When something like this happens its pretty simple for EVERYONE to monitorthe
146.34 input to the repeater and forward signal reports.. Most folks have a
revbutton... this is what its for.
Last night Suzanne (KF5GWZ) and I set out to find the problem and we did.
We had a few previous reports (Guesses??) like Mike forwarded, but that didn't
match the results Suzanne and I were getting.. I think the area that was under
suspicion WAS NOT the area we went to... All those calls would have been a
waste..
We used the signal strength meter on a mobile rig (icom r7000) and a handheld
with a signal strength meter as well, monitoring 146.34.
Took a little over an hour then after it was fixed,we stopped and had some good
tx mex for dinner..
It was a fun Friday Date night.. ha haWish more folks were out there to join
us, we had a blast..
Eddie (NU5K)PS - good subject for future BVARC training...
On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 02:07:05 PM CDT, John Denison via BVARC
<bvarc@bvarc.org> wrote:
I'm glad this issue was resolved, and for what its worth, there are at least
50 hams in the area which would have made it time consuming to contact each
one. This was a good (not good) unplanned fox hunt, and it reminds me of the
time there was interference on the 146.92 repeater years ago. At the time I had
an Icom mobile which had an attenuator on the squelch control, so it was
relatively easy to narrow the signal down to a few square blocks.
This is one of the things I like about ham radio the most... hams coming
together to offer a service or resolve an issue.
73
John Denison
KD5YOU
________________________________________________
Brazos Valley Amateur Radio Club
BVARC mailing list
BVARC@bvarc.org
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
Publicly available archives are available here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/bvarc@bvarc.org/
