Date   

Re: Digest Number 24

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

Just visited here: <http://www.hsmm-mesh.org>

I am impressed!

I have owned a WRT-54G in the past and it was a robust
device.

I have a WRT-300L here, I took it offline due to an
intermittent, it's not listed but I wonder if it might
work (not that the WRT-54G's are very expensive).

I didn't see anything re. inexpensive external amplifiers
or recommended mobile antennas; very little discussion
re. mobile at all via search, are mobile ops not a high
priority yet?

Based on my mobile travel plans the loop might take me
near as many as 11 HSMM-MESH nodes later this year.

HSMM-MESH just plain works. If more people would try it out it might
be much bigger.

Ronny

K4RJJ
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Maybe because it's relatively simple to generate GMSK in software whereas 4FSK/C4FM requires (to the best of my knowledge) a dedicated IC to handle the timing; I know that GMSK demodulation has been included in GNURadio since at least 2005 (and the GMSK demodulation in that is written in Python). I think someone from Icom even explained why they chose GMSK over the other options for D-Star in an interview done at the Orlando Hamcation this spring.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


From: Trevor .
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

 
--- On Sun, 29/7/12, Mickey Baker <fishflorida@...> wrote:
> It is simply a classic example of a cascading market and Icom is to
> be commended in creating and driving the market - after all, at less
> than $300M worldwide, they're a relatively small company driving big
> ideas.

And the commercial side of ICOM saw the light and along with Kenwood went for C4FM (4 level FSK) back in 2005 and they haven't looked back since.

http://www.southgatearc.org/news/apr2005/icom_kenwood_demo.htm

The mystery has been why the amateur radio division of ICOM has persisted with GMSK all these years.

BTW doesn't the original ABME vocoder chip become free of copy restrictions in 2015 ?

73 Trevor M5AKA
----




Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"tec_1291500" <hamfiles@...>
 

The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet and TCP/IP. Currently the Internet is the method of transport where we as hams become dependant on the commercial common carriers and there failures. We need to take a closer look at wireless Mesh Node Networks.

A number of hams around the US are modifying 2.4 and 5.8 GHz WiFi routers to be used at data bridges. The software being developed has features for re-routing a path should a particular node becomes unavailable. D-STAR and other DMR systems all use eithernet to get to the Internet. All of these systems can just as easily be transported over a wireless MESH NODE network. What we need is bandwidth with less interference. We are currently blessed with a number of microwave bands that go under used. We need to develop ham WiFi networks that operate at 3.4 GHz and some of our other bands. For long haul paths the new NW Digital radio presents some possibilities at 70 cm.

George W4AQR


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 11:13 PM 7/30/2012, you wrote:

A number of hams around the US are modifying 2.4 and 5.8 GHz WiFi routers to be used at data bridges. The software being developed has features for re-routing a path should a particular node becomes unavailable. D-STAR and other DMR systems all use eithernet to get to the Internet. All of these systems can just as easily be transported over a wireless MESH NODE network. What we need is bandwidth with less interference. We are currently blessed with a number of microwave bands that go under used. We need to develop ham WiFi networks that operate at 3.4 GHz and some of our other bands. For long haul paths the new NW Digital radio presents some possibilities at 70 cm.
I'm not sure we'd ever get the node density sufficiently high for it to work in this part of the world. Mesh networks are all well and good, but you have to have the sites to put the nodes. Australia is a country of low density living, even our big cities are relatively low density by world standards.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

The same applies here - there must be long-distance linking
backbones to bridge those gaps - temporarily it could be
the Internet but long-term it needs to be wireless.

If we could get back the piece of 220 here that UPS took, then
wasted, perhaps that could be dedicated to the purpose?

I don't know, nor do I know what's available elsewhere.

For longer links perhaps a minimally-used piece of 10M or 15M
might be utilized?

Questions to be asked and answered in justifying this go to
how much we care about our role in disaster comms and what
are we willing to sacrifice to make it happen?

Is emcomm at least as important as paper-chasing?

