|
Re: SAW Filter limitations
Steve <yahoo-udr@...>
How does this discussion affect digital voice (DV) and digital data (DD) modes in the USA? Do DV repeater operators always enable DD capability? Or, are there separate DD repeaters? Do the repeater operators follow the ARRL or other local band plans?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Steve
---------- Original Message ----------
[ Sent by bhhoyer@... at 03/17/2014 10:27 AM ]
|
|
|
|
Re: SAW Filter limitations
bhhoyer@...
We could do a UDRX-430.
there is a 20MHz 431 Filter (421-441). Takes care of the bottom of the US Band as well It's in a different package (of course) so we'd end up building 440s in mass then reworking the filters. Might be a small upcharge of 20-25 USD Bryan K7UDR
|
|
|
|
Re: SAW Filter limitations
John Ronan <jpronans@...>
On 17/03/14 16:05, Andre wrote:
It is a similar situation here in Ireland, and I guess throughout all of IARU Region 1. Regards John EI7IG
|
|
|
|
Re: SAW Filter limitations
Andre <pe1rdw@...>
op 17-03-14 16:50, bhhoyer@...
schreef:
All 9k6 AX.25 channels in the Netherlands are between 430.400 and 431.025 and german duplex ax.25 channels have input between 430.400 and 430.5875 and output between 439.800 and 439.9875. So there would be some limitation if the 19 MHz SAW filter is used in this configuration. 73 de Andre PE1RDW
|
|
|
|
SAW Filter limitations
bhhoyer@...
The UDR has a SAW Filter in both the transmit and receive paths. We are currently using a 440MHz filter with a 19MHz BW, meaning we are 3db down at 430.5MHz and 449.5MHz.
I have been searching for 20MHz filters and have found no reasonable cost solutions. I will be traveling to China later this year to look into the cost (MOQ really) of having SAW filters made to our specification. Looking at the ARRL BandPlan for 70cm, ATV is up to 432 and the top of the band is for Voice repeaters. Many countries only go up to 440. The question for the group is, how does this affect your planned deployment? Is it a real issue for production. Thanks, Bryan K7UDR
|
|
|
|
Forum Etiquette
bhhoyer@...
To all,
The purpose of the forum is for you to ask questions about the UDR and post your thoughts on Digital Amateur Radio. In addition, we use it to gain insight into how you want to use the UDR so we can prioritize our development. To Michael E Fox, This is your second attempt to hijack one of my threads. There will not be a third. Feel free to start your own thread, where you may wax eloquently about your vision. I am not in disagreement with your technical position and there are other experimenters looking for similar functionality. Cheers, Bryan K7UDR
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Dean Gibson AE7Q <yahoo@...>
On 2014-03-13 23:02, Bill Vodall wrote:
You are correct; accessing the Internet is normally a "means-test", to see if the amateur radio network is just a toy between three amateurs, or actually useful.However, like everyone else, I'm not getting any younger, and I've been looking at alternate solutions. Tuesday evening I bought a commercial 5.8GHz digital (eg, Ethernet) radio and 36" dish for $200 total to use with the HamWAN project. Two days later (today) I am on the air (through a 2nd story window -- .......
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
However, like everyone else, I'm not getting any younger, and I've beenI was going to get a HamWAN setup but then I took my laptop with built in wifi to McDonalds... Had an fast internet connection and downloaded some cool John Denver videos and a few wild Viking wood songs... That's working great - guess I don't need HamWAN or UDR-X... Mostly just kidding. I really didn't get any Viking songs yet. The technologies are complementary - but the Internet as it sits is an anti-goal. Doing this just to hook to the Internet - limited as it may be for ham regulations - is pretty much ho-hum. It's what we can and will do in our own side of that fence that's super cool and special So Dean - what email client did you use with your new toys to send these notes? You web site was the first to know we had a new call listed in 59454 - good job - was that hosted on the hamWAN? i'v been teasing Bruce for weeks about hooking up to Hamwan and bring it to brunch to supplement the coverage we get from his clear wire equipment. Are you going to fill in with a connection from your car and backup bruce. I've got those John Denver videos to upload to my cloud server and that would be good workout for a mobile hamWan node. I'd offer to share our UHF 9600 bandwidth but give we can't download a simple web page yet I don't think it'll help much. Still getting some pings across every hour or soo. Whether these radios supplant or replace my reservation for two UDRX radios,Hope to see you at burnch. Might bring my Groove and fire it up.. 73 Bill, WA7NWP
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Dean Gibson AE7Q <yahoo@...>
On 2014-03-13 10:44, Michael E Fox -
N6MEF wrote:
I think part of what all of us are experiencing, is the frustration of (in many cases) made purchasing decisions (eg, not buying something else) based on a schedule that has (for speeds over 9.6k) slipped by at least a year. Some of us have also seen software products (whether free or commercial) languish for bug fixes or serious enhancements, while "software engineers" fiddle with changes for the sake of cosmetics (Thunderbird being a prime example). Like you, I hope that primary software efforts are not being delayed for "adjunct" software. Of course, most of the software effort is volunteer, and different people have different skills (I'm an embedded developer, not a GUI wizard). On the other hand, many commercial products can't survive economically without "appliance" users, or even "toy" users. Ten years ago, the number of amateur radio licensees was steadily declining; now, it is up by about 8%. Now, some will argue whether or not that's a good thing (I will argue the latter, but not here), but the fact is, most consumer products exist (at least at current prices) due to this effect. UDR has appliance purchasers lining up, and it needs them as well as "us" (meaning those that don't want any eMail software on the UDRX) for both survival and the resources to support us (there will be changes). However, like everyone else, I'm not getting any younger, and I've been looking at alternate solutions. Tuesday evening I bought a commercial 5.8GHz digital (eg, Ethernet) radio and 36" dish for $200 total to use with the HamWAN project. Two days later (today) I am on the air (through a 2nd story window -- need to move it higher) to a remote Internet connection at 1.5Mbps, for 1/2 the price of a UDRX. When I mount the antenna higher, I should get over 10Mbps. Assuming we get the UDRX with a speed of (say) 128Kbps by fall, then some of us will only have ourselves to communicate with. I'm in the Pacific NW, and I know some of the UDRX buyers: some of them will be "slow" to get a usable network up. Meanwhile, I'm on the air to others on the HamWAN network and the Internet, today. I will probably buy a second radio/antenna combo to experiment with. Whether these radios supplant or replace my reservation for two UDRX radios, I have not decided.
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
With the built-in apps, incorporating the UDRXWhat infrastructure is there? Working with the 'local' system is key and given hams, all local systems will be different. So no matter what there is out of the box - there will be local modifications... Maybe we need an "apt-get install local-system" default target so it's possible to (nearly) automatically install local requirements... Bill
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Mark L Friedlander <marklfriedlander@...>
I'm not so sure it's productive to judge SquirrelMail based on how you found it over 5 years ago. I'm currently using it and find it as good as any other webmail software and better than some others I've used recently. Mark KV4I
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Steve Stroh N8GNJ <steve.n8gnj@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Steve Stroh N8GNJ <steve.n8gnj@...>
Michael:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think you make my point rather eloquently, when you conflate RAID storage and an Amateur Radio network. In my experience, if you're talking about RAID storage, such usage trends more towards the 1%... as opposed to the 99% of ordinary Amateur Radio users that I expect to buy the UDRX and want, and use, the apps that will be include in/on the UDRX. Not to mention the novel (to me) concept of "... security of the network path itself" in relation to an Amateur Radio network given the restrictions on using encryption on Amateur Radio frequencies (that literally anyone can monitor) and resulting distinct LACK of security. I have the benefit of having met the developer of the RF portion of the UDRX, and as a result have every confidence that users like you that want to bypass the built in apps and use the UDRX purely as an RF modem, yeah, "it IS in there". The amateur radio networks that I've seen that will benefit enormously from the UDRX typically have really basic computers and limited software and capabilities (such as EOCs with Winlink software talking to 1200 baud TNCs). With the built-in apps, incorporating the UDRX into such Amateur Radio networks will be easy - just use a web browser on the existing PC. But perhaps we're comparing apples and oranges - as far as I'm aware, the UDRX is designed for, will be manufactured for, and operated on Amateur Radio frequencies, by licensed Amateur Radio operators... 99% of whom probably won't be using RAID storage on their Amateur Radio systems. I think Northwest Digital Radio IS listening - to ALL the potential customers for the UDRX. Steve N8GNJ
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Michael E Fox - N6MEF <n6mef@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
"John D. Hays" <john@...>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...> wrote:
For those who missed it - start at minute 5:15 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0svcHERWrM
We have since reworked the whole RF section for much better performance, and have new management code.
John D. Hays K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223   
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
What do you think the Node.js and Socket.io stuff that John talked about at DCC last fall is for? Besides, they had working prototypes at Dayton in 2012.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Matthew Pitts N8OHU
On March 13, 2014 1:44:35 PM EDT, Michael E Fox - N6MEF wrote:
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
"Michael E Fox - N6MEF" <n6mef@...>
You missed the point.
