[OZAPRS] 9600 baud

[Andrew Rich]

Yes I have used both and 1200 seems more "robust"


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Darryl Smith" <darryl at radio-active.net.au>
To: "Australian APRS Users" <ozaprs at aprs.net.au>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] 9600 baud


> Hi Howard
>
> Many reasons
>
> * 1200 bps is much cheaper to set up given availability of TNC's and the 
> like
> * Keyup and key down times are the major timing issue with APRS. 9600 bps 
> does not make the transmission much shorter
> * Eb/N0 is probably the main reason. This is engineering speak for saying 
> that the reliability improves with more transmission power. Imagine 120W 
> being used. At 1200 bps, this becomes 0.1 W / bps. At 9600, it becomes 
> 0.0125 W / bps. This is 1/8th of the power per bit, with a consequent 
> increase in packet loss
>
> Darryl
>
>
> ---------
> Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia
> Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 Int] - 02 9618 6459
> www.radio-active.net.au/blog/ - www.radio-active.net.au/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au [mailto:ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au] On 
> Behalf Of Howard Small
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 January 2011 5:10 AM
> To: OZAPRS at aprs.net.au
> Subject: [OZAPRS] 9600 baud
>
> Just wondering why we use 1200 baud for APRS and not 9600? I must say that 
> doing some tests with 9600 between my D700, D7, D72 and VX-8R has not 
> shown it to be reliable but wonder if that is general or just something 
> specific to some of the equipment...
>
> Howard
> VK4BS
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OZAPRS mailing list
> OZAPRS at aprs.net.au
> http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
> _______________________________________________
> OZAPRS mailing list
> OZAPRS at aprs.net.au
> http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs