<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
What a load of rubbish! Define 'compliant' and 'substandard' in a way
that's relevant to the amateur LCD - the only standard with which we
must comply.<br>
<br>
The humble TNC2 compatible and an assortment of other modems have
served packet well since its earliest days in the early 1980's and,
until the ax25 specification is changed, they will continue to do so. <br>
<br>
There's no denying the SCS is a fine piece of gear but you berate fine
equipment that has, and continues, to serve the fraternity well, <b>if
set it up properly</b>. <br>
<br>
Ray vk2tv<br>
<br>
On 29/11/10 17:44, kevcav wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CF34BBF.8080601@bigpond.com" type="cite">Trackers
without a receiver do not conform with the technical specifications
under which we all have agreed to operate when we were licensed.
<br>
<br>
If you want a good system for HF use then get yourself an SCS DSP
Tracker / TNC, all other solutions are simply non compliant and
substandard in their performance.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/29/2010 2:29 PM, Compton Allen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Repeaters Tx with out listening.
<br>
<br>
On 11/29/10, Darryl Smith<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:darryl@radio-active.net.au"><darryl@radio-active.net.au></a> wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">People,
<br>
<br>
From my point of view, the impact is in my mind at least partially
impacted
<br>
by the duty cycle, the randomness of the duty cycle and the location of
the
<br>
transmitter.
<br>
<br>
* Once every 5 seconds is bad and once every month might be OK
<br>
* A random variance of 25% is better than no variance (a random
delay
<br>
between 45 and 75 seconds is better than every 60 seconds)
<br>
* a transmitter without receiver in the Strezleki desert is more
acceptable
<br>
than one in the Sydney CBD.
<br>
<br>
My personal view is that in most applications, since the cost of a full
<br>
RX/TX device is almost the same as a TX device, a RX/TX unit therefore
<br>
should be used. There are in my mind some applications where having a
<br>
receiver might not be acceptable. This would include
<br>
<br>
* High interference situations where a transmitter will work but a
receiver
<br>
will not (Imagine a device transmitting in the vicinity of a spark gap
<br>
transmitter)
<br>
* Where the transmitter is disposable after a single use (down a
mine, or
<br>
in a balloon over the ocean)
<br>
* Where some other form of control is used (remote controlled
transmitters
<br>
for field strength measurements)
<br>
* Where there are unusual mechanical constraints restricting the
use of an
<br>
RX (really small devices)
<br>
<br>
Rule of thumb... Don't transmit without receive.
<br>
<br>
Darryl
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------
<br>
Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia
<br>
Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 Int] - 02 9618 6459
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.radio-active.net.au/blog/">www.radio-active.net.au/blog/</a> - <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.radio-active.net.au/">www.radio-active.net.au/</a>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
OZAPRS mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OZAPRS@aprs.net.au">OZAPRS@aprs.net.au</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs">http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
OZAPRS mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OZAPRS@aprs.net.au">OZAPRS@aprs.net.au</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs">http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>