Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's point. It's not about what modes are authorized on a given frequency, it's about what constitutes an auxiliary station. The ARRL's position is that the linking of a whole community of users from a VHF/UHF repeater input to 10M does not constitute a remote base or auxiliary station, but rather a crossband repeater. As such, all inputs and outputs must be in their respective repeater subbands. You can disagree, but that's the ARRL's stand. It's somewhat stick-in-the-mud, but not inconsistent with the League's other positions. Here's a link to the ARRL's FAQ topic, Is it legal to have a remote base with an output on HF below 29.5 MHz? http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/faq-aux.html#_Toc70492015 Note that the reference to 222.15 MHz as the minimum frequency for operation of the uplink is obsolete since the rewrite of 97.201, (which now allows much of 2m,) but the reasons for the position are explained. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: wd8chl To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. Brian Romine wrote: Even though according to one ARRL official if a repeater is linked in any manner to 10m; the 10m frequency must be within the 10m repeater sub-band. Only if the 10M radio is FM. Running a 10M remote base on SSB is just fine wherever SSB is allowed, and the trustee can operate. Shows ya how much the ARRL knows...
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
At 10:50 AM 12/25/07, you wrote: Jim, I'd be interested to know where in part 97 you find any restriction on FM below 29.5. (Without debating it, of course.) ARRL bandplan, yes, but FCC rules? Keith, we're also stuck with band-planning on other bands which didn't anticipate the popularity of FM repeaters. 2m is even more screwed up. Why have only 600 kHz offset, when it could have easily been double that? Duplexers would have been smaller, less expensive, worked better, etc. Pure and simple - hardware issues. The answer is nobody had figured out in the early 1960s that FM repeaters would grow to be the dominant mode on the band. Originally, repeaters used 30 kHz channel spacing with inputs between 146.0 and 146.4, then a 200 kHz buffer zone for simplex, and outputs between 146.6 and 147.0. When additional repeater subbands were added, it would have made sense to go to a 1 MHz split, but at the time too many repeater ops would have bitched about buying crystals and retuning duplexers. I think the users would have bitched more than the repeater ops (which I read as repeater owners, sorry if I misunderstood). 73, Paul, AE4KR Like Paul said, history has a lot to do with it. I doubt if most of the hams that got started in the 80s or 90s know, but the initial start for VHF FM was when the FCC mandated the change from +/- 15KHz dev and 60KHz spacing to +/-5khz and 30KHz spacing. This dumped tens of thousands of radios onto the amateur marketplace nationwide in the late 1960s/early 1970s. The mobiles of the day were a mix of all tube construction and hybrid construction (tube transmitters and solid state receivers). Both had receivers that if stagger-tuned would cover about a megahertz to a megahertz and a half, and the transmitters would do a little more. So the mobile receivers were put in the middle (centered on 147.00), and the transmitters straddled them. The receivers managed to hear from 146.5 to about 147.5 with decent performance, and the transmitters groaned a little at 146.01 or 147.99 And Wayne Green W2NSD of 73 Magazine deserves a lot of the credit - he pushed 2m FM heavily, and had two or three articles every month that were relevant. Yes he was controversial, and a number of people disagreed with him, but like him or not, without him the hobby wouldn't be where it is today. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Paul Plack wrote: I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's point. It's not about what modes are authorized on a given frequency, it's about what constitutes an auxiliary station. The ARRL's position is that the linking of a whole community of users from a VHF/UHF repeater input to 10M does not constitute a remote base or auxiliary station, but rather a crossband repeater. As such, all inputs and outputs must be in their respective repeater subbands. You can disagree, but that's the ARRL's stand. It's somewhat stick-in-the-mud, but not inconsistent with the League's other positions. Yeah-they also think it's OK to order pizza on a ham autopatch...blatently against everything amateur radio stands for...like most things the ARRL supports... The remote base radio, in this case 10M, is NOT in auxiliary operation. It is a remotely controlled base station, and the frequencies and modes it can operate are no different then if the radio was sitting in front of you with all the controls and microphone. This is NOT opinion. It is FACT, and has been that way for, well, as long as I can remember. ARRL can go pound salt. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
That's nice, but the ARRL does not make the rules, and I can find nothing in Part 97 about AUX frequencies being limited to a single user. There is a saying about opinions and how everyone has one. The ARRL is no different. Joe M. Paul Plack wrote: I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's point. It's not about what modes are authorized on a given frequency, it's about what constitutes an auxiliary station. The ARRL's position is that the linking of a whole community of users from a VHF/UHF repeater input to 10M does not constitute a remote base or auxiliary station, but rather a crossband repeater. As such, all inputs and outputs must be in their respective repeater subbands.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
