4 Sep
2017
4 Sep
'17
8:38 a.m.
Lin,
Some time back I picked up a pair of Gemini G3 Dataradios on ebay,
hoping to be able to use them. I quickly learned they really cannot
be used point to point, and you need the expensive base station to act
as a controller between them.
I swear I have read that some models of the radios are capable of
point to point/ peer to peer use. Do you or anyone else know which
models would be good candidates for such a thing?
I ended up giving them to a friend who documented them the best he could:
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/gemini/index.html
4 Sep
4 Sep
8:42 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
They use proprietary modulation so ham radio wise they are out. They made
some 900mhz telemetry radios. Of course you could go direct to the radio
board and modulate. I have the key that decides the band splits, and I am
happy to decode radios, but I can't give the spreadsheet out.
Lin
Ps should have a pretty standard GPS inside that can be used and
programming is not impossible you need a program called DMP demo
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:38 AM Steve L <kb9mwr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Lin,
Some time back I picked up a pair of Gemini G3 Dataradios on ebay,
hoping to be able to use them. I quickly learned they really cannot
be used point to point, and you need the expensive base station to act
as a controller between them.
I swear I have read that some models of the radios are capable of
point to point/ peer to peer use. Do you or anyone else know which
models would be good candidates for such a thing?
I ended up giving them to a friend who documented them the best he could:
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/gemini/index.html
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
7 Sep
7 Sep
12:29 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
I'm just learning about these, so take my answer with a grain of salt.
But I spoke with a distributor today. If you don't need mobile (the
previously reported 80mph capability), then you might also check out the
Viper SC+. It is evidently smaller, cheaper (relatively speaking!), faster,
and can supposedly do point-to-point and point-to-multipoint. It can
function as a bridge or a router. But again, don't quote me on that. I've
only skimmed the manual so far.
http://www.calamp.com/products/private-radios-narrow-band-equipment/private-
mobile-networks/gemini-g3-uhf
http://www.calamp.com/products/cellular-communication-devices-routers/router
s/viper-sc-0
http://www.calamp.com/help/devicehelp/desktop/User_Manuals.htm
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net [mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Steve L
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:38 AM
To: 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: [44net] OFDM Modem
Lin,
Some time back I picked up a pair of Gemini G3 Dataradios on ebay,
hoping to be able to use them. I quickly learned they really cannot
be used point to point, and you need the expensive base station to act
as a controller between them.
I swear I have read that some models of the radios are capable of
point to point/ peer to peer use. Do you or anyone else know which
models would be good candidates for such a thing?
I ended up giving them to a friend who documented them the best he could:
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/gemini/index.html
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:57 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
Interesting... thanks!
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Michael Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org> wrote:
I'm just learning about these, so take my answer
with a grain of salt.
But I spoke with a distributor today. If you don't need mobile (the
previously reported 80mph capability), then you might also check out the
Viper SC+. It is evidently smaller, cheaper (relatively speaking!), faster,
and can supposedly do point-to-point and point-to-multipoint. It can
function as a bridge or a router. But again, don't quote me on that. I've
only skimmed the manual so far.
http://www.calamp.com/products/private-radios-narrow-band-equipment/private-
mobile-networks/gemini-g3-uhf
http://www.calamp.com/products/cellular-communication-devices-routers/router
s/viper-sc-0
http://www.calamp.com/help/devicehelp/desktop/User_Manuals.htm
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net [mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Steve L
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:38 AM
To: 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: [44net] OFDM Modem
Lin,
Some time back I picked up a pair of Gemini G3 Dataradios on ebay,
hoping to be able to use them. I quickly learned they really cannot
be used point to point, and you need the expensive base station to act
as a controller between them.
I swear I have read that some models of the radios are capable of
point to point/ peer to peer use. Do you or anyone else know which
models would be good candidates for such a thing?
I ended up giving them to a friend who documented them the best he could:
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/gemini/index.html
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
9:42 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
A lot has changes since I left in 2000. This is good news, however I
wonder if the modulation and protocol are proprietary. I will ask Sherman
W4ATL he was there up until they closed the office in Atlanta just after
the CalAmp acquisition.
