Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: SGARN  (Read 27229 times)
N5PVL
Member

Posts: 209




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2013, 07:14:12 PM »

Sometimes it's best to try photobucket:

http://s239.photobucket.com/user/arwatch/media/SGARN%20Images/f-b-r_zps190b2378-1.jpg.html

( Click Image to See It Larger )



I sent a copy to the ARRL, they can do a much better job of it as I am no computer graphic artist. Still the graphic I made does clearly outline the relationship between Frequency, Bandwidth and Range, a relationship that many amateurs find it difficult to visualize.

73 DE Charles, N5PVL
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 07:19:02 PM by N5PVL » Logged
AF6WL
Member

Posts: 129




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: August 19, 2013, 12:10:00 AM »

I would like to see a HF SMS mailbox and alert system
Let say with regional gateways operating on e.g. 80m and 40m with 1kHz bandwidth supporting multiple PSK31 like streams.
Oceanic gateways on 20m could also be useful.

The lowest frequency stream would be for identification, alert and bulletin traffic.
A rotating priority traffic for callsign XXXX list - much the way shipping traffic used to be broadcast could also be included.
For routine traffic an amateur would send a short get mailbox status message to see if they had any traffic.
This being amateur radio there would be no such thing as privacy or need for it.

By restricting messages to <128 characters and introducing a deliberate non emergency 5 minute to air message latency to discourage chat the service should not become swamped with too many users.
A internet based web interface would keep most of the traffic off the air and allow non field users access to mailboxes and allow sending and reading of messages without latency.

The main use for such a service would be to sent messages to/from Amateurs in areas without phone coverage (or when it fails ).
A interface to the public phone SMS system might be worked in - with the gateway software policing content and access.
Perhaps a limited number per day per user SMS length queries to google could also be entertained e.g '<google> weather next 24 hours Sinkyone SP'

Access protocols could be by keyword or by a simple iphone/android app interfacing with a radio.

As regional location of the amteur is likely to be known, inter regional address routing could be determined by the callsign/ regional callsign ( if any ) . Or a basic routing similar to the way the ocean region needed to selected with Inmarsat calls.

Extending this SMS system to LEO satellites could also work. DominoEX might be a better mode in this case.
Small dedicated single channel single band PSK31/SSB tcvrs for 80/40/20 or even 2m/70cms should not be too difficult to design.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 12:44:45 AM by AF6WL » Logged
AF6WL
Member

Posts: 129




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: August 19, 2013, 01:50:58 AM »

I would like to see a HF SMS mailbox and alert system
Let say with regional gateways operating on e.g. 80m and 40m with 1kHz bandwidth supporting multiple PSK31 like streams.
...
The lowest frequency stream would be for identification, alert and bulletin traffic.
A rotating priority traffic for callsign XXXX list - much the way shipping traffic used to be broadcast could also be included.
Just thinking for this to work a Time Division Duplex system would have to be used.
Perhaps the lowest stream - effectively the control channel determines this : TX for 60 seconds then off for 60 seconds - indicating user should transmit.
Logged
K3DCW
Member

Posts: 182




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: August 19, 2013, 02:26:58 AM »

Sometimes it's best to try photobucket:

http://s239.photobucket.com/user/arwatch/media/SGARN%20Images/f-b-r_zps190b2378-1.jpg.html

( Click Image to See It Larger )



I sent a copy to the ARRL, they can do a much better job of it as I am no computer graphic artist. Still the graphic I made does clearly outline the relationship between Frequency, Bandwidth and Range, a relationship that many amateurs find it difficult to visualize.


Charles,

I hoped that the graphic would illustrate something enlightening about SGARN; instead is simply shows a very basic concept/relationship that nearly every amateur understands completely. 

Oh well.  Still trying to figure what exactly SGARN brings to the table that no one else does.

73

Dave
K3DCW
Logged
K3DCW
Member

Posts: 182




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 19, 2013, 02:29:08 AM »

I would like to see a HF SMS mailbox and alert system
Let say with regional gateways operating on e.g. 80m and 40m with 1kHz bandwidth supporting multiple PSK31 like streams.
Oceanic gateways on 20m could also be useful.

The lowest frequency stream would be for identification, alert and bulletin traffic.
A rotating priority traffic for callsign XXXX list - much the way shipping traffic used to be broadcast could also be included.
For routine traffic an amateur would send a short get mailbox status message to see if they had any traffic.
This being amateur radio there would be no such thing as privacy or need for it.

By restricting messages to <128 characters and introducing a deliberate non emergency 5 minute to air message latency to discourage chat the service should not become swamped with too many users.
A internet based web interface would keep most of the traffic off the air and allow non field users access to mailboxes and allow sending and reading of messages without latency.

