[Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Looking for opinions. Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone freq. Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each other? Thanks, dave wa3gin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
If you look at the Florida band plan repeaters in areas of Florida have the same PL there is no problem with that and ham operators then know in I am area 1 to use PL XX area is PL XZ and so on it keeps it simple and help others to know what to use. John - Original Message - From: WA3GIN To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:06 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters Looking for opinions. Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone freq. Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each other? Thanks, dave wa3gin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Technically, yes, but in SWPA nearly all ham repeaters use the same tone and I've never heard of it being a problem. Besides, if all the hams run the same tone, and the commercial users avoid that tone, it makes intra-service intermod problems much less likely, and I would much rather have only ham-to-ham problems to solve. Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: > > > Looking for opinions. > > Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and > we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. > Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to > utilze the same PL tone freq. > > Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase > the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to > now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land > on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad > practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band > all located within a few miles of each other? > > Thanks, > dave > wa3gin > > >
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
I can tell you that the same tones on different frequencies inside the same site can cause a problem. My 2-meter repeater was on 151.4, the same tone as the local high band fire and channel on the VHF community repeater. When a combination of the units with 151.4 came up, I had inter-mod on my 2-meter machine. Also at times there was noise on the fire that we could tell disappeared when the 2-meter dropped along with the community repeater. Luckily I own the tower so I was able to move my 2-meter repeater to 123.0 and it happened that my private channel on the community repeater was also 151.4 which I also changed. Now I try to make sure that every PL inside my site is different. Since there is NO two PL's the same, the problem went away. Our Motorola Tech told me this is common at tower sites using the same PL on different frequencies. 73 JIM From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:07 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters Looking for opinions. Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone freq. Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each other? Thanks, dave wa3gin
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Dave, Actually, it's a good idea for all Amateur repeaters in a geographic area to use the same CTCSS tone. With very few exceptions, all 6m, 2m, 220, and 440 repeaters in Santa Barbara County use 131.8 Hz. We don't have interference problems, and it makes it easy for travelers to contact local Hams. Many repeaters with voice ID announce the PL tone as well. There is a potential problem with more than one repeater at a site sharing the same PL tone, if they are the same make and model. For example, Santa Barbara County had more than a dozen Micor repeaters and base stations at one mountaintop site, and all had 82.5 Hz tones. Even with complicated multicoupler and combiner systems in place, there were instances of interference between them. Once the unrelated systems were given different PL tones, the problems went away. One of the issues with Micor stations is that exciter leakage can occur if all of the shield plates are not reinstalled, with every screw tight. There were also a few instances of leakage from an exciter in one UHF station leaking into an adjacent VHF station, since the UHF station uses a VHF exciter that is then tripled. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:07 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters Looking for opinions. Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone freq. Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each other? Thanks, dave wa3gin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
At 08:06 AM 8/30/2009, you wrote: Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each other? No and no. Most of the time, most repeaters in a generalized area all use the same PL tone. That is so that coordinating bodies can have some assurance that they know what tones are being used in an area - and can maintain separation between machines on the same frequency and with the same tone. For instance - in south Mississippi (say Hattiesburg south to the coast) - essentially all machines use 136.5. Larry Wagoner - N5WLW VP - PRCARC PIC - MS SECT ARRL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
OK, you'll have to explain how a different tone on the TX changed the mixing products of the RF frequencies. I bet it's more of a case where the problem was still there, just hidden. At least if the problem is seen/heard, you can fix it. If you don't know it's there, then you have minimal chance of fixing it (truly fixing the problem, not just fixing the symptom). Joe M. Eric Lemmon wrote: > Even with complicated > multicoupler and combiner systems in place, there were instances of > interference between them. Once the unrelated systems were given different > PL tones, the problems went away.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Again, explain how the mixing products or intermod changed. If that's true, maybe you're really on to something. If I can eliminate intermod by changing the PL tone or the CWID, that would be an incredible breakthrough in RF physics. Joe M. Jim Cicirello wrote: > > > I can tell you that the same tones on different frequencies inside the > same site can cause a problem. My 2-meter repeater was on 151.4, the > same tone as the local high band fire and channel on the VHF community > repeater. When a combination of the units with 151.4 came up, I had > inter-mod on my 2-meter machine. Also at times there was noise on the > fire that we could tell disappeared when the 2-meter dropped along with > the community repeater. Luckily I own the tower so I was able to move > my 2-meter repeater to 123.0 and it happened that my private channel on > the community repeater was also 151.4 which I also changed. Now I try > to make sure that every PL inside my site is different. Since there is > NO two PL’s the same, the problem went away. Our Motorola Tech told me > this is common at tower sites using the same PL on different frequencies. > > > > 73 JIM > > > > *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *WA3GIN > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:07 AM > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters > > > > > > Looking for opinions. > > > > Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and > we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. > Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to > utilze the same PL tone freq. > > > > Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase > the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to > now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land > on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad > practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band > all located within a few miles of each other? > > > > Thanks, > > dave > > wa3gin > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:06 AM, WA3GIN wrote: > Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. > increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed > signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone > that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it > considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous > repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each > other? Bad engineering design, yes. But the fact that it's commonly done, is also true. Not sure why. When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area all use CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com http://facebook.com/denverpilot http://twitter.com/denverpilot
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
At 8/30/2009 09:25, you wrote: >On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:06 AM, WA3GIN wrote: > > > Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. > > increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed > > signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone > > that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it > > considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous > > repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each > > other? > >Bad engineering design, yes. But the fact that it's commonly done, is >also true. Not sure why. > >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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
On Aug 30, 2009, at 10:39 AM, n...@no6b.com wrote: > At 8/30/2009 09:25, you wrote: > > >On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:06 AM, WA3GIN wrote: > > > > > Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. > > > increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed > > > signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone > > > that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it > > > considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous > > > repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each > > > other? > > > >Bad engineering design, yes. But the fact that it's commonly done, is > >also true. Not sure why. > > > >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? 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 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.) All my club's repeaters are on 107.2, another large club is on 103.5, yet another 123.0. No one here has any difficulty "finding" the repeaters. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com http://facebook.com/denverpilot http://twitter.com/denverpilot
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Here in central Texas we typically use 123.0 for all repeaters for uniformity,. It makes it easier for folks to remember. there are quite a few on 2 meters and they never cause any problems with each other. WB5OXQ. - Original Message - From: WA3GIN To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:06 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters Looking for opinions. Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone freq. Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each other? Thanks, dave wa3gin
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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Why do you cringe? Don't you have any faith in ham's ability to put on quality repeaters or fix problems? As has been noted, many areas have used the same tone with great success. The only ones who haven't had great success have issues that using different tones only masks and doesn't solve. Those are the ones that should be making you cringe - the ones who 'have' to use different tones to hide their problems. I for one would rather have an issue I can hear, diagnose, and solve rather than solve a symptom and pretend it doesn't exist. Letting problems continue is what gives hams a bad reputation as second-rate site users. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: > On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:06 AM, WA3GIN wrote: > >> Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. >> increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed >> signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone >> that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it >> considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous >> repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each >> other? > > Bad engineering design, yes. But the fact that it's commonly done, is > also true. Not sure why. > > When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area all use > CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little. > > -- > Nate Duehr, WY0X > n...@natetech.com > > http://facebook.com/denverpilot > http://twitter.com/denverpilot > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
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 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
At 8/30/2009 14:34, you 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. Well, that's what you get with an uninverted 15 kHz spacing bandplan. Users DXing a repeater 15 kHz away from another one in their backyard will interfere & there's little you can do about it except use a different CTCSS tone & accept the fact that the repeater's performance will be severely degraded when this happens. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Yes that is what you get, take it or leave it. So, different PLs do have a place in the game in situations such as this. Its not a technology issue, just luck of the draw. - Original Message - From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters At 8/30/2009 14:34, you wrote: Recent Activity a.. 18New Members b.. 1New Files Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .
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:n...@no6b.com> > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.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 >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Uninverted - inverted - they both try to cram 16 kHz bandwidth channels into 15 kHz. That is always going to create problems compared with proper bandplan spacing. What's even more ironic is the Land Mobile industry (and FCC) hasn't learned anything from their past mistakes. They are now cramming 11 kHz wide channels into 7.5 kHz channels on VHF. The writing is on the wall for future problems. Here's a thought along the same lines - why not put our 15 kHz bandwidth repeaters into 1 kHz channels. That way, frequency reuse won't be a problem. ;-> Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: > At 8/30/2009 14:34, you 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. > > Well, that's what you get with an uninverted 15 kHz spacing > bandplan. Users DXing a repeater 15 kHz away from another one in their > backyard will interfere & there's little you can do about it except use a > different CTCSS tone & accept the fact that the repeater's performance will > be severely degraded when this happens. > > Bob NO6B > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > 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 >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
...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 To: 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:n...@no6b.com> > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.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 >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
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. > > &g
