Re: [digitalradio] Has anyone looked into FPGA-based digital modes?
The USRP (Universal Software Radio Project) uses Xilinx FPGA's for it's main processing and interface. It's compatible with GNURadio and is well supported. Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote: > I've been thinking about getting an FPGA board > to play with and see what it will do as far as > hosting an HF modem, or at least the A/D and DSP > portions of one. The board I'm considering has > a Xilinx Spartan 3E FPGA and all of the peripheral > hardware (A/D, D/A, VGA, ethernet, serial, etc.) > one would probably need to do it. > > http://www.digilentinc.com/Products/Detail.cfm?Prod=S3EBOARD&Nav1=Products&Nav2=Programmable > > Anyone tried (or thought of trying) something like > that? > > 73, > > Paul / K9PS > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > Check our other Yahoo Groups > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Remote Access Desktop, and remote digital operation
If you forward port 3389 on your firewall to that machine, it will probably work. There are other options: RealVNC which allows you to "share" the desktop rather than one person at a time (when you log in remotely into a Windows XP/Vista machine using Remote Desktop, the local console is blanked out to the "Login" screen). Someone else mentioned PCAnywhere but I haven't used that program in decades... I'd probably recommend http://logmein.com because it's able to transit firewalls with ease and allows desktop "sharing". There is a free version that allows a pretty high amount of client machines to be accessible via the web interface. The software works on all platforms whether it's windows, linux, mac.. as long as it's a reasonably modern operating system. John Bradley wrote: > > I have been fooling around with Windows XP remote access desktop, and > found that I can readily access a desktop on any computer , wired or > wireless, connected to my router. > > Further, I found that if I was signed in on the ham computer , and > MultiPSK or MixW was running already, I could change modes etc and > actually do a digital QSO from a remote computer. I also had the > Kenwood rig control software running, so could change frequencies, > power, etc etc . > > Since Digital doesn’t need any audio feed to the remote, or microphone > feed, it really lends itself to remote operations. > > Trying this from the internet though did not permit accessing the > computer…… according to XP documentation it’s possible but didn’t work > for me. It looks like we need a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to do this? > > Possible applications include remote control of a Station located in > an EOC, and enabling folks like Patrick > > To access a station in North America to try the software personally. > I’m not sure of the US laws, but know that > > Patrick could run a station here remotely, signing himself F6CTE/VE5 , > since there is a reciprocal agreement between Canada and France > > Any bright ideas on how we can do this ? > > John > > VE5MU > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dot-ham Internet domain.
keyesbob wrote: > Sure, you don't have any argument about IPv6, BUT I just don't get how > all of this makes a ham TLD a bad idea. > > Mostly because people don't realize what goes into running the root (.) DNS servers whom are controlled by the IANA. There are serious technological hurtles that are involved running a TLD and putting time and effort into just having a W1AW.HAM url seems rather korny. And trading 44/8 space for a .ham Top Level Domain seems a bad trade to me. Those are my objections... nothing more.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
keyesbob wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical >> > from > >> a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a >> ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet? >> > > The 2.4 Ghz ISM band that 802.11b/802.11g WiFi uses is very > overcrowded. Not only with WiFi signals, but tons of other stuff as well. > > The 5 ghz band of 802.11a is just too high up for many applications, > which is one of the reason why there's not much noise up there. > > > I've been thinking of experimenting with one of the AMSAT birds (AO-51 i think) that has 1.2Ghz/2.4Ghz linear capabilities... Since most WRT54G setups have one receive and one transmit side, why not run these into a transverter up or down the band which then runs into a linear amp?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dot-ham Internet domain.