I'm not sure we'd ever get the node density sufficiently high for it
to work in this part of the world. Mesh networks are all well and
good, but you have to have the sites to put the nodes. Australia is
a country of low density living, even our big cities are relatively
low density by world standards.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 10:51 PM 7/31/2012, you wrote:
The same applies here - there must be long-distance linking
backbones to bridge those gaps - temporarily it could be
the Internet but long-term it needs to be wireless.
Again, why? The wireless becomes infrastructure also, it's going to be prone to failure, unless you haul it out. Again, I believe a flexible approach of using the Internet when its available, and bypassing it when it's not is better than spending $$$$ on more infrastructure that could also fail. The real strangth of hams is their flexibility and decentralised nature. Setup wireless links, and you're creating another telco of sorts, with more or less similar issues. One of the most likely disasters in this part of the world is wildfire, and that has a habit of taking out infrastructure perched on mountains. Guess what! We're back to hauling out the HF radios (which is often what I'd first grab for comms out of the local area anyway :) ). Oh, I should mention that the telcos here are extremely quick in setting up temporary exchanges and portable cell sites to restore services after a disaster.

Even testing and practice, because I'm outside the major metropolitan areas, the only choice I have of communicating with the rest of the emcomm guys here are the Internet (email or IRLP/Echolink), one 2m and one 70cm repeater that's on a mountain midway between us, or (as is most commonly used) good old HF.

As for the utility of the Internet, I have been involved in nets which successfully combine the Internet (for reliable long haul comms) with HF (for penetrating into an affected area). Winlink is an example of a whole system that does exactly that for email.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com


Thank you to John

"bruce.given" <bruce.given@...>
 

Hi,
I just wanted to make a very public thank you to John for all of his
help to me while I have been getting a new repeater up and running.

Thank you John for answering my dumb questions , you certainly have made my journey into the world of linux a whole lot more fun !

kindest regards
Bruce Given
VE2GZI


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Tony,

I'm not so sure it needs to work as you're describing; what I see is that the mesh networks should back up the Internet in areas where they are practical, and link to other areas using other means in case the Internet is down, ss well as linking in smaller node clusters where such exist.

As far as Winlink goes, there are even ways to cope with a loss of Internet there; it all comes down to a desire to be less dependant on commercial networks that may not be a priority in a specific incident case and having the alternative tested and working.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



From: Tony Langdon, VK3JED ;
To: ;
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 1:13:42 PM

 

At 10:51 PM 7/31/2012, you wrote:
>The same applies here - there must be long-distance linking
>backbones to bridge those gaps - temporarily it could be
>the Internet but long-term it needs to be wireless.

Again, why? The wireless becomes infrastructure also, it's going to
be prone to failure, unless you haul it out. Again, I believe a
flexible approach of using the Internet when its available, and
bypassing it when it's not is better than spending $$$$ on more
infrastructure that could also fail. The real strangth of hams is
their flexibility and decentralised nature. Setup wireless links,
and you're creating another telco of sorts, with more or less similar
issues. One of the most likely disasters in this part of the world
is wildfire, and that has a habit of taking out infrastructure
perched on mountains. Guess what! We're back to hauling out the HF
radios (which is often what I'd first grab for comms out of the local
area anyway :) ). Oh, I should mention that the telcos here are
extremely quick in setting up temporary exchanges and portable cell
sites to restore services after a disaster.

Even testing and practice, because I'm outside the major metropolitan
areas, the only choice I have of communicating with the rest of the
emcomm guys here are the Internet (email or IRLP/Echolink), one 2m
and one 70cm repeater that's on a mountain midway between us, or (as
is most commonly used) good old HF.

As for the utility of the Internet, I have been involved in nets
which successfully combine the Internet (for reliable long haul
comms) with HF (for penetrating into an affected area). Winlink is
an example of a whole system that does exactly that for email.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 



On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:51 AM, qrv@... 

If we could get back the piece of 220 here that UPS took, then
wasted, perhaps that could be dedicated to the purpose?

I don't know, nor do I know what's available elsewhere.


We received the equivalent of 1/2 of what was taken at 219-220 Mhz.(about 1996) specifically for point-to-point linking.  97.303l  (http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=202)


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  

 


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

Would 1MHz be adequate for what is needed?

It sounds impractical to use near the coast and one would have to
avoid TV stations on Channels 11 & 13.

We received the equivalent of 1/2 of what was taken at 219-220
Mhz.(about 1996) specifically for point-to-point linking. 97.303l
(http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=202)
John D. Hays



--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 01:50 AM 8/1/2012, you wrote:


Tony,

I'm not so sure it needs to work as you're describing; what I see is that the mesh networks should back up the Internet in areas where they are practical, and link to other areas using other means in case the Internet is down, ss well as linking in smaller node clusters where such exist.
What I'm saying is that mesh networks have a low probability of success anywhere here, and permanent PrP links have the same weaknesses as the telcos and regular repeaters in some of the more common disaster scenarios, and probabilities (Black Saturday did take out some repeaters).