The main use for such a service would be to sent messages to/from Amateurs in areas without phone coverage (or when it fails ).
A interface to the public phone SMS system might be worked in - with the gateway software policing content and access.
Perhaps a limited number per day per user SMS length queries to google could also be entertained e.g '<google> weather next 24 hours Sinkyone SP'

Access protocols could be by keyword or by a simple iphone/android app interfacing with a radio.

As regional location of the amteur is likely to be known, inter regional address routing could be determined by the callsign/ regional callsign ( if any ) . Or a basic routing similar to the way the ocean region needed to selected with Inmarsat calls.

Extending this SMS system to LEO satellites could also work. DominoEX might be a better mode in this case.
Small dedicated single channel single band PSK31/SSB tcvrs for 80/40/20 or even 2m/70cms should not be too difficult to design.

I see where something like this could be useful, but you missed the part where SGARN wants no non-ham links; so no internet, no phone, no SMS.

73

Dave
K3DCW
Logged
KC2UGV
Member

Posts: 219




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 19, 2013, 04:56:06 AM »

Sometimes it's best to try photobucket:

http://s239.photobucket.com/user/arwatch/media/SGARN%20Images/f-b-r_zps190b2378-1.jpg.html

( Click Image to See It Larger )



I sent a copy to the ARRL, they can do a much better job of it as I am no computer graphic artist. Still the graphic I made does clearly outline the relationship between Frequency, Bandwidth and Range, a relationship that many amateurs find it difficult to visualize.

73 DE Charles, N5PVL


Ok, this graphic covers a basic concept of radio data links, that every amateur and professional wireless link engineer knows.

Let me re-phrase a bit:

Your problem domain is the inherent bandwidth restrictions vs distance of wireless RF links.

Now, what is your solution set, and how does it solve the problem?

Basically, from what I gather with SGARN, it's a bulletin system, much like the Amateur Radio Newsline, which the most current can be obtained on HF via voice, digital modes, and CW.  On VHF, you can get it by voice and you can get all back issues by digital.  The only difference, is your system runs 24x7, and currently, it's on a schedule for HF, and VHF voice.

I mean, I can almost see one way to use SGARN, however, from your pas writings, it sounds like you would dismiss it out of hand, and I have no desire to force the issue (FWIW, delivery of QWK packets for transferring BBS message bases and netmail via HF).
Logged
K3DCW
Member

Posts: 182




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 19, 2013, 05:22:43 AM »


Now, what is your solution set, and how does it solve the problem?



That is the million-dollar question, isn't it?


73

Dave
K3DCW
Logged
N5PVL
Member

Posts: 209




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 19, 2013, 07:30:04 AM »

SGARN is an attempt to establish a viable global ham radio network which avoids some of the pitfalls and pratfalls of the old Packet network.

The network is designed from the bottom up, frequency-wise as the lower frequencies give us less bandwidth to work with.

So, the HF part of SGARN traffic is the starting point for VHF, which adds more functionality and content, which in turn becomes the starting point for UHF, and so on to SHF where amateur tcpip and HSMM applications come into play. The idea here is to develop a coherent network that utilizes each band to its fullest ability - as opposed to the old Packet network, which tried ( and failed ) to do the same old thing on all bands.

Since the HF operations are the starting point, that is what we are concentrating on right now. The AMP HF networking is something entirely new to amateur radio. It will be self-organizing to a large extent, so no protocol or routing paradigm beyond AMP is required. - AMP servers will listen on one band, while transmitting on another - or alternately listen for X number of hours to pick up the current data, then transmit for X number of hours hours to distribute it.

All SGARN operation will be within established "watering hole" frequencies so that receiving stations can collect data from several servers at once for a significant speed advantage.

Current files on Client systems will be automatically replaced by new versions as they are received and created on the Client hard-drive. - In other words, ARLP033 will be automatically replaced by ARLP034 when it arrives.

The HF content is limited to bulletin traffic only, and only bulletin traffic from established organizations. - That would be the ARRL and AMSAT here in the USA, but overseas there are other organizations that generate bulletin traffic that would be multicast. Currently the IARU does not distribute bulletins, but a global multicast network may well change that.

Operating an HF AMP server today with the typical 100 watt solid-state radio, the heat build-up from continuous-duty operation limits the practical bandwidth and power output to @ 500 Hz bandwidth digital modes at 25 watts. Some digital modes present more of a load on the transmitter than others... So far, MFSK32 looks like a good candidate - but mode testing is still in progress. Note that VOA currently utilizes MFSK16 and MFSK32.

Here I am trying different cooling systems that will allow either more bandwidth, more power or possibly both. I have refrigerated a transmitter in the past with good results, and will be looking into an inexpensive, efficient system for doing that in the coming months.

