HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: btbg1194@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bradley T Banko)
Subject: Re: Ramsey Packet Garbage Modem (Baycom lesson)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:35:03 GMT

In article <Bt80x1.3Gu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> btbg1194@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bradley T Banko) writes:
		(flame deleted)

I got the Ramsey kit to work finally, and the kit design is actually pretty
good, but I still am unhappy with Ramsey for:

	1)  their ridiculous price for this kit ($70)... seems like
		$50 would be plenty fair including the case, and
	2)  their lack of troubleshooting advice in the manual or
		more considerate help on the phone

The Baycom Lesson

The Ramsey kit allows a simple rewiring to get it to work with the Poor Man's
Packet software on a parallel printer port (TTL levels?), but their kit
only comes with the Baycom software (lucky I have access to the net and was
able to get a hold of the PMP software quickly and easily... what
about those poor hams who don't have the luxury of access to the Internet!)

I traced the problem with the Baycom configuration to an inactive DTR signal
line on my RS232 port.  (Horowitz & Hill, The Art of Electronics, 2d Edition
has some good sections which discuss the RS232 standard, and lots of other
neat stuff).  I might have blown this line at some point during my experiments 
(RS232 is supposed to be pretty robust by its standard... +/- 5-12 V @ 500mA 
and able to withstand a direct short between outputs), *or* the DTR signal 
might just not be implemented in my Goldstar clone's serial ports.
(*BEWARE*, Baycom users of this potential problem.  I wonder how 
common this is?  My telephone modem works just fine on this port, and 
detects rings, etc.)

What was confusing me was that I was seeing a signal at the PTT transistor
base which I now realize was a just a false "pull-up" signal from the Mic 
line which works fine.  (My radio just wasn't keying up during transmit, 
and since transistors are something of a mystery to me, I started imagining all
sorts of terrible things about bad component values, etc., not realizing 
that the signal levels that I *should* have been seeing are pretty 
obvious... (i.e., "big", +/-12 V on the RS232 side of the CMOS 74HC04, and
TTL levels on the output sides of the 74HC04)

Anyway, this is a little constructive followup which I hope will help 
somebody else.

73 de KB8CNE, Brad Banko

-- 
Brad Banko;  Dept of Physics;  U of Illinois;  b-banko@uiuc.edu, KB8CNE
=========================================================================
TI NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING OF CHOCOLATE CONFECTIONERY AND THE
   SPATIAL DETECTION OF POLYMORPHIC STATES OF COCOA BUTTER IN CHOCOLATE
From: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:47:24 GMT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.packet, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.181839.26451@cs.yale.edu> ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.121013.27822@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>...
>>>The Internet is *not* free. Our use of it is parasitic and subject
>>>to the whims of government and corporate sponsors. Ham satellites
>>
>>Yes, but universities are effectively in the same boat.  I think
>>it's fairly safe to piggyback on university network access.  (We need
>>some precedents to be set just to be sure.)
>
>Al Gore, yes *that* Al Gore, is pushing a bill to commercialize the 
>networks we are now using for free. When we start receiving a monthly 
>bill based on bits/buck, using the landline networks is going to look 
>a lot less attractive. I just want people to keep their options open. 
>If we lock ourselves into the landlines for long haul packet, we may
>regret it later.

Some of us are already paying for Internet service.  And the people
we get it from (PSI) don't allow us carry third-party traffic.  (And
you thought hams were the only ones with third-party traffic
restrictions!)  If/when the government gets out of the business
of subsidizing the Internet, you can expect that sort of thing to be
the rule rather than the exception.  I agree with Gary: go ahead and
make use of the Internet, but don't let's stop trying to build our
own, independent network.

   [deleted]
>If it ain't broke, nobody is going to pay to fix it. We've got to
>load the systems until they break to force higher capacity. Therefore
>spectrum filling 300 baud HF robots *are* helpful to the cause of 
>high performance networking on the amateur bands.