Lin
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Steve L <kb9mwr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting... thanks!
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Michael Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org>
wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
I'm just learning about these, so take my
answer with a grain of salt.
But I spoke with a distributor today. If you don't need mobile (the
previously reported 80mph capability), then you might also check out the
Viper SC+. It is evidently smaller, cheaper (relatively speaking!),
faster,
and can supposedly do point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint. It can
function as a bridge or a router. But again, don't quote me on that.
I've
only skimmed the manual so far.
http://www.calamp.com/products/private-radios-
narrow-band-equipment/private-
mobile-networks/gemini-g3-uhf
http://www.calamp.com/products/cellular-communication-devices-routers/
router
s/viper-sc-0
http://www.calamp.com/help/devicehelp/desktop/User_Manuals.htm
Michael
N6MEF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 44Net [mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Steve L
> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:38 AM
> To: 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: [44net] OFDM Modem
>
> Lin,
>
> Some time back I picked up a pair of Gemini G3 Dataradios on ebay,
> hoping to be able to use them. I quickly learned they really cannot
> be used point to point, and you need the expensive base station to act
> as a controller between them.
>
> I swear I have read that some models of the radios are capable of
> point to point/ peer to peer use. Do you or anyone else know which
> models would be good candidates for such a thing?
>
> I ended up giving them to a friend who documented them the best he
could:
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/gemini/index.html
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
10:04 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
A lot has changes since I left in 2000. This is good
news, however I
wonder if the modulation and protocol are proprietary. I will ask Sherman
W4ATL he was there up until they closed the office in Atlanta just after
the CalAmp acquisition.
Lin
Thanks.
And this is why I was trying to figure out what we need to ask for in the
rule changes.
BTW, I disagree with (apparently) most folks here in that I believe some
bandwidth limits are needed. Unfortunately, the world has changed and we
don't live in a Normal Rockwell painting anymore.
I listened to the recording of Imlay that someone else posted. His
solution: hams need to work together to avoid interference. That's
ignorant (or, at best, naïve). It doesn't answer the question: and what do
you do when someone refuses to abide by the rules.
Case(s) in point: Here in California, we have repeater guys putting up
repeaters on the same frequency as packet stations and then claiming - "hey,
I'm coordinated, too bad." Laura Smith at the FCC agree that the guy was
being a douche, but refused to get involved. In fact, she said that in
Arizona, they have hams putting up repeaters on the same frequencies as
other repeaters, just to piss off the other guy. And the Arizona folks
formed a separate coordinating body to do it. So they both claim
coordination and it's a stand-off.
Just like with the roadways, it would be nice to have no speed limits, and
to rely on folks to be safe, only go as fast as they need to, and watch out
for others. But that just doesn't work in the real world. There are just
too many morons and outright a-holes that will take advantage of that
situation.
Michael
N6MEF
11:12 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
BTW, I disagree with (apparently) most folks here in
that I believe some
bandwidth limits are needed. Unfortunately, the world has changed and we
don't live in a Normal Rockwell painting anymore.
Since it takes such an insanely long time to get the Commission to
change rules, I tend to agree. I can see the concern on HF, but I
think above 50 MHz you are just fooling yourself. I mean image is
permitted on 2 meters, so that scenario of a really wide signal on the
band that someone else posted could already happen. And really the
only reason I say I am okay with a bandwidth limit on HF is because I
feel without agreeing to that the ham community is just going to
argue about this for the next 25 years.
I listened to the recording of Imlay that someone else
posted. His
solution: hams need to work together to avoid interference. That's
ignorant (or, at best, naïve). It doesn't answer the question: and what do
you do when someone refuses to abide by the rules.
Do you have a link to this? I'd be interested. Since there is so
little enforcement action now a days, I am not sure the question is
something that I really even concern myself with. You just said Laura
Smith refused to get involved in your local example.
1:32 p.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
only reason I say I am okay with a bandwidth limit on
HF is because I
feel without agreeing to that the ham community is just going to
argue about this for the next 25 years.