My point is that all this time spent on defining applications could and should be spent on defining management/configuration screens, status screens, logging, etc. for the primary purpose of this box. This would include screens for OS (disk usage, memory usage, etc.), radio (power level, SWR, etc.), signal levels (including historical), modulation schemes (selection, status, …), link status, error rates, and bridging function (STP, forwarding status, MAC cache, etc.). If all that stuff is not “IN there” and done well, then the primary function, the ONE thing that we need this box for -- RF bridging -- is not achieved (at least not in a manageable/deployable way). (Just look at a $95 Ubiquity 802.11 radio for an idea of some of the stuff that’s needed to actually operate RF bridges in real world networks. Everything else, all your apps, can be done elsewhere/anywhere (and already are). I don’t really care if they get added, but we can add linux packages ourselves. What we can’t do is develop the management/config/status/troubleshooting screens. That’s gotta be done by the folks building the unit. In my opinion, any time not focused on that is time that should be refocused.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but for those of us who do intend to purchase multiple radios and incorporate them into real networks, the user applications will be (or already are) on their own machines with RAID storage, plenty of memory, etc., with their own security. Subjecting a network device to user logins compromises the security of the network path itself. And creating a single point of failure by mixing an application server and a network device would be a real junior level move. To use your percentages, 99% of network design/management folks would never do that. The other 1% are probably unemployed. If you want to play around that way, or use it as an end-user station, that’s up to you – it’s a free country, and, after all, it’s a hobby. But your assertion that only 1% would keep user apps and network function separate is just ridiculous and indicates you’ve never really run a substantial network.
I’ve said my piece. The developers can choose to listen or not. I hope they do.
Michael N6MEF
From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh N8GNJ
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:17 AM To: UniversalDigitalRadio@... Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Webmail Clients
|
|
|
|
New Post on Site
john@...
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Steve Stroh N8GNJ <steve.n8gnj@...>
Bryan:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
SquirrelMail at least the last time I was forced to use it 5+ years ago, is, at best, adequate. But there's got to be something better. As a result of the infestation of Google+ into Gmail, there are several projects going on to replicate the Gmail experience on one's own server, and those might be worth investigating. I've found that text mode PINE mail client to be more usable than SquirrelMail. I believe Pine and it's associated text mode, text editor Pico, are open source from the UW here in the Seattle area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_(email_client). Apparently there is a successor to Pine - Alpine. In contrast to most text mode mail clients, Pine was intuitive and easy to use. Being text mode, it was very responsive. Its one downside is that it didn't deal with attachments very well. One real positive was being text only, it stripped "foo foo'd" email messages with lots of fonts, colors, dancing bears, etc. down to just the text. Pine also did a great job of reading USENET News - http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/news.html#top I think the POP/SMTP capability will be more widely used with Thunderbird, which is a pretty good mail client. BBS Style Bulletins... 1. For semi-static content (my station information) it would be great if the web apps could include a Wiki, preferably a "federated" Wiki like what Ward Cunningham discussed at last year's MicroHAMS Digital Conference - changes in one are automatically replicated to others that are subscribed. 2. Some kind of simple blog generation would also be great, and you can subscribe to it using RSS. That works great, lots of RSS clients out there in opensourceland, and it's pretty lightweight to poll a blog with RSS to see if there's an update. 3. NNTP / USENET servers / clients are THE way to go in Amateur Radio TCP/IP Networking. It's just such a good match overall with the likely way that UDRX networks will likely evolve. 4. Markdown - yes. It's the new HTML, and even more efficient. One related comment related to the apps - please include some simple way for the system to be able to make use of secondary storage, such as a USB flash drive, for storage of user content such as email messages, etc. I think that I'm going to be using my UDRX so much that I don't want to fill up and overflow whatever native storage the UDRX will include in the base unit. I'm glad that you responded in detail to those that just want a flexible RF modem. Good grief - that functionality is IN there for the 1% that want to play at that level. Apparently it's tough to convince the 1% that they're not paying any more, waiting any longer, suffering from any inefficiencies for having a processor and OS that supports apps that they can easily bypass and play with pure I and Q. For the rest of us (you know, the ones that want to throw money at you and buy MULTIPLE radios, build networks, encourage others to buy UDRXs)... PLEASE DO develop apps that will be included, supported, and documented!!! Thanks, Steve Stroh N8GNJ Redmond, WA area unabashed UDRX fanboy
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
When using email over RF either peer to peer or winlink a mail client is required.
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
John Ronan <jpronans@...>
On 12/03/14 16:34, Bill Vodall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote:+1 Well, we'll try to at least. While being a primarily a (S)IMAP user, I appreciate having a webmail client to fall back on. No preference really, as, for me it is only ever a fallback. I think you have some good feedback to work from already. Regards John EI7IG
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Mathison Ott <mathisono@...>
Uc Berkeley. I can forword any message on to the ee email list down here. Great group they all just got wookfong hts, the first assinment is aprs email clints... Moving on to sdr dsp work. This devise is realy a first! 73 mathison
On Mar 12, 2014 2:06 PM, <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
bhhoyer@...
Hi Matt,
I get down to the Bay Area from time to time, which University are you associated with? Bryan K7UDR
|
|
|