As far as Winlink goes, there are even ways to cope with a loss of Internet there; it all comes down to a desire to be less dependant on commercial networks that may not be a priority in a specific incident case and having the alternative tested and working.
Agree. I'm playing Devils advocate here, because I'm sensing a bit of a "religious" argument creeping in, and I'm saying there's other ways to work without having to build infrastructure. Down here, we can go a lot further, sometimes all that's needed is a supply of skilled operators to man agency radios, so people with hands on skills can be out in the field dealing with the emergency. That is one of the ham roles in this part of the world.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
 

* On 2012 31 Jul 08:00 -0500, qrv@... wrote:

If we could get back the piece of 220 here that UPS took, then
wasted, perhaps that could be dedicated to the purpose?
Wasn't a portion of replacement bandwidth allocated at 219-220 MHz? I
know for certain that the American Association of Railroads is using
220-222 MHz for Positive Train Control on a national basis. The
railroad I work for is rolling it out now. It will not be allocated
back to amateur radio.

73, de Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us


Bridging the digital voice and data gap

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

This topic seems more appropriate to this group than any of the others that I'm in here, as the hardware should support at least the three main modes in use. I know some folks might get their knickers in a twist over this, but interoperability between DMR, D-Star and NXDN is something I feel would be of benefit to all digital voice hams, and would eliminate the (intentional) animosity I've seen in certain groups if someone brings up connecting certain "incompatible" hardware together.

I know that the DMR core network standard implies that it is possible to connect a Hytera repeater to a Motorola Mototrbo repeater even though they use incompatible manufacturer specific functions; there are similar potential issues with connecting Icom IDAS repeater to Kenwood NEXEDGE repeaters. D-Star is semi-unique in that it's network protocol is the same as it's over the air protocol, and this is what attracted me to it in the first place, from a hardware and software design perspective. Is anyone else interested in discussion on this subject?

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android


Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap

Tyrell Berry <kd7kuj@...>
 

Not trying to start a flame war (but probably will...  I'm sorry in advance), but I feel it's important to point out.  Anytime you go from analog to digital, audio quality/information is lost.  If you go from D* to DMR, you are taking spoken voice (analog) and making it digital (IMBE) in your radio, the repeater receives the bits and spits out audio again (digital to analog), and encodes it AGAIN as digital (AMBE) to be sent to the received, where it once again gets converted to analog.  That's two A-D conversions...  each loses quality, and at these bit rates, we don't have much budget for dropping additional audio info.  People already complain about it sounding tinny!

SO, for me it's not a religious "thou shalt not inter-connect technologies" argument, it's more of a "the sacrifices made MAY make such a project technically unfeasible"

Just food for thought.

On Jul 31, 2012 6:05 PM, "Matthew Pitts" <daywalker_blade_2004@...> wrote:
 

This topic seems more appropriate to this group than any of the others that I'm in here, as the hardware should support at least the three main modes in use. I know some folks might get their knickers in a twist over this, but interoperability between DMR, D-Star and NXDN is something I feel would be of benefit to all digital voice hams, and would eliminate the (intentional) animosity I've seen in certain groups if someone brings up connecting certain "incompatible" hardware together.

I know that the DMR core network standard implies that it is possible to connect a Hytera repeater to a Motorola Mototrbo repeater even though they use incompatible manufacturer specific functions; there are similar potential issues with connecting Icom IDAS repeater to Kenwood NEXEDGE repeaters. D-Star is semi-unique in that it's network protocol is the same as it's over the air protocol, and this is what attracted me to it in the first place, from a hardware and software design perspective. Is anyone else interested in discussion on this subject?

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android


Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 04:34 PM 8/1/2012, you wrote:


Not trying to start a flame war (but probably will... I'm sorry in advance), but I feel it's important to point out. Anytime you go from analog to digital, audio quality/information is lost. If you go from D* to DMR, you are taking spoken voice (analog) and making it digital (IMBE) in your radio, the repeater receives the bits and spits out audio again (digital to analog), and encodes it AGAIN as digital (AMBE) to be sent to the received, where it once again gets converted to analog. That's two A-D conversions... each loses quality, and at these bit rates, we don't have much budget for dropping additional audio info. People already complain about it sounding tinny!