We should separate the computers from the human users on HF. Give
the computers their own segment, perhaps twice the current unattended
data allocation, and let the automated/computer stations do anything
and everything in that whole segment. Folks still using a keyboard
or code key would have a clean segment never cluttered by the
computers...
Bill
3:43 p.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
Do you have a link to this? I'd be interested.
Uhm, I think you posted it!
http://kb9mwr.blogspot.com/2013/09/amateur-radio-in-2037.html
Since there is so
little enforcement action now a days, I am not sure the question is
something that I really even concern myself with. You just said Laura
Smith refused to get involved in your local example.
They don't enforce judgement calls. So is it "good engineering and amateur
practice" (or whatever that rule says) if I'm trying to use 25kHz and you decide
you need the whole band? I guess that depends on whether they ask me or you. Were you
intentionally interfering with me? Even after I let you know I was there? In our case,
it was coordination vs. coordination. The rogue folks just created their own coordinating
body so they could coordinate whatever they wanted, whether it made sense or not, and then
claim, "hey, we're coordinated!". Never mind that others had been there for
years and were active stations prior. (In one case, it was a DX spotting node for all of
NorCal run by, believe or not, the ARRL Pacific Division Director!) The ARRL refused to
do anything (as usual). And, since the FCC rules don't say anything about timeline,
making a decision would require the application of some common sense. Evidently
that's not available at the FCC.
But they do enforce black-and-white stuff (out of band, spurious, etc.). That's why
I'm in favor of bandwidth limits. It can be measured easily. But I guess I'm in
the minority.
It probably doesn't matter anyway. With all of the other FCC restrictions preventing
new data technology and service development, the ham bands are becoming more irrelevant
for data every day. And the lack of FCC enforcement, the ham bands are more like CB every
day. People trying to do meaningful things will get fed up and leave. Problem solved.
Isn't government wonderful!
Michael
N6MEF
4:36 p.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Michael Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org> wrote:
They don't enforce judgement calls. So is it "good engineering and
amateur practice" (or whatever that rule says) if I'm trying to use 25kHz
and you decide you need the whole band? I guess that depends on whether
they ask me or you. Were you intentionally interfering with me? Even
after I let you know I was there? In our case, it was coordination vs.
coordination. The rogue folks just created their own coordinating body so
they could coordinate whatever they wanted, whether it made sense or not,
and then claim, "hey, we're coordinated!". Never mind that others had
been
there for years and were active stations prior. (In one case, it was a DX
spotting node for all of NorCal run by, believe or not, the ARRL Pacific
Division Director!) The ARRL refused to do anything (as usual). And,
since the FCC rules don't say anything about timeline, making a decision
would require the application of some common sense. Evidently that's not
available at the FCC.
For U.S. consumption:
Neither the ARRL nor local coordinating bodies have any enforcement
authority. The FCC is the enforcement body. The others only make
recommendations and document their processes. The rule, only says that for
repeater operation, the FCC can use coordination by a recognized local
coordinator to determine who needs to mitigate *harmful* interference.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
8 Sep
8 Sep
1:57 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
Well that explains why it sounded familiar :-)
I wonder how much enforcement action the FCC does for ham radio in a
years time? Some statistics would be interesting. From time to time
you might catch a blurb on the ARRL website.
I think generally you get a scary letter from an OO on League
letterhead. Then if you ignore that you might get another Scary
letter from the commission. And if you are bullheaded then that is
when bad things potentially start. Basically you are given plenty of
opportunities to straiten up and fly right. If it take "authority" to
get a guy to clean up his act, that is pretty sad. I'd like to think
and hope that is a very rare thing.
I do know of a local case in the last 10 years where a spur was in the
air craft band from a 24/7 transmit ham radio remote receive site for
a repeater. They must have DF'd the thing.. either way I was kind of
shocked it was just a letter telling the guy to fix it or shut it of
within a few week time period. And nothing more became of it because
we fixed the thing. So while it sounded really bad, they were pretty
friendly about thing, probably because it was non intentional.
"People trying to do meaningful things will get fed up and leave." I
can relate to that! I have seen it happen many times and am always
trying not to let it happen to me. "Clubs" that treat their few
technical members poorly with a laundry list.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Michael Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org> wrote:
Do you have a
link to this? I'd be interested.