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Couldn't agree more with you Joe. In all of the WDC area we are the only two repeaters that have such close spacing..we're special, haha. We've asked other repeater owners, those low power low antenna, small coverage operators who wouldn't be bothered by the close spacing to trade but seems folks are more interested in hording their repeater freqs. or should I say personal intercom systems or just too lazy to want to go through the changes. 73, dave - Original Message - From: MCH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters 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: > > > ... Recent Activity a.. 19New Members b.. 1New Files Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Can't explain it Joe. All I can tell you is that our 7.21 2-Meter Repeater had users in weak signal areas completely wiped out when the community repeater and the fire transmitter came up when they were on 2-meters. As I said we changed the PL's and that is ALL I did and now the same stations talk away and there is NO noise on 2 meters. Also the service tech says it cleared up noise on the fire 154.295 and I can tell you that the community repeater is OK now, the noise that came in on 151.4 does NOT come in on any other CTCSS. Break thru in RF physics, probably just dumb luck, which I am not use to. JIM -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:02 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters Again, explain how the mixing products or intermod changed. If that's true, maybe you're really on to something. If I can eliminate intermod by changing the PL tone or the CWID, that would be an incredible breakthrough in RF physics. Joe M. Jim Cicirello wrote: > > > I can tell you that the same tones on different frequencies inside the > same site can cause a problem. My 2-meter repeater was on 151.4, the > same tone as the local high band fire and channel on the VHF community > repeater. When a combination of the units with 151.4 came up, I had > inter-mod on my 2-meter machine. Also at times there was noise on the > fire that we could tell disappeared when the 2-meter dropped along with > the community repeater. Luckily I own the tower so I was able to move > my 2-meter repeater to 123.0 and it happened that my private channel on > the community repeater was also 151.4 which I also changed. Now I try > to make sure that every PL inside my site is different. Since there is > NO two PL's the same, the problem went away. Our Motorola Tech told me > this is common at tower sites using the same PL on different frequencies. > > > > 73 JIM > > > > *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *WA3GIN > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:07 AM > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters > > > > > > Looking for opinions. > > > > Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and > we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. > Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to > utilze the same PL tone freq. > > > > Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase > the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to > now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land > on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad > practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band > all located within a few miles of each other? > > > > Thanks, > > dave > > wa3gin > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
At 05:18 PM 8/30/2009, you wrote: Yes that is what you get, take it or leave it. So, different PLs do have a place in the game in situations such as this. Its not a technology issue, just luck of the draw. It is simply VERY poor planning and design. This is the game of: "I plan to set up and operate wherever I want to no matter what problems I cause - and I refuse to work towards better planning or band usage. Larry Wagoner - N5WLW VP - PRCARC PIC - MS SECT ARRL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
What kind of spacing are we talking, out of curiosity? Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: > > > Couldn't agree more with you Joe. In all of the WDC area we are the > only two repeaters that have such close spacing..we're special, haha. > We've asked other repeater owners, those low power low antenna, small > coverage operators who wouldn't be bothered by the close spacing to > trade but seems folks are more interested in hording their repeater > freqs. or should I say personal intercom systems or just too lazy to > want to go through the changes. > > 73, > dave > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* MCH <mailto:m...@nb.net> > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:50 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters > > > > 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: > > > > > > ... > > . > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
4 miles - Original Message - From: MCH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters What kind of spacing are we talking, out of curiosity? Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: > > > Couldn't agree more with you Joe. In all of the WDC area we are the > only two repeaters that have such close spacing..we're special, haha. > We've asked other repeater owners, those low power low antenna, small > coverage operators who wouldn't be bothered by the close spacing to > trade but seems folks are more interested in hording their repeater > freqs. or should I say personal intercom systems or just too lazy to > want to go through the changes. > > 73, > dave > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* MCH <mailto:m...@nb.net> > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:50 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters > > > > 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: > > > > > > ... > > . > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
On Aug 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote: > IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur > systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency > somewhere. Totally agreed, which is exactly why COORDINATING bodies really should care, either way... much less recommend or worse, mandate specific tones. -- Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com facebook.com/denverpilot twitter.com/denverpilot
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
On Aug 30, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Nate Duehr wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote: > > > IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located > amateur > > systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering > deficiency > > somewhere. > > Totally agreed, which is exactly why COORDINATING bodies really should > care, either way... much less recommend or worse, mandate specific > tones. Typo. That was supposed to say "shouldn't". -- Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com facebook.com/denverpilot twitter.com/denverpilot
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
--- On Sun, 8/30/09, WA3GIN wrote: From: WA3GIN Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, August 30, 2009, 10:37 PM 4 miles *** If I understand it correctly you have 2 repeaters 15 khz apart seperated by only 4 miles. This is usually way too close. The SERA co-ordiantors usually recommend a 75 mile spacing of repeaters this close together and 25 miles with 20 khz spacing.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
When all the engineering deficiencies are addressed, it doesn't matter what the tones are. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: > On Aug 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote: > >> IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur >> systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency >> somewhere. > > Totally agreed, which is exactly why COORDINATING bodies really should > care, either way... much less recommend or worse, mandate specific > tones. > > -- > Nate Duehr > n...@natetech.com > > facebook.com/denverpilot > twitter.com/denverpilot > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > 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 >