Maybe we should be using 60 wpm RTTY!  :-)
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z                   |  jbloom@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League       |
225 Main St.                      |
Newington, CT 06111               |
From: rbono@necis.UUCP ( NM1D)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: ESTIMATE packet radio throughput
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:51:07 GMT
Organization: NEC Technologies, Inc., Boxborough, MA

In article <bsxo66.3x2@wang.com>, dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong) wrote:
> Because of a reference to ESTIMATE.EXE a couple of weeks ago, I have
> received a lot of requests for the program.  I suppose the right thing to
> do is to post it, but I'm not sure this is the right place to do so.
> 
> Could someone tell me if this is the right place, and if not, where is?
> 
 Hi Dave...

  I could tell you where to post it........

   but the last time I asked the same sort of question I didn't get any good
answers.  I wanted to post copies of a few of my ham radio software:
  DOSGATE, AUTOCALL, AUTOLOG, AUTOFAX, AUTOCW, and a windows program that
 converts metric/english(american) measures.

 If you find a good place to post this stuff... let me know.

 Rich
-- 
 /**************************************************************************\
 * Rich Bono (NM1D)              IMRICH              rbono@necis.ma.nec.com * 
 * (508) 635-6300                                       nm1d@nm1d.nh.usa.na * 
 \**************************************************************************/
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: jscherer@novell.com
Subject: packet radio communications program for NeXT
Reply-To: jscherer@novell.com
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:18:17 GMT

Is there a packet radio communications program for the NeXT computer?

--
John Scherer
778 Shetland Ct. 
San Jose, CA  95127

internet: jscherer@novell.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: rdg@world.std.com (Richard D Goldstein)
Subject: Baycom/Baymod-9 Help/Advice?
Summary: Experience and Advice with Baycom/Baymod Packet Equipment?
Keywords: baycom baymod packet
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:49:16 GMT

Well, I am now into packet.  This weekend I received the Baymod-9
modem-in-a-db-connector from PacCom and version 1.50a of the Baycom
terminal program.

Problem is:  I don't have the foggiest idea of what any of this means!<g>
(its not up to my usual heathkit standard of explaination!)

Anyhow, I was successful in making the physical connections necessary to
connect my Alinco DJ-F1T and in sending and receiving some packets from
a local Node(?).  I was also successful in connecting to myself through
the node, so I think all is working fine.  However, I am not sure how to 
adjust any of the parameters so that I maximize my communications while
minimizing the generation of packets which cause collisions.

Is there a Baycom guru who can provide me with some advice on how to use
this system to its fullest advantage, in simple Ham engilsh?  Also, any
advice on how to check whether I have the controls of my radio set properly
would be appreciated.  Finally, I see all of the (what I believe to be)
AX.25 "stuff" going across the bottom of the screen, and I think that if
I understood what I was seeing I could tell how efficient my transmissions
are being, but right now its all GERMAN to me <g>

Many thanks to all in advance!  (FTP sites for info also appreciated!)

73 and tnx!  de KA2TMT
		Rich Goldstein

-- 
Richard D. Goldstein
Schiller & Kusmer
Patent Attorneys At Law
(617) 227-5454 Telephone
From: vail@tegra.COM (Johnathan Vail)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:36:12 GMT
Organization: Tegra, Inc., Billerica, MA
In-reply-to: gary@ke4zv.uucp's message of 16 Aug 92 13:08:38 GMT


In article <1992Aug16.130838.18893@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   >>Our best national and international WAN technology is 300 baud HF BBS
   >>forwarding. It's thruput is about 15 bytes/second. It's suitable for
   >>Email.

   >You left out the Internet backbone links, sometimes referred to as
   >"wormholes". There are quite a few regional TCP/IP networks that are

   I left these out because they aren't amateur radio. They work, and
   as long as the commercial and institutional networks tolerate them,
   they are useful, but they aren't amateur radio. We could just abandon
   packet *radio* and all run Fidonet landline BBSs, but that wouldn't
   be amateur *radio* either. The thruput would be better though.

   For communications *systems* use, the wirelines are superior to
   radio in ordinary day to day long haul service. But we're supposed 
   to be *radio* amateurs, and the data is secondary to the medium in 
   our case. I know that's a limited way of looking at things, but 
   amateur packet radio is a limited form of communications. After
   all, if communications efficiency were our only goal, we'd make
   long distance phone calls instead of cluttering 20 meters with
   kilowatt DXers.