HF multicast is far more efficient, by several orders of magnitude, than any conceivable point-to-point data distribution system for HF - but only for a limited number of messages addressed to "ALL", thus the content limitation. ( Bulletins from a few organizations )

Noting the steady failure of Packet P-mail despite the existence of non-ham internet crutch stations within the Packet network, the SGARN network will not attempt to transport personal messaging over HF, and will not attempt to move bulletin traffic coming from individuals. - For various reasons these have not worked out well on HF for the old Packet network, so SGARN will avoid those pitfalls altogether.

Note that what SGARN does or does not do has no effect upon what others may want to try. - If you want to distribute P-mail and bulletins from individual hams on HF, why go right ahead and do so.

Remember: SGARN is an attempt to establish a viable global ham radio network which avoids some of the pitfalls and pratfalls of the old Packet network.

73 DE Charles, N5PVL


Logged
N5PVL
Member

Posts: 209




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2013, 07:40:12 AM »


Charles,

I hoped that the graphic would illustrate something enlightening about SGARN; instead is simply shows a very basic concept/relationship that nearly every amateur understands completely. 

73

Dave
K3DCW

You'd be amazed at how many amateurs, especially among the "Hinternet" enthusiasts, display an utter lack of understanding in this area.

No particular effort has been made to get this simple concept/relationship across to amateurs - thus the graphic, and my act of sending a copy to the ARRL for possible inclusion in their publications.

73 DE Charles, N5PVL
Logged
K3DCW
Member

Posts: 182




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2013, 07:55:05 AM »

You'd be amazed at how many amateurs, especially among the "Hinternet" enthusiasts, display an utter lack of understanding in this area.

Charles,

Perhaps.  It is something I've been familiar with for a couple of decades, so maybe I just take that understanding for granted.

73

Dave
K3DCW
Logged
K3DCW
Member

Posts: 182




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2013, 08:12:12 AM »

Noting the steady failure of Packet P-mail despite the existence of non-ham internet crutch stations within the Packet network, the SGARN network will not attempt to transport personal messaging over HF, and will not attempt to move bulletin traffic coming from individuals. - For various reasons these have not worked out well on HF for the old Packet network, so SGARN will avoid those pitfalls altogether.

Note that what SGARN does or does not do has no effect upon what others may want to try. - If you want to distribute P-mail and bulletins from individual hams on HF, why go right ahead and do so.

Remember: SGARN is an attempt to establish a viable global ham radio network which avoids some of the pitfalls and pratfalls of the old Packet network.

I appreciate your efforts at building this network, and I understand the baseline capability on HF, and building more capability as you go higher in the bands and more bandwidth becomes available.  Some of the capabilities associated with HSMM are quite interesting, but in the end, it still raises the question; what will this network do?

I can understand, although I may not fully agree with, the decision not to have personal messaging on HF, but does that mean that you intend to support these types of features on VHF and above?  I can see a great use for multimedia content being sent into/out of an limited area using those bands with greater bandwidth.  Is this one of your goals for further development? I know there are regulatory issues regarding bulletin content and the such, but perhaps opening this up to some type of very short HF messaging (140 character Twitter-like, for example) may bring more interest and people on board.  

I think that a lot of the push back you've been getting from myself and others is related to that question; what will the network do?  If you can define your long-term development goals more clearly, then perhaps you'll get more backing.  Right now, the "Second Generation Amateur Radio Network" with the HF content solely consisting of ARRL and AMSAT radio bulletins looks like nothing much more than a digital version of a certain K1 station's activities in Maine or a duplication of W1AW's bulletin schedules.  

As I've said before, I'm all for the development of new capabilities and I support the development of this type of network IF it can be shown to contribute something more than bandwidth occupancy.  My opposition on some of the forums/mailing lists isn't intended to discourage you, but rather to run the idea through some public discourse.  It still seems a lot like an idea without a problem to solve.  Perhaps it will grow and will find a niche that it can serve, or perhaps not.  In any case, I do support your endeavor and do wish you luck.

73

Dave
K3DCW  
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 08:31:32 AM by K3DCW » Logged
AF6WL
Member

Posts: 129




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2013, 08:24:49 AM »

SGARN is an attempt to establish a viable global ham radio network which avoids some of the pitfalls and pratfalls of the old Packet network.
...
HF multicast is far more efficient, by several orders of magnitude, than any conceivable point-to-point data distribution system for HF - but only for a limited number of messages addressed to "ALL", thus the content limitation. ( Bulletins from a few organizations )
..
Remember: SGARN is an attempt to establish a viable global ham radio network which avoids some of the pitfalls and pratfalls of the old Packet network.


At this stage, what you are describing is not so much a network more a broadcast distribution system.
Logged
KC2UGV
Member

Posts: 219




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2013, 08:32:11 AM »


Charles,

I hoped that the graphic would illustrate something enlightening about SGARN; instead is simply shows a very basic concept/relationship that nearly every amateur understands completely. 