Uhm, I think you posted it!
http://kb9mwr.blogspot.com/2013/09/amateur-radio-in-2037.html
Since there is so
little enforcement action now a days, I am not sure the question is
something that I really even concern myself with. You just said Laura
Smith refused to get involved in your local example.
They don't enforce judgement calls. So is it "good engineering and amateur
practice" (or whatever that rule says) if I'm trying to use 25kHz and you decide
you need the whole band? I guess that depends on whether they ask me or you. Were you
intentionally interfering with me? Even after I let you know I was there? In our case,
it was coordination vs. coordination. The rogue folks just created their own coordinating
body so they could coordinate whatever they wanted, whether it made sense or not, and then
claim, "hey, we're coordinated!". Never mind that others had been there for
years and were active stations prior. (In one case, it was a DX spotting node for all of
NorCal run by, believe or not, the ARRL Pacific Division Director!) The ARRL refused to
do anything (as usual). And, since the FCC rules don't say anything about timeline,
making a decision would require the application of some common sense. Evidently
that's not available at the FCC.
But they do enforce black-and-white stuff (out of band, spurious, etc.). That's why
I'm in favor of bandwidth limits. It can be measured easily. But I guess I'm in
the minority.
It probably doesn't matter anyway. With all of the other FCC restrictions preventing
new data technology and service development, the ham bands are becoming more irrelevant
for data every day. And the lack of FCC enforcement, the ham bands are more like CB every
day. People trying to do meaningful things will get fed up and leave. Problem solved.
Isn't government wonderful!
Michael
N6MEF
10:31 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
Well, while the previous bits per symbol issue seems to be stalled
within the FCC since 2013 (I think that's right), maybe we can take a
different approach to see if we can get this (and other) ridiculous US
restrictions changed. I believe if we cite what other countries let
their licensed amateur radio operators do, maybe that will help our cause:
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-technological-advisory-council-investigating-t…
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0901/DA-17-8…
I feel that any US amateur that feels some of these restrictions should
change (I do), PLEASE file a comment directly. Don't assume someone
else will do it for you and I also think the more comments they receive
here, the more it will speak to the burden it's creating for all of us.
Btw, don't hope the ARRL will do this our behalf either.
--David
KI6ZHD
On 09/07/2017 01:43 PM, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
. . . It probably doesn't matter anyway. With all of the other FCC restrictions
preventing new data technology and service development, the ham bands are becoming more
irrelevant for data every day. And the lack of FCC enforcement, the ham bands are more
like CB every day. People trying to do meaningful things will get fed up and leave.
Problem solved. Isn't government wonderful!
Michael
N6MEF
7 Sep
7 Sep
9:48 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
Hmm.. interesting find Michael. It's interesting to see they are
getting (in theory) 128Kbps out of 50khz. This reminds me of Dstar's
1.2Ghz DD that did the same but out of 150Khz. That's an impressive
reduction in utilized spectrum yet these units support 2m, 1.25m, 70cm,
and 33cm! I'm curious if these units would be legal for amateur use (do
they have an IDer, etc.) and what the solution costs for both mobiles
and base stations. Maybe they would consider HAM discounts?
--David
KI6ZHD
On 09/06/2017 10:29 PM, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
I'm just learning about these, so take my answer
with a grain of salt.
But I spoke with a distributor today. If you don't need mobile (the
previously reported 80mph capability), then you might also check out the
Viper SC+. It is evidently smaller, cheaper (relatively speaking!), faster,
and can supposedly do point-to-point and point-to-multipoint. It can
function as a bridge or a router. But again, don't quote me on that. I've
only skimmed the manual so far.
http://www.calamp.com/products/private-radios-narrow-band-equipment/private-
mobile-networks/gemini-g3-uhf
http://www.calamp.com/products/cellular-communication-devices-routers/router
s/viper-sc-0
http://www.calamp.com/help/devicehelp/desktop/User_Manuals.htm
Michael
N6MEF
10:03 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
I know under Bob's ownership aka the father of AX25 packet the answer was
no on any ham use, but that was 16 years ago LOL
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:48 AM, David Ranch <amprgw(a)trinnet.net> wrote:
>
> Hmm.. interesting find Michael. It's interesting to see they are getting
> (in theory) 128Kbps out of 50khz. This reminds me of Dstar's 1.2Ghz DD
> that did the same but out of 150Khz. That's an impressive reduction in
> utilized spectrum yet these units support 2m, 1.25m, 70cm, and 33cm! I'm
> curious if these units would be legal for amateur use (do they have an
> IDer, etc.) and what the solution costs for both mobiles and base
> stations. Maybe they would consider HAM discounts?
