Marty Albert wrote:

For the life of me, I can see no reason why Frank's device could not be
re-designed today to well over 512 Mbps, perhaps very close to gigabit
speeds. If you make the jump to the new copper solutions for 10 Gbps, we may
even be able to get close to that...

What was the on-the-air bandwidth of Frank's 80Mbps signal?


Dana K6JQ

Marty,

Yes I am drooling over the possibility. Like you I can imagine these
fantastic star networks ringing the big metro areas. I think though
that to be feasible the community needs to look at whats available
off-the-shelf. Obviously if someone technically brilliant can take
Frank's idea and build something that can be cheaply manufactured, that
would be ideal. But Icom's D-Star system is available, and hams are
using 802.11 access points with amplifiers and directional antennas
(www.arrl.org/hsmm/). Maybe a club somewhere has a network like this
already running. It would take a dedicated group of hams with some
fairly serious resources (capital, access to good sites, know-how) to
pull something like this off.

In my area a small group of ATV guys have put up a repeater, and have
established several sites at EOC's, with the goal of providing ATV
"on-demand" to emergency officials. A network project could piggyback
on something like that.

Matt, N3SOZ



Marty Albert wrote:

For the life of me, I can see no reason why Frank's device could not
be
re-designed today to well over 512 Mbps, perhaps very close to
gigabit
speeds. If you make the jump to the new copper solutions for 10 Gbps,
we may
even be able to get close to that...

Imagine a large metropolitan area, like maybe Dallas/Fort Worth,
ringed by
an 8 Gbps nodes with spokes at 8 Gbps "dropping" into and through the
city.
A series of 1 Gbps nodes come off of the spokes to feed into the
neighborhood. In the neighborhoods, picture a bridge node that users
can
connect to at, say, 100 Mbps. Lastly, picture these "City Wheels"
being
connected to other city wheels at 10 Gbps.

Are you drooling yet?

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM



"n3soz" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've been a ham for almost eleven years. The year I got started
(1994)
was the same year the Web became open to commercial traffic, and I
guess the decline of packet began around that time. I keep an APRS
snipped for space's sake

As I recall, at 23 cm and 80 Mbps we had an effective bandwidth of around
100 KHz on the "final" design... That design incorporated TDM, limited SS,
and WDM of the signals.

Obviously, with multiple forms of simultaneous multiplexing, the bandwidth
would through the roof, most likely to around 100-150 MHz.

Today, we could use TDM, WDM, SDM, high-end SS, and a few other tricks and,
assuming a target data-rate of 100 Mbps, get the on air bandwidth down to
around 50-75 KHz, maybe even a little less.

With a similar set up except for a target data-rate of 10 Gbps, my
back-of-the-envelope calculations are coming up with an on air bandwidth on
the order of 30-50 MHz.

There may be as much as a 10-15% decrease in bandwidth by using a well
designed DSP.

Essentially we would need to look carefully at the Ethernet 10+ Gbps over
copper and copy those concepts... I have my upper division and grad students
looking at ways to do just that.I am hoping in the next month or so, I can
reach an agreement with EE department and the RF engineering department to
bring in some of their students to help out with those aspects... My
students have already found one thing... BASIC Stamps and PIC processors
will only work up to about 115 Mbps. Beyond that, they are just too slow.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM



"Dana H. Myers" wrote in message
...
What was the on-the-air bandwidth of Frank's 80Mbps signal?

Dana K6JQ

Marty Albert wrote:
As I recall, at 23 cm and 80 Mbps we had an effective bandwidth of around
100 KHz on the "final" design... That design incorporated TDM, limited SS,
and WDM of the signals.

What exactly does this all mean?

Passing 80,000,000 bits/sec in 100,000Hz of bandwidth sounds
pretty fantastic - to the extent that makes me question the
validity of the measurements.

Today, we could use TDM, WDM, SDM, high-end SS, and a few other tricks and,
assuming a target data-rate of 100 Mbps, get the on air bandwidth down to
around 50-75 KHz, maybe even a little less.

Whoa. Hold on. Help me understand what units and methods
of measurement you're using. Right now, you're off by several
decimal places in even the most generous way.

Dana K6JQ

"Dana H. Myers" wrote in message
...
Marty Albert wrote:
As I recall, at 23 cm and 80 Mbps we had an effective bandwidth of around
100 KHz on the "final" design... That design incorporated TDM, limited
SS,
and WDM of the signals.

What exactly does this all mean?

Passing 80,000,000 bits/sec in 100,000Hz of bandwidth sounds
pretty fantastic - to the extent that makes me question the
validity of the measurements.

This in 100 Hz of bandwidth we can obtain 80 Kbps.
Shannon twirling in his grave.

Today, we could use TDM, WDM, SDM, high-end SS, and a few other tricks
and,
assuming a target data-rate of 100 Mbps, get the on air bandwidth down to
around 50-75 KHz, maybe even a little less.