It's not the 10M radio that is in AUX operation - it's the (2M or higher) frequencies that are dhared by the repeater that are. The statement was that *those* cannot be AUX frequencies since they have multiple users. (a stand that is completely ridiculous) I wonder if this has something to do with their stand on classifying D-STAR repeaters as AUX stations so they don't have to operate in the repeater sub-bands... Joe M. Jim wrote: Paul Plack wrote: I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's point. It's not about what modes are authorized on a given frequency, it's about what constitutes an auxiliary station. The ARRL's position is that the linking of a whole community of users from a VHF/UHF repeater input to 10M does not constitute a remote base or auxiliary station, but rather a crossband repeater. As such, all inputs and outputs must be in their respective repeater subbands. You can disagree, but that's the ARRL's stand. It's somewhat stick-in-the-mud, but not inconsistent with the League's other positions. Yeah-they also think it's OK to order pizza on a ham autopatch...blatently against everything amateur radio stands for...like most things the ARRL supports... The remote base radio, in this case 10M, is NOT in auxiliary operation. It is a remotely controlled base station, and the frequencies and modes it can operate are no different then if the radio was sitting in front of you with all the controls and microphone. This is NOT opinion. It is FACT, and has been that way for, well, as long as I can remember. ARRL can go pound salt. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
On Dec 25, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Keith, we're also stuck with band-planning on other bands which didn't anticipate the popularity of FM repeaters. 2m is even more screwed up. Why have only 600 kHz offset, when it could have easily been double that? Duplexers would have been smaller, less expensive, worked better, etc. I think 2m is screwed up mostly because manufacturers keep making radios that are virtually loss-leaders for the band. When you can buy a 2m 50W mobile for right around $150, and it's $400 to get into a dual-bander... well, do the math. I think the manufacturers are just as responsible for the overcrowding of VHF as anything. Perhaps they should stop doing ultra-cheap VHF rigs and start doing cheap UHF only rigs. Or 220. Or 900. Or 1.2 GHz. (Yeah, see how silly that sounds? They're not going to.) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Nate, Where I live, (and every place I have lived,) the 2m band was not crowded with users, only with repeaters. Most repeaters sit idle most of the time, and the more popular machines almost never cool off between 6am and 9pm. There's a waiting list for repeater pairs, but there's never a wait to find an open machine for a QSO. Personally, I believe that without dirt-cheap 2m radios, we might have lost part of the band years ago. We don't achieve anything close to what the commercial world (and by extension the FCC) considers crowded. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. On Dec 25, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Keith, we're also stuck with band-planning on other bands which didn't anticipate the popularity of FM repeaters. 2m is even more screwed up. Why have only 600 kHz offset, when it could have easily been double that? Duplexers would have been smaller, less expensive, worked better, etc. I think 2m is screwed up mostly because manufacturers keep making radios that are virtually loss-leaders for the band. When you can buy a 2m 50W mobile for right around $150, and it's $400 to get into a dual-bander... well, do the math. I think the manufacturers are just as responsible for the overcrowding of VHF as anything. Perhaps they should stop doing ultra-cheap VHF rigs and start doing cheap UHF only rigs. Or 220. Or 900. Or 1.2 GHz. (Yeah, see how silly that sounds? They're not going to.) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Here in Portland, Oregon we have group that has about 4-5 two meter repeaters all linked together. They seem to think they need that many repeaters just to cover the metro area. Their repeaters usually have TERRIBLE sounding audio and often have squelching problems. The main person who operates this system sits on the repeater coordination council and keeps scamming more repeater pairs for his group every couple years. Here is their link: http://www.worc.info/worc_system.htm Often times, their repeaters sit idle. Mean while, the waiting list keeps growing. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:49:05 PM CST From: Paul Plack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. Nate, Where I live, (and every place I have lived,) the 2m band was not crowded with users, only with repeaters. Most repeaters sit idle most of the time, and the more popular machines almost never cool off between 6am and 9pm. There's a waiting list for repeater pairs, but there's never a wait to find an open machine for a QSO. Personally, I believe that without dirt-cheap 2m radios, we might have lost part of the band years ago. We don't achieve anything close to what the commercial world (and by extension the FCC) considers crowded. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. On Dec 25, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Keith, we're also stuck with band-planning on other bands which didn't anticipate the popularity of FM repeaters. 2m is even more screwed up. Why have only 600 kHz offset, when it could have easily been double that? Duplexers would have been smaller, less expensive, worked better, etc. I think 2m is screwed up mostly because manufacturers keep making radios that are virtually loss-leaders for the band. When you can buy a 2m 50W mobile for right around $150, and it's $400 to get into a dual-bander... well, do the math. I think the manufacturers are just as responsible for the overcrowding of VHF as anything. Perhaps they should stop doing