73

Dave
K3DCW

You'd be amazed at how many amateurs, especially among the "Hinternet" enthusiasts, display an utter lack of understanding in this area.

No particular effort has been made to get this simple concept/relationship across to amateurs - thus the graphic, and my act of sending a copy to the ARRL for possible inclusion in their publications.

73 DE Charles, N5PVL


You would be amazed at how many people fail to realize the strengths of an already designed protocol for dealing with slow and saturated links.

TCP already deals with route saturation.  It was built for 300 bps links.

I've been talking in the SGARN group, and it doesn't appear much at all is "designed" really, as far as a network goes.  A few stations continuously sending bulletins is far from a "network", and not much different than what we have already with things the Amateur Radio Newsline.
Logged
N5PVL
Member

Posts: 209




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2013, 04:33:26 PM »


You would be amazed at how many people fail to realize the strengths of an already designed protocol for dealing with slow and saturated links.

TCP already deals with route saturation.  It was built for 300 bps links.

I've been talking in the SGARN group, and it doesn't appear much at all is "designed" really, as far as a network goes.  A few stations continuously sending bulletins is far from a "network", and not much different than what we have already with things the Amateur Radio Newsline.

The HF system I am utilizing is new, and is an attempt to innovate rather than emulate.

One of the more self-destructive Boo-boos in the Packet network was it being a case of emulation rather than innovation. Old stuff was kludged up to work more or less over the radio, but it was designed for wired networking and so of course it never quite worked right. - The long range "backbone" links were significantly slower than the user access and local communications, the exact opposite of the conditions that wired networking models like TCPIP are designed to work with.

By your standards perhaps the SGARN net is not "designed" because it does not use the system that you are familiar with. To those of us who are working on SGARN though, the situation may look and feel a little different.

It is my feeling that adding TCPIP protocol would only serve to complicate matters, reduce participation, and ultimately introduce more setbacks and delays than advantages.

You can of course setup and operate the kind of network that you prefer, as SGARN network operation will do nothing to prevent you from doing so.

If what you are doing is more successful and gets more participants, I will then be happy to acknowledge that that is the case.

Note that I'm talking about doing, not theorizing. - You will have to actually do something that does the exact same task better, not just talk theory.

73 DE Charles, N5PVL
Logged
N5PVL
Member

Posts: 209




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2013, 05:24:15 PM »


I appreciate your efforts at building this network, and I understand the baseline capability on HF, and building more capability as you go higher in the bands and more bandwidth becomes available.  Some of the capabilities associated with HSMM are quite interesting, but in the end, it still raises the question; what will this network do?

73

Dave
K3DCW  

Its early days yet to say about that. - The idea is to avoid banging our heads up against the laws of physics and good operating practice. To use amateur radio exclusively for this network. To innovate where possible rather than emulate, and to avoid proprietary software or firmware while we are at it.

The overall design of the SGARN is set up the way that it is for several very good reasons. One reason is that it works with the advantages of RF rather than fighting its disadvantages. Another, more idealistic reason is that sticking with RF all of the way and striving to innovate instead of emulating old wired network designs will put us in a position to advance the radio art in ways that future generations will appreciate and remember.

One very significant difference between Amateur Radio networking and wired networking has to do with the long range "backbone" links in comparison to local communications and backbone access.

With Ham Radio, the long range backbone links are significantly slower and of lower capacity that the local access.

This is the direct opposite of the situation with wired networks, where the backbone links are of significantly higher speed and capacity.

This is why wired networking design is so unsatisfactory when amateur radio is stretched out upon its Procrustean bed. Look at what trying to utilize it did for Packet Radio.

This is also why the SGARN effort on HF is striving to innovate rather than emulate. - Since no wired network has been designed to fit the set of conditions we have to work with, of course none of them are going to work very well for us, so we have to break out of the familiar wired networking box. - And innovate.

About the future generations: Think of communications between people who live on distant planets, moon and space habitats. - They will experience the very same challenges that hams face with the long-haul links being slower and of lower capacity than local communications and network access.

Nobody is seriously working on that problem now of course, but we as Hams have a global test-bed for developing precisely the kind of networking technique that will someday drive communications between habitats separated in space. The overall network parameters for SGARN are the same as people will face in the future, where you can't just lay out a high-capacity backbone like the wired networks do.

In the future, wired network design will be thought of as "local communications", and will correspond to the UHF and SHF aspect of SGARN. - The hierarchy of frequency/bandwidth/range that SGARN works with while employing all of the amateur bands including HF will very closely correspond to the solar-system wide network of the future.

Can amateurs build and develop something now that will be recognized and appreciated by future generations? - Of course we can, and that is the more romantic side of SGARN network innovation and design.

What will it do and be like? - I dunno, it's early days, yet.

73 DE Charles, N5PVL

Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!