SO, for me it's not a religious "thou shalt not inter-connect technologies" argument, it's more of a "the sacrifices made MAY make such a project technically unfeasible"
While the codec conversions are unavoidable, you do NOT have to go all the way back to analog, if you are able to build some suitable hardware. That's already been done for D-STAR, with the DV Dongle being suitable for such a transcoder.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com


Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Tony,

Exactly; all of the DV technologies I mentioned use some form of AMBE, so it's a matter of conversion of bit rates and constructing the proper carrier code for the target system. We already have code for D-Star amd can write code for DMR and NXDN as well. The hardest part will be converting from FDMA to TDMA and back, as the time slots could both have information on them that needs to be handled in some way.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android


Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 07:53 PM 8/1/2012, Matthew Pitts wrote:

Tony,

Exactly; all of the DV technologies I mentioned use some form of AMBE, so it's a matter of conversion of bit rates and constructing the proper carrier code for the target system. We already have code for D-Star amd can write code for DMR and NXDN as well. The hardest part will be converting from FDMA to TDMA and back, as the time slots could both have information on them that needs to be handled in some way.
Agree totally, all the supervisory information needs to be handled properly. I'd like to see this sort of work happen. As for the technologies, I'm wary of TDMA, because it has inherent range limits (since the speed of light is finite), and over here, distance is king.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com


Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap

"Reid" <reid.crowe@...>
 

Will the UDR56K4 be able to support the switching speeds required for DMR?

-Reid N0RC

--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...> wrote:

This topic seems more appropriate to this group than any of the others that I'm in here, as the hardware should support at least the three main modes in use. I know some folks might get their knickers in a twist over this, but interoperability between DMR, D-Star and NXDN is something I feel would be of benefit to all digital voice hams, and would eliminate the (intentional) animosity I've seen in certain groups if someone brings up connecting certain "incompatible" hardware together.

I know that the DMR core network standard implies that it is possible to connect a Hytera repeater to a Motorola Mototrbo repeater even though they use incompatible manufacturer specific functions; there are similar potential issues with connecting Icom IDAS repeater to Kenwood NEXEDGE repeaters. D-Star is semi-unique in that it's network protocol is the same as it's over the air protocol, and this is what attracted me to it in the first place, from a hardware and software design perspective. Is anyone else interested in discussion on this subject?

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android


Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap

Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...>
 

Hi Reid,

DMR is NOT one of the modes supported at launch. There has been some interest in DMR mostly in a future duplex repeater configuration which doesn't require turning the PA around.

As a client, the architecture is able to support the timing for TDMA in the FPGA (software lacks the required granularity). and the TX/RX switch is well under the 1.5ms switch time.

So that makes this a definite maybe.

Bryan


Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap

Tyrell Berry <kd7kuj@...>
 

Maybe your all confused...  audio doesn't have to come out a speaker to be analog.  To be perfectly clear, the dv-dongle is still converting a digital signal to an  analog one...  and a second chip is required to go into any another digital code. Even if a lossless digital codec is used in between (like wave or similar), the conversion to a lossy format like AMBE is the troublesome one...  not the conversion to analog. Yes, less signal is lost vs going out a speaker and into a  microphone, but the principles I stated before are largely the same, and I'm not convinced the resulting stream of bits will be legible audio.

As for the conversion from fdma to tdma, if NAT can convert ip addresses, this should be easy.

On Aug 1, 2012 7:54 AM, "Reid" <reid.crowe@...> wrote:
 

Will the UDR56K4 be able to support the switching speeds required for DMR?

-Reid N0RC

--- In UniversalDigitalRadio@..., Matthew Pitts wrote:
>
> This topic seems more appropriate to this group than any of the others that I'm in here, as the hardware should support at least the three main modes in use. I know some folks might get their knickers in a twist over this, but interoperability between DMR, D-Star and NXDN is something I feel would be of benefit to all digital voice hams, and would eliminate the (intentional) animosity I've seen in certain groups if someone brings up connecting certain "incompatible" hardware together.
>
> I know that the DMR core network standard implies that it is possible to connect a Hytera repeater to a Motorola Mototrbo repeater even though they use incompatible manufacturer specific functions; there are similar potential issues with connecting Icom IDAS repeater to Kenwood NEXEDGE repeaters. D-Star is semi-unique in that it's network protocol is the same as it's over the air protocol, and this is what attracted me to it in the first place, from a hardware and software design perspective. Is anyone else interested in discussion on this subject?
>
> Matthew Pitts
> N8OHU
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>