>
> --David
> KI6ZHD
>
>
> On 09/06/2017 10:29 PM, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
>
>> I'm just learning about these, so take my answer with a grain of salt.
>>
>> But I spoke with a distributor today. If you don't need mobile (the
>> previously reported 80mph capability), then you might also check out the
>> Viper SC+. It is evidently smaller, cheaper (relatively speaking!),
>> faster,
>> and can supposedly do point-to-point and point-to-multipoint. It can
>> function as a bridge or a router. But again, don't quote me on that.
>> I've
>> only skimmed the manual so far.
>>
>> http://www.calamp.com/products/private-radios-narrow-band-
>> equipment/private-
>> mobile-networks/gemini-g3-uhf
>> http://www.calamp.com/products/cellular-communication-
>> devices-routers/router
>> s/viper-sc-0
>> http://www.calamp.com/help/devicehelp/desktop/User_Manuals.htm
>>
>> Michael
>> N6MEF
>>
>
>
10:13 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
You can always ID in the data stream.
On Sep 7, 2017 07:48, "David Ranch" <amprgw(a)trinnet.net> wrote:
Hmm.. interesting find Michael. It's interesting to see they are getting
(in theory) 128Kbps out of 50khz. This reminds me of Dstar's 1.2Ghz DD
that did the same but out of 150Khz. That's an impressive reduction in
utilized spectrum yet these units support 2m, 1.25m, 70cm, and 33cm! I'm
curious if these units would be legal for amateur use (do they have an
IDer, etc.) and what the solution costs for both mobiles and base
stations. Maybe they would consider HAM discounts?
--David
KI6ZHD
10:23 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
I can tell you we were getting 56kbps 17 years ago and testing 64kps on
25khz ch. I did bandwidth testing with very watchful eyes from govt IT and
police officers who wanted to make sure they were getting what they were
paying for as /\/\oto was telling them it was vaporware and not physically
possible. I left several sites with very impressed customers. Especially
after we did the drive tests.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:13 AM, John D. Hays <john(a)hays.org> wrote:
> You can always ID in the data stream.
>
> On Sep 7, 2017 07:48, "David Ranch" <amprgw(a)trinnet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hmm.. interesting find Michael. It's interesting to see they are getting
> (in theory) 128Kbps out of 50khz. This reminds me of Dstar's 1.2Ghz DD
> that did the same but out of 150Khz. That's an impressive reduction in
> utilized spectrum yet these units support 2m, 1.25m, 70cm, and 33cm! I'm
> curious if these units would be legal for amateur use (do they have an
> IDer, etc.) and what the solution costs for both mobiles and base
> stations. Maybe they would consider HAM discounts?
>
> --David
> KI6ZHD
>
10:56 a.m.
New subject: OFDM Modem
It has a CW-ID feature. In fact it has MANY features for optimizing data
over radio. It seems to be very well thought out.
The issue is the modulation scheme and whether it falls under the allowed
emission types. There's also the option of obtaining a license for a
different band.
Maybe I'm naïve. But similar to the MotoTRBO issue, which also was not an
allowed emission type under Part 97, I think if we have a working solution
we can go to the FCC for relief. I guess we'll see. But I haven't seen
another viable option for 56-100K in UHF.
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net [mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of John D. Hays
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 8:13 AM
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] OFDM Modem
You can always ID in the data stream.
2635
days inactive
2639
days old
16 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Bill Vodall -
David Ranch -
John D. Hays -
K7VE - John -
Lin Holcomb -
Michael Fox - N6MEF -
Steve L