keyesbob wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Don Fanning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. >> > > Why? > > Because ham's already have ampr.org and a entire Class A subnet (44/8) which IANA would love to reclaim if they could since that means they can recycle it into even more IPv4 space. Think about it, most devices use NAT. If every computer/device that has internet access were to actually *be* on the *real* internet, our IPv4 allocation would be tapped completely long ago. Never mind the money for the IP's they could charge for reallocation. I'm surprised subnets like 5.x.x.x/8 and others haven't been usurped. But we're talking about an organization that still has its roots in the 60's. Your kids know that IPv6 is the future. >> There are alternate TLD >> lookup services out there but no one cares. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root >> > > It's true most people don't know or care. It's because they're not > authoritative. > And that should stop somebody why? If it didn't work for .xxx or .porn people, then why would it work for us? The IANA will never do this because they maintain the root servers. And who would be our registar body? ARRL? No, thank you. >> If anything, ampr.org need to be expanded to start including IPv6 and >> other technologies. >> > > Yes, IP6 is a good idea. > For sure. There are alot of technological advances that IPv6 provides that simply aren't available in IPv4 (like multicast from the ground up with *security*).
Re: [digitalradio] dot-ham Internet domain.
Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. There are alternate TLD lookup services out there but no one cares. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root If anything, ampr.org need to be expanded to start including IPv6 and other technologies. I almost wish for Dynamic DNS for ampr.org addresses but I also understand Brian Kantor's reasoning for keeping it flat. keyesbob wrote: > I am certainly not the first to think of this, but wouldn't it be nice > if we had a .ham top level domain? If we have such things as .museum, > .info, and .coop, .ham seems reasonable by comparison. In fact it > makes more sense than many other TLDs. > > I would suggest that it be tightly controlled, in order to make it > legitimate, and also cheap and easy to run. I think that the only > thing which should be in it, are callsigns. I don't want it to be a > commercial land-grab, with all of the nastyness that comes from that. > Who would get qrp.ham? sandwich.ham? The answer is no one would, > because they are not callsigns. > > The way it would work, is that a nominal processing fee ($3 or so) > would be charged to those who wish to register for their callsign > domain. They would create an online account for the domain, which > would contain the status of their domain registration along with text > records (I am not sure if many of you can follow this - if you don't > know the details of DNS. The point is that DNS can hold a LOT more > than hostnames). The account would be paid for online by a credit > card, or a money order or other payment could be submitted to the > registrar. In some cases, payment processing and administration could > be relegated to another organization (i.e. RSGB might include the cost > of the registration in yearly dues). Once this account is set up, a > post card is sent to the address-of-record, containing an explanation > of what has happened online, and a scratch-off confirmation code. Also > included would be a telephone number, for the ham who is receiving the > postcard to call if they did not request the domain or if some other > problem needs to be fixed - they'd keep that postcard and the code it > contains. Normally, that is to say when the ham at the official > address is the one who has requested the domain, they would logon and > authenticate by entering in the code from the postcard. > > domain registrations would expire some moderate time after the license > expires, such as 60 days. In the case of a renewal within that > timeframe, the ham does not have to do anything - the domain stays the > way it was. Beyond this time frame, they must pay a reinstatement fee > to get their domain back. > > With the online control panel of the domain, would be a sort of data > base of the operator - where they certain information, such as their > official address, license status,license class come from the radio > authority in their country, and other things can be modified by the > operator - such as their grid square, club affiliation, current > geographical coordinates, etc. Most of this is set in a standard form > which can be queried, searched, etc by hams and the public as a whole. > Other records would be traditional host addresses, such as a host > record for www which might go to a simple, QSL card style home page, > or a very complex web site, depending on what the operator wants. > Hopefully the ham would select to have a mail delivery record, even if > it then forwards to a commonplace email service like gmail, at least > it is something. But for instance, one would have a very good chance > of reaching me if one addressed email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I might > also put in aliases for [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc. > > The domain would also allow subdomains. So I could have my personal > computers on the internet be at, for example, www.foxtrot.n1yrk.ham, > or a packet station be at node1.packet.n1yrk.ham, etc. I could even > let other people use my domain for their machines, so if my brother > wanted to he could be [EMAIL PROTECTED] or have a host ted.n1yrk,ham, and > have nothing to do with ham radio. But if he did something outrageous > or illegal, people would yell at me and hold me responsible for him. > > Club stations might have subdomains for callsigns of their members, > i.e. n1yrk.w1af.ham, or practically anything else. > > It's important to remember that not all of the communication to and > from these ham domains is over amateur radio, so encyption to and from > these domains is not prohibited. But it standard practice would be for > any host record to have an accompanying text record, which indicates > if any part of the path to the host is over amateur radio, and is > therefore content-restricted. So, if one were to try to renew one's > ARRL membership over packet radio, the web server at the ARRL would > make an inquiry about the connecting host and find out that it was > content-restricted, which would mean that the transaction could not be > processed beca
