[Ground-station] Bidirectional IP packet radio article (hat tip to Julian KF4MOT for sharing it)

[Ron Economos]

Yes, the 433 MHz frequency is not a good choice. The Si4464 is tunable 
though. It could be moved lower into the 420 to 430 MHz segment (if it 
was legal).

It can also be used on 33 cm.

https://www.silabs.com/documents/public/data-sheets/Si4464-63-61-60.pdf

Ron W6RZ

On 4/19/19 16:17, KENT BRITAIN wrote:
> It will totally trash out all the stations running weak signal at 432 
> MHz, EME and FT8 activity.
>
> The spreading codes are usually simple and the RF power ends up in big 
> clumps, not
> evenly spread as the theory predicts.
>
> WA5VJB
>
> PS  I was the first person to get a 2.4 GHz Direct Sequence Spread 
> Spectrum system through
>         FCC compliance testing.   Grantee Code LPH.
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 19, 2019, 5:58:35 PM CDT, Steve Stroh via 
> Ground-Station <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>
>
> I advocate starting an STA like TAPR for Spread Spectrum.
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 15:05 Ron Economos via Ground-Station 
> <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>
>     Not legal in the US on 70 cm. Exceeds the limits of 56 kbaud and
>     100 kHz bandwidth in part 97.307(f)(6).
>
>     Personally, I think this rule should be deleted. What makes 70 cm
>     any different than 33 cm and above?
>
>     Ron W6RZ
>
>     On 4/19/19 09:28, Michelle Thompson via Ground-Station wrote:
>>     https://hackaday.com/2019/03/30/bidirectional-ip-with-new-packet-radio/
>>
>>     -Michelle W5NYV
>>
>>
> -- 
> Steve Stroh (personal / general): stevestroh at gmail.com 
> <mailto:stevestroh at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20190419/984b47f5/attachment.html>