[HamWAN PSDR] 1.2GHz to Paine [was: 44.x.x.x HamWAN network at Paine]

[Dean Gibson AE7Q]

When you attempt to ping using the K7LWH/DD module, what IP address do 
you specify?

On 2014-05-24 14:36, Bob wrote:
>
> Dean,
>
> Here are some observations and conclusion that I have come up with in 
> adding the ID-1 to the Kirkland Emergency Communications Team's tool 
> box.  I have done a number of tests of the ID-1 from various locations 
> in Kirkland in both the Digital Data (DD) mode and the Digital Voice 
> (DV) mode.  I tested simplex paths (ID-1 to ID-1) and paths to the 
> Lake Washington Ham Club (LWHC) DSTAR DV repeater and DD gateway nodes 
> in Bellevue.
>
> 1.There are a few locations in Kirkland that have direct visual line 
> of site to LWHC Gateway in Belleview.  From those locations, pings are 
> consistently returned in 100 to 200ms with an occasional loss.
>
> 2.We have two location (Stations 22 and 25) are not visual but 
> according to Radio Mobile modeling skim the terrain.  At these sights 
> no ping are returned.
>
> 3.At my home QTH (Lat: 47.694 Lon: -122.2161) I do not have a visual 
> of the LWHC Gateway, but I get occasional pings returned.
>
> 4.John Hays loan me a 1.23 GHz directional antenna. With the 
> directional antenna I detected two paths to the gateway.  One was off 
> a condo about 180 degrees from the gateway about a mile away; the 
> other was off the NOAA building four miles awat at Sand Point about 15 
> degrees clockwise from the gateway. This indicates the presents of 
> multi-paths that could be interfering with the data even with good 
> signal strength.
>
> 5.I will also confirm the DV mode is more robust than the DD mode, but 
> it too is affect by multi-path.
>
> About 2 weeks ago I brought the ID-1 on line to serve as an alternate 
> path to the Winlink CMS.
>
> Bob -- KE7JL
>
>
> *From:*PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org] *On Behalf Of *Dean 
> Gibson AE7Q
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 10:20 AM
> *To:* Puget Sound Data Ring
> *Subject:* [HamWAN PSDR] 1.2GHz to Paine [was: 44.x.x.x HamWAN network 
> at Paine]
>
> Scott Honaker and I have moved forward on this project:
>
>  1. We have installed a gateway (Linksys BEFSR41) between the ID-1 and
>     the internal ARES/RACES subnet (not 44.x.x.x) of the DEM.
>  2. We have installed a Digi "AnywhereUSB" box to give us remote
>     access to the ID-1's USB port, and thus remote control of the ID-1
>     radio.  This not only allows multiple use of the ID-1 (which has
>     useful 1.2GHz FM and digital voice modes as well as Ethernet
>     data), but provides for remote frequency agility and a diagnostic
>     capability. This works beautifully (eg, to search for and use a
>     low-noise frequency)!
>
> Unfortunately, what does not work very well, is the RF portion of the 
> connection.  PINGs failed at a rate of over 99% when using the 1.2GHz 
> antenna at the 70 ft level on the tower, so we swapped the antenna 
> with the one used for the Icom 1.2GHz repeater (which wasn't seeing 
> any action anyway) at 100 ft.  That made a "dramatic" improvement, as 
> PINGs now only fail at a 98% rate (depends upon the time of day, etc)!
>
> Antenna comparison between 1.2GHz and 5.9 GHz for the two sites:
>
>  1. On 1.2GHz, both antennas are omni-directional.
>  2. At the DEM, the 1.2GHz antenna is now at the 100' level, whereas
>     the 5.9GHz antenna is at 150'.
>  3. At my home, the 1.2GHz antenna is about 10' above the 5.9GHz
>     antenna, and it's on the same line-of-sight path.
>
> Note that voice communication between the two sites using the two ID-1 
> radios, is fine (there is a slight bit of noise on FM).
>
> The big difference, in my opinion?  I'll bet that the wireless 
> protocol used by the MikroTik radios includes an aggressive error 
> correction and retry protocol, whereas the ID-1 is like a piece of 
> Ethernet cable, and thus relies on the standard TCP/IP retry 
> mechanism.  The TCP/IP protocols, while "unreliable" in the technical 
> sense of the term, require a higher overall reliability than a typical 
> raw wireless connection.
>
> What this says (and I'm a bit surprised to note this), is that sites 
> considering using ID-1 radios for data communications, may find that 
> even with the tighter siting requirements of 5.9GHz, that the latter 
> may be more successful (whether or not part of HamWAN).  In addition 
> to being a lower-cost radio with a much higher data rate, the MikroTik 
> radios offer a built-in router, which can obviate the need for a 
> separate router.
>
> -- Dean
>
> ps: The callsign and digital code filtering features of D-Star that we 
> previously discussed, are not available (greyed out in the software) 
> for digital *data* mode.  Huh?  Another fine example of software of 
> the "seven last words" of poor program design: *"Why would you want to 
> do that?"*
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20140524/2553b49f/attachment.html>