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

[Dean Gibson AE7Q]

That's what I figured ("features [that] are common to all WiFi 
systems"); it just made sense (although that is not always determinative!).

So, my next question:  Is there an available tunneling protocol that 
employs those features?

Note that with the ID-1 in the *one watt* setting (same omni antenna), I 
can use the 1.2GHz KB7CNN repeater 35 miles away on East Tiger mountain, 
with no noise in the FM signal. The link to Paine (5 miles away) was 
tried at max power (ten watts) on both radios.  I tried two different 
frequencies (that's the beauty of being able to control both radios from 
one location!): 1.250GHz and 1.249GHz (I listened on both in FM mode), 
with no significant difference.  So, in my opinion, it's a path problem.

On 2014-05-24 13:13, Bart Kus wrote:
> Wow that sucks.  :(  Is the signal level just too low?  Is it a matter 
> of interference?
>
> And yeah, I can confirm that the microwave stuff we use includes both 
> FEC (at up to 1/2 rate) and an ARQ system (look at "hw-retries" 
> setting).  These features are common to all WiFi systems too, and 
> they're just carried over into our NV2 TDMA system.
>
> --Bart
>
> On 5/24/2014 10:19 AM, Dean Gibson AE7Q wrote:
>> 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/20140524/176d13ef/attachment.html>