What!?  

Next you'll be telling us it's only a hobby and we should have fun.



jv


"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not
going all the way and not starting." -- Buddha
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail     vail@tegra.com     (508) 663-7435
|Tegra| jv@n1dxg.ampr.org    N1DXG@448.625-(WorldNet)
 -----  MEMBER: League for Programming Freedom (league@prep.ai.mit.edu)
From: tbruseha@kafka.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Summary: Use your imagination
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:30:42 GMT
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Control Data

In article <15046@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>tbruseha@kafka.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver) writes:
>>All this frustration of long distance stuff, rules and other info got
>>me thinking.  Are there any rules about how fast someone can send CW?
>>I doubt it.  WHat if computers were sending CW (I think the rules
>>specify morse, which is fine), how fast can they listen?  On 80 meters
>>a cycle takes about 2.7e-7 seconds, if you could get computers to deal
>>with 3-5 cycles as a dit, and 9-15 cycles as a dah, you could really
>>push some bits trough.
>
>First, calculate the bandwidth of the proposed modulation scheme.


Ahh, 1Hz?.. I am talking CW (Carier Wave).

Everyone, I was sorta half joking, and half serious.  The potential
was realized by some, and others blew it off as silly.  As others
point out this network is for the exchange of information.  We are
exchanging information, and trying to make people think.  

Imagine if you will, the perfect setup.  A 2Kw CW 80 meter station in
North Dakota, Fargo maybe.  An Identical station in Minneapolis.  How
fast could these 2 stations talk to each other under ideal conditions?
If the speed were variable (adaptive; too many errors, slow down),
could they be reliable even under less than ideal conditions.

There was an aritcle many years ago about a Z80 based morse reader
that was good to maybe 80-100WPM.  Ok fine, how about upping that to a
68020, or a RISC chip, could that reliable handle 500-1000WPM (more?).
With current DSP chips the S/N ratio could be pretty good before the
morse reader ever saw it.  How fast can the xmitter be keyed, that
might be more of a limiting factor.  It ain't gonna be cheap, but we
are talking about the inter-city links for the long distance network.

Another alternative that telebit uses are multiple carriers (tones)
allowing for more 'parallel' transmissions.  Using DTMF tones would
give you 8 bits at a time.  Are there rules about this?  

Yes it is sorta unreasonable, think about it.

Tommy B.
From: ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Packet Networks today and tommorrow
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:18:39 GMT
Organization: Yale Univ. Sci & Eng Comp Facility, New Haven CT 06520

In article <1992Aug18.121013.27822@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
...
>The Internet is *not* free. Our use of it is parasitic and subject
>to the whims of government and corporate sponsors. Ham satellites

Yes, but universities are effectively in the same boat.  I think
it's fairly safe to piggyback on university network access.  (We need
some precedents to be set just to be sure.)

>aren't free either of course, we hitch rides on other people's 
>missions. HF is a unique resource to which hams have free access.
>Our charter is to advance the communications art. We have the
>opportunity to advance beyond what commercial users are doing
>and break new ground with long haul data communications via HF
>radio.

Sure, just be sure that you see technical "payback potential".  HF at 300
baud with robots shows how to fill up spectrum all day long, but that's
actually unhelpful.  If we could do reliable 9600 kb HF data with exotic
modems, meteor bounce, or what have you, I'd like that!
>
>>There's a lot of value in long radio links connecting very remote 
>>or non-industrialized areas, but that's not my focus here.
>
>Yes there is, and in addition there's value in connecting rural users 
>right here in the industrial US and Canada. And there's value in
>establishing alternative paths to wireline services for use in 
>emergency situations.
>
Effective emergency communications is a traditional ham strength,
and it has very good PR value (like justifying a lot of our spectrum).
But this is largely a local problem (we pray).  Existing 
packet and BBS technology seems quite appropriate, maybe with
regional or national Internet(?) interfaces. 

