As long as you know that the problem still exists... As for the perfect world, if you accept imperfection, it never will be.
I take it the root of the problem is that these two repeaters were coordinated too close together? Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: > > > ...unforatunately we don't exist in a perfect world...so waxing the 1973 > Jeep works good enough and is less expensive than repainting > it...different PLs in the case in point masks the deffecency well enough > to allow relatively good repeater services to coexistance under less > than ideal circumstances. In fact the other repeater guys have refused > to activate PL but they do transmit a different PL so their users can > simply turn up their squelch and operate happily ever after. > > OH WELL ;-)) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* MCH <mailto:m...@nb.net> > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters > > > > If there is interference with the same tones, there is interference > with > different ones, too. > > Again, proper engineering (coordination in this case) is a necessary > first step, and selecting different CTCSS tones to mask a problem is > not > a solution. > > Overdeviation? Another engineering deficiency. Although the 15 kHz > channels don't help, either. Still, they can be overcome to some degree. > > Still waiting for a reason that doesn't involve compromised engineering. > > Joe M. > > WA3GIN wrote: > > > > > > Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing. > Here in > > NOVA 146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite > sides of > > WDC. Coverage is about the same. .625 users frequently bring up the > > .610 machine due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610 > > machine had the same PL tone there would be no benefit from using > the PL > > tone. > > > > Seems there is always an exception to the rule ;-) > > > > 73, > > dave > > wa3gin > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* n...@no6b.com <mailto:no6b%40no6b.com> > <mailto:n...@no6b.com <mailto:no6b%40no6b.com>> > > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > > <mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>> > > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:00 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters > > > > > > > > At 8/30/2009 09:57, you wrote: > > > > >When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area > > all use > > > > >CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little. > > > > > > > > Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local > > > > repeaters. > > > > > > > > Bob NO6B > > > > > >Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on? > > > > Because many repeaters don't repeat CTCSS. Also some older radios > don't > > scan CTCSS decode very well. > > > > >I think the "one CTCSS in an area" is just a leftover from the time > > >when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs. No one needs this > > >"feature" in area repeaters anymore. > > > > No, SoCal (TASMA) just adopted a regional CTCSS plan. In some > > way/places > > it was simply a formal acknowledgement of what some regions had > already > > implemented, but in others we had a mishmash of different open tone > > "standards" that had nothing to do with trying to avoid other system > > tone > > freqs. > > > > On 440, many repeaters in this area use the same CTCSS freq. At one > > site I > > know of about a dozen repeaters all use the same tone; AFAIK none of > > them > > bother each other. If they did, I'm sure they would quickly find the > > source (since it would be another ham's system) & fix the actual > > problem, > > rather than mask it with CTCSS as others have pointed out. > > > > >(No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a > system > > >where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different > > >tones for decades. We never went with the popular, silly idea that > > >different tones are somehow "difficult" for someone who knows how to > > >operate their rig.) > > > > Perhaps that's one reason why I didn't try out many systems last > time I > > passed through the Denver area. > > > > IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located > amateur > > systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering > deficiency > > somewhere. > > > > Bob NO6B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: > 07/31/09 05:58:00 > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: > 07/31/09 05:58:00 >