Re: [digitalradio] The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
After reading what others have written about the topic, I feel that your question wasn't quite given the appropriate response. Packet is still alive. In places where data rates are expensive (even with broadband), packet networks run strong. While I was in Portland, OR., I found that their entire citywide packet network was mainly setup for EOC's between the counties and city governments would have a means of passing traffic in case the big tower farm overlooking downtown Portland were to be destroyed. And remember kids, we still have ampr.org - many a ISP would love to take over this Class A subnet (no one sells class A subnets anymore.. you're lucky to get a (full) class C let alone a class B). I think the problem with packet is the thinking that goes behind it. Fact: 1200bps packet on 2m is slow. Another Fact: 1200bps works on even the lowest common denomination of radios Yet Another Fact: 1200bps works just fine for APRS. You have to design the application to the hardware limitations. No one should expect to be pulling down a entire NTS feed over 1200bps. Would you pull a USENET binaries feed through a dialup? I guess it depends on how hard up you are. But APRS is a perfect example of an application that expands the use of technology despite the hardware limitations. There is another problem with packet. Since everything has boiled down to "Internet Wormholes" for repeaters and digital communications, we've become reliant on the people who both moderate and manage the technology, and the keys only they possess because it's their little hill they can claim to "possess". Everyone wants to feel important. Absolute power in one man's hand leads to absolutely nothing getting done until you have showered them in a glow of praise they are unworthy of. Plus, people just lose interest despite their roles. Case in point, I wanted to modify my AMPR.ORG information. The chain of command required me to contact my net coordinator. Well, I hadn't talked to him in years so I try to find him on the internet. All the email addresses and contact information I found was outdated. I knew him to be somewhat of a hermit so I tried sending him a NTS message from here. Thanks to the poor routing at my gateway, I'm pretty sure my message either arrived to him and I never received a reply or that it hit the toilet somewhere along the way. (Yet another application that needs to be revamped... hierarchical addressing is great until they split or use non-standard/non-intuitive addressing). Luckily, Brian Kantor straightened out the record after I waited a month on the net coordinator. Then, I ran into another road block with fullers.net who maintains the AXIP gateway list that all internet gateways need for the mesh to work. All his email bounces or drops to a black hole. How nice. And this is where I sit. But who do we have to blame for this? Personally, I blame myself for being too lazy and not writing applications that are more in line with the current state of the hobby. I blame myself for not taking the time to take advantage of the decades of software technology to build a better wheel that can move these walls out of the way. And I blame *all* hams for not demanding the same open standards in protocols (like G-TOR/CLOVER) as they expect in their user manuals (schematics of the equipment). That being said, if someone builds a better application that pulls together functions better than others and wants to charge for it, I think they should get the money. Provided they've looked toward the future of the hobby and made sure that their protocol can be maintained for the stretch of time we share. After all, people still charge for the Bible. Bob Keyes wrote: > Hello all, > I came across a box of old Maxon DM-0515 / 0530 data > radios and am going to donate them to my University > radio club, where they will be recrystalled and we'll > start our local net. While talking to local packeteers > and researching packet on the Internet, I have become > quite dismayed at the state of the art and the state > of the community. There seems to be lots of acrimony. > There seems to be lots of decay and a general > reduction in the site and number of packet networks on > VHF/UHF. Much of the blame for this decline has been > blamed on the rise of the Internet. While the rise of > the Internet has changed the way people might think of > the utility of packet radio, I don't think that this > is the only reason for its decline. > > A survey of web sites and software shows the sorry > state of affairs. The hits that Google returns for > packet radio are so out of date, many have not been > updated since the late 90s. Software is another big > problem. I am a Linux user, and I insist that software > I use be open source. Much of the software out there > has become Microsoft-only or Microsoft-centric, and > closed source. This simply will not do. > > Closed source
