DB 25 female connector. Chuck Hast Telecomms Consultant, Utility Partners. Office number: 813.282.8828 x 1175 C-phone number: 813.765.6743 E-mail: wchast@utilpart.com SMS < 150 characters: 8137656743@mobile.att.net --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 18:14:08 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA08969 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:14:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:12:39 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > Depends what you want to do. Sure, for "end user" > repeaters, VoIP is > > overkill, and adds overhead to the mobile units, but it is a readily > > available and _flexible_ technology that would do well on backbone > > inter-repeater links. > > Sounds good. Inter-repeater links should be purely digital > (carrying any traffic presented to them), including voice. > Hmm, it's beginning to sound like an IP network already. I can see two stages of development here. The end user access will be some sort of voice/data unit running SS (unspecified, could be DS, FH or a combination of both), using a lightweight protocol to provide data and voice channels through the repeater. The inter-repeater links ("repeater" being either the new SS devices or conventional FM repeaters would be somewhat more sophisticated. Running IP and VoIP technology offers a high degree of flexibility here using a lot of "off the shelf" technology. It may also be possible to use various techniques (OCARs, translators, regenerators, etc) to allow the actual IP routing hardware and VoIP gateway (e.g. a PC) to be located at a more accessible place, such as club rooms or a ham's house, and simple equipment on the mountaintop for reliability. Perhaps for SS repeaters, these "engineering" links can be done on the repeater frequencies using a different code sequence to general ham traffic. Just brainstorming here. Haven't done any real investigation as to the practicality of this idea. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 20:18:31 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA29466 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:18:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:10:57 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: Available for research In-Reply-To: References: <27ACC5D88FCAD311991700805FEA31D60FE6EC@sntsex01-bk.merc.chicago.cme.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000629180556.00cc93f0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I think these are the same as the Proxim RDA100. I have some of these and the doc (including pinout). The radio pod is a set of registers, address bus, data bus, strobes, etc. Very easy to talk to. 256k bps. I ca't remember much about tthe chiping process / rate. Let me know if you need more. (s) Derek At 02:58 PM 6/29/00 -0500, you wrote: >All, > > I have a few Proxim 900 Mhz RDA-300 FH OEM modules that I can send to >anyone interested in doing some work with them. There are no docs, nor have >I been sucessfull in getting any. Interested? Let me know. > >Alan N5VXL > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org >[mailto:bounce-ss-12965@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Paul Van Wie >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 9:42 AM >To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group >Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: June 25, 2000 > > >Hello Lyle, > >I doubt you remember me, but I got into packet in 1984/5 when I built your >first TNC. Len VE3FJB, Wes K7PYK and I used to drive down to Tucson every >November for the big packet meeting. I have chatted with you every now and >then at various ham fests. I work at Ft Huachuca with Mark McFadden. >There are several hams here interested in playing with DSSS. Is there a >source of the older (and cheaper) WLAN cards using DSSS? I have recently >re subscribed to the reflector after being off for several years. At this >time, we are not interested in building a system from scratch. If we can >get hold of some cards out of a wireless LAN, we will be able to play with >them and gain some experience before jumping to the next level. . I went >from Packet to Pactor to Clover and used to chat with (gee forget his first >name) Ray (?) Pettit up in WA now and then on Clover. Was very sad to >hear he passed away. > >My home e mail is w8ox@sprynet.com and you can also send any reply to this >work address. > >Thanks for the help. > >Paul > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: adesjard@cme.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Jun 29 20:19:16 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA29492 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:19:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: kn6td@mail.clubnet.net Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:12:16 -0700 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Derek Lassen Subject: [ss] Re: 915 MHz WaveLAN In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000629181138.00b3ddc0@mail.clubnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Thanks. This will be most useful. At 04:03 PM 6/29/00 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Derek Lassen wrote: > >Anybody know the keying characteristics of the long ISA 915 MHz WaveLAN? > > > >I want to build a receive preamp / transmitt power