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:
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@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
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@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
Interesting... thanks!
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Michael Fox - N6MEF n6mef@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@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
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@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting... thanks!
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Michael Fox - N6MEF n6mef@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.
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@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
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
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.
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
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
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Michael Fox - N6MEF n6mef@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
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@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
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-te...
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0901/DA-17-80...
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
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
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@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
You can always ID in the data stream.
On Sep 7, 2017 07:48, "David Ranch" amprgw@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
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@hays.org wrote:
You can always ID in the data stream.
On Sep 7, 2017 07:48, "David Ranch" amprgw@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
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@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [44net] OFDM Modem
You can always ID in the data stream.
-
Bill Vodall -
David Ranch -
John D. Hays -
K7VE - John -
Lin Holcomb -
Michael Fox - N6MEF -
Steve L