Whoa. Hold on. Help me understand what units and methods
of measurement you're using. Right now, you're off by several
decimal places in even the most generous way.

Lost a decimal point for sure.

BTW ... why does everyone always mention 1200 baud?
Doesn't everyone use at least 9600 for local links, and
PACTOR II / III on HF?

Think I have a 1200 baud TNC around here ... yeah there it is
over in that cabinet. Big black box, says TAPR TNC-1 on it.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

"n3soz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Marty,

Yes I am drooling over the possibility. Like you I can imagine these
fantastic star networks ringing the big metro areas. I think though

So do it!
WiFi gear getting cheap, run it within the ham band.
Works fine.

that to be feasible the community needs to look at whats available
off-the-shelf. Obviously if someone technically brilliant can take
Frank's idea and build something that can be cheaply manufactured, that
would be ideal. But Icom's D-Star system is available, and hams are
using 802.11 access points with amplifiers and directional antennas
(www.arrl.org/hsmm/). Maybe a club somewhere has a network like this
already running. It would take a dedicated group of hams with some
fairly serious resources (capital, access to good sites, know-how) to
pull something like this off.

In my area a small group of ATV guys have put up a repeater, and have
established several sites at EOC's, with the goal of providing ATV
"on-demand" to emergency officials. A network project could piggyback
on something like that.

Matt, N3SOZ



Marty Albert wrote:

For the life of me, I can see no reason why Frank's device could not
be
re-designed today to well over 512 Mbps, perhaps very close to
gigabit
speeds. If you make the jump to the new copper solutions for 10 Gbps,
we may
even be able to get close to that...

Imagine a large metropolitan area, like maybe Dallas/Fort Worth,
ringed by
an 8 Gbps nodes with spokes at 8 Gbps "dropping" into and through the
city.
A series of 1 Gbps nodes come off of the spokes to feed into the
neighborhood. In the neighborhoods, picture a bridge node that users
can
connect to at, say, 100 Mbps. Lastly, picture these "City Wheels"
being
connected to other city wheels at 10 Gbps.

Are you drooling yet?



--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

In message et, Hank
Oredson writes

So do it!
WiFi gear getting cheap, run it within the ham band.
Works fine.


Hank (or anyone else),

Can you point me to reflectors/forums for WiFi ham band networks? I
would like to catch up with what people are doing in this area.

73
Ian, G3NRW

"news" wrote in message
...
In message et, Hank
Oredson writes

So do it!
WiFi gear getting cheap, run it within the ham band.
Works fine.


Hank (or anyone else),

Can you point me to reflectors/forums for WiFi ham band networks? I would
like to catch up with what people are doing in this area.


You just hook it up ... totally simple.
Might want an amplifier and good antenna.
Took me about 3 minutes to get a WiFi link running here.
It was between two packet BBS nodes (running SNOS)
and two Windows machines. "It just works."

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

In message . net, Hank
Oredson writes

You just hook it up ... totally simple.
Might want an amplifier and good antenna.
Took me about 3 minutes to get a WiFi link running here.
It was between two packet BBS nodes (running SNOS)
and two Windows machines. "It just works."


Yup, I can see that, but it's the "amplifier and good antenna" bit that
I'm particularly interested in. What do people use? URLs?

73
Ian, G3NRW

"news" wrote in message
...


Can you point me to reflectors/forums for WiFi ham band networks? I would
like to catch up with what people are doing in this area.

I can give an overview of what's being accomplished in this area...

Summary: Lots of hot air, accompanied by little or no action.

As far as I can tell, nobody has utilized the WIFI/SHF stuff in a
substantial way. There are lots of "mini-networks" here and there, but I
have yet to hear about anything of an established, permanent nature that
"rings a metroplolis" or even a small town. Another common networking task
that has gone unreported is linking packet nets in two cities via WIFI/SHF
links. Nobody has stepped forward to even claim to have accomplished that
basic task.

The ARRL HSMM group has been around for years and years now - but there is
no substantial WIFI/SHF amateur radio network - anywhere - to show for it.

The same applies to the dozens of WIFI/SHF reflectors and forums that have
popped up over the last decade.

Lots of speculation and nit-picking technical arguement - but no usable
network. ( On any substantial scale. )

There is really no particular reason why these things could not be done. It
is all well within the realm of possibility, but for some reason there has
been no particular effort to utilize WIFI/SHF equipment for these basic
networking applications, except on a small, local scale. I've noted that
even the small LANs that pop up from time to time utilizing WIFI/SHF gear
seldom stay in operation for very long.

Why? - My explanation for this is that the same amateurs who tend to be
interested in WIFI also tend to disparage the idea of established amateur
radio digital networking. - They all appear to believe that we would be a
lot better off to just use the Internet instead of building independent
amateur radio infrastructure. - So they don't do it.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org
Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com
Webmaster: HamPoll.Com http://www.hampoll.com
Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php