>I should say that I have no objection to internet connections. However,
>I don't want internet connectivity to be used as an excuse not to
>pursue alternative HF technologies.
>
>Gary KE4ZV

We keep reminding ourselves it's a hobby, and people have to have fun.
So I keep on seeking those weak 20m CW stations, even though I could
dial them up for a few bucks.  On the other hand, if I'm going to
spend $$ and time getting into a new mode, I'd like to understand
where it's leading, especially when it is intimately involved with
such a well-developed technology base as computing and data networking.

73 Martin AA6E
From: tching@target.water.ca.gov (Tracy Ching <SysAdmin>)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: What modulation method is best for sending 10Mbit/sec?
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:09:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: cdwr


	Theoretically speaking (or asking), assuming I was in the
Gigacycles, what method of modulation would be best for sending 10mbit/sec
data?   "Best" can fall into different catagories.  Best BER, use of BW,
S/N ratio... or whatever you can think of.
  Let's also assume the coding is the same as used over IEEE 802.3 wire.
I'll also assume full or half duplex is irrelevant at this time.
Please e-mail to me below.   I'll post if there is anything useful.  Thanks.
tching@water.ca.gov
From: seanp@undr.org (Sean Petty)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: AEA-PK232MBX vs. MFJ-1278, Which one?
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: Sean Petty <undr!seanp@gvls1.GVL.Unisys.COM>
Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania



        As a brand new packeteer, I am torn between which TNC to buy.  I
        know that I want to get into the data modes, and I have narrowed
        my choices down to these two TNC's, so all I need now is
        something to push me one way or the other.

        Any help would be appreciated.

        Sean    N3LQN

---
Sean Petty                           undr!seanp@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM
ICBMnet: 39'58'12"N 75'84'26"W       seanp@undr.org
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: New packeteer frustration
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:55:01 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <20489@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> tbruseha@kafka.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver) writes:
>
>All this frustration of long distance stuff, rules and other info got
>me thinking.  Are there any rules about how fast someone can send CW?
>I doubt it.  WHat if computers were sending CW (I think the rules
>specify morse, which is fine), how fast can they listen?  On 80 meters
>a cycle takes about 2.7e-7 seconds, if you could get computers to deal
>with 3-5 cycles as a dit, and 9-15 cycles as a dah, you could really
>push some bits trough.  Assuming you had a really good error
>correction code, there could easily be reliable communications.  If
>the computers paid attention to error rates, the speed could vary
>depending on noise, and other stuff.

The fastest real world computer to computer CW that I've witnessed
was in the 100 WPM range. I've *heard* of attempts at 1000 WPM, don't
know if they were sucessful or not. 100 WPM is 599 characters/minute,
or about 70 bps if the characters had been ASCII encoded instead.
Not very impressive.

Gary KE4ZV
From: coleve@cc.uvcc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Hiearchial Address Info Wanted
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:25:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Utah Valley Community College

In article <1992Aug13.155823.14379@worldbank.org>, dearnsha@wizard.worldbank.org writes:
> Does anyone know where I can find information on the correct form of
> hierarchial addressing; even better, does anyone know of a publication
> which describes the available address elements?
> 
> Thanks. Darrell (NR3Y)
>  

every network has a *different* correct form of addressing, and several of
them are hierarchical.

1) Internet domain names are heirarchical, and are of the form:
      local.part%more#local.part@sub.subdomain.domain.name
     \____________  ___________/|\_________  ____________/
                  \/            |          \/
              local part       at       fully qualified domain name

the local part can be almost unbelievably complex.

the fully qualified domain name part consists of two sub parts.  the end part
(here "domain.name") is allocated by the Network Information Center uopn
meeting certain requirements.  the early part ("sub.subdomain") is 
handed out by the domain administrator.  There is a ham radio domain,
"ampr.org" administered by Brian Kantor (brian@ucsd.edu).  He could issue
the name kf7xm.ampr.org to me if he wished.  I, being the administrator of the
uvcc.edu domain could issue myself kf7xm.uvcc.edu.

This is more fully described in the RFC's available from nisc@nisc.sri.com
try RFC 920, 974, 1032, 1033, 1034, & 1035.