amp. > > > >I suppose that I could do RF sense, but somebody told me that the Voltage > >on the cable changes with tx/rx and diversity. > > > >Thanks. > > > >73 de KN6TD > >My 915 MHz WaveLAN's appear to use: >http://www-us.semiconductors.com/pip/BLU86 > >Pin 11 of the Daedalus ASIC appears to be +5 VDC on >receive, 0 VDC on transmit. > >For more info see: >http://www.dct.com/~multiplx/wireless/appendixE.html > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: KN6TD@CLUBNET.NET >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jun 30 04:05:46 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA20045 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:05:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: re R2K Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:17:52 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Cool. > Ideas percolating! > Excellent.... :-) > re Power: > Yea, I know these numbers are pretty high, but remember that > the spectrum / > power product is still pretty low. True, but I find repeaters with large differences in input and output performance frustrating, so unless multiple simultaneous transmissions are involved (which would need a lot of headroom), I'd keep it to under 100W... > > +70 dBm s/b +60 dBm (hey, I was sleepy) (still big, but it'll > have a lot of > path loss). Hehehehe. :-) > > re Chipping vs Hopping: > If possible, we should chip the PRN bit stream at 10 MHz and hop the > carrier at 1 kHz. > The PRN generator will have to be changeable. > The Hop sequence will have to be changeable too (to avoid > those ATVers). Like avoid the spectral clumps every line frequency interval (which will be different for you than it is for us, as we use different TV standards here - PAL B/G vs NTSC-M). --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jun 30 08:07:30 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA16427 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:07:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: re R2K Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:20:12 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 03:27:04AM -0700, Derek Lassen wrote: > > +70 dBm s/b +60 dBm (hey, I was sleepy) (still big, but > it'll have a lot of > > path loss). > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but +60dBm is 1kW. Good luck getting 1kW on > 70cm or higher easily. That's what I thought. :-) > > The PRN generator will have to be changeable. > > The Hop sequence will have to be changeable too (to avoid > those ATVers). > > Hmmm, hybrid huh? Looks like that's the idea... > > Intersil's PRISM 1 chipset looks quite interesting; I read > the datasheet > for their baseband DSSS processor last night. Programmable PN > sequences > of up to 12 bits (from memory). Interesting. ctually, there should be a few useful chipsets out there, due to the LIPD market (known in the US as Part 15). --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jun 30 08:07:41 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA16438 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:07:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:34:36 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > The repeater was a modified GE master II with a home brew > synth. to replace > the ICOMs. The mobiles were Icom 4ATs that hopped thru > channels on a ROM > thet replaced the thumbwheel switch. The loop was modified for faster > lock-up. I did about 16 hops per second and the audio did > have a bit of a > buzz. Syncronization was from a very accurate hopping clock that was > slipped into sync on first key up and only needed slight > tweeking to stay > in sync. It would actually stay in sync for many minutes even free > running. The tx/rx offset was 5.0 MHz and the hopping range > was about .75 > MHz. The first person who transmitted had to hold down the > PTT for about 5 > seconds for the repeater to sync and the other mobiles to catch up. Interesting idea. :-) Did it show any of the advantages of SS? (I suspect it was rather tolerant of the local gasbags on simplex :) ). Would have been fun to play with. :-) --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Jun 30 12:37:59 2000 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA08652 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:37:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: rschroeder@exchange01.bnl.gov Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:36:46 -0400 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Ron Schroeder Subject: [ss] RE: SS Unpopular In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630133646.00ad1270@exchange01.bnl.gov> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > >Interesting idea. :-) Did it show any of the advantages of SS? (I suspect >it was rather tolerant of the local gasbags on simplex :) ). > >Would have been fun to play with. :-) > I intentionally ran it with a couple of repeater pairs out of the 32 or 64 hopping channels a few times. The HTs would not open the repeaters and when the repeaters were on, it only very slightly degraded the hoppers. Ron WD8CDH ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Schroeder WD8CDH E. E. S. wd8cdh@bnl.gov rjs@bnl.gov ron@112motors.com 631 344-4561 Day 631 286-5677 Nite *note change of area code to 631 from 516 --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org