2) 
-- 
-- Vern Cole -- Systems Manager -- Utah Valley Community College --
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: btbg1194@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bradley T Banko)
Subject: Ramsey Packet Garbage Modem ... $70
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:00:35 GMT

(this is a flame)
this message is a waste of bandwidth, but I just spent another 
2 hour session getting nowhere in getting my Ramsey Baycom modem to
key my Standard HT, and I have to drag Ramsey's name through
the mud after they've taken $70 from me and wasted so much of my time.

I have tried a lot of different things to get this to work, and 
none of them have worked.  It took me about 2 hours
to put the thing together originally, and I have spent at least 
10-15 hours since then trying to get it to transmit on my HT.
A damn modem circuit shouldn't cause this much trouble...

Ramsey was no help when I called.  Their ad says that their modem
will work with any radio... it probably will, if you can afford the
time and have the tools to re-work it to do so.

Ramsey's attitude seems to be that hooking the kit up to your radio
is your problem.  Little things like missing components in the 
original kit lose their relative importance on the scale of poor
quality in the face of this important failing.

Give me an A&E(?) PK88.  Not only do they suggest circuits for hooking 
their carefully conditioned circuit outputs to your radio, *but* I 
hear that they even make a number of custom cables for popular radios.

Trash Ramsey.  

KB8CNE, Brad Banko

-- 
Brad Banko;  Dept of Physics;  U of Illinois;  b-banko@uiuc.edu, KB8CNE
=========================================================================
TI NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING OF CHOCOLATE CONFECTIONERY AND THE
   SPATIAL DETECTION OF POLYMORPHIC STATES OF COCOA BUTTER IN CHOCOLATE
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.packet:2172 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14020
From: tom@server.systemtechnik.th-ilmenau.de (Thomas Planke)
Subject: DRSI-card wanted
Keywords: DRSI
Organization: TH Ilmenau,Germany
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 08:07:16 GMT

Hello,

I'm looking for DRSI-card because a PacketCluster (first in former East Germany) 
will be build up.
 If anybody want to sell one (also already used card) which workes still you would
help our group to install this Cluster quicker. The card we hoped to use was
demaged unfortunatly last week by rain and following pc-crash. I hope for your PM
and a good price.

73 Thomas , Y32JK

-- 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Thomas Planke                     Planke@Systemtechnik.TH-Ilmenau.DE       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Technical University Ilmenau                  Phone: +49 3677/69-1465,-1420|
| Fakultaet Informatik und Automatisierung      Fax:   +49 3677/69-1446	     |
| Institut Automatisierungs- und Systemtechnik                               |
| P.O.Box 327,D-O6300 Ilmenau,Germany                                        |
|                                         (PacketRadio:Y32JK@Y71RSV.DEU.EURO)|
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing)
Subject: New packeteer frustration
Summary: Where to go for advanced packet info?
Organization: Yale Univ. Sci & Eng Comp Facility, New Haven CT 06520
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:58:55 GMT

After many years of sitting by the packet sidelines, I've set up a KAM
and started decoding the burps.  As someone who uses the Internet
daily, this has been an eye-opening experience for me.

As someone recently noted ham packet, as currently practiced, is an
adventure in low-performance communications (but cost-effective).  Yeah,
with incredible patience and luck, I've managed to connect from Phila-
delphia to Maine.  I've seen umpteen users competing for a single
1200 baud port to a PC.  And I note that 10s of kHz of precious HF
spectrum are taken up by very unfriendly robots chatting at **300 baud**.
(They won't give you the time of day, and the throughput is abysmal.)
Now I see there's a big brouhaha about the ARRL not defending these
terribly inefficient mail operations to the maximum of its ability.

The contrast with the Internet is incredible.  I can easily transfer
a megabyte per minute across the country, and I am somewhat annoyed
I can't do better.  I can send dozens of e-mail messages around the
world and often get replies in minutes.  But you all know that.

My question here is where does one go for information about digital
ham networking plans - especially the (very logical) use of Internet
links for long haul?  It's not in QST, I think. :-)

Until I get better adjusted to VHF packet, you'll probably find me
on 20 m AMTOR.  There's a friendly medium!  Not much good for downloading
software, however.

Cheers and 73s, Martin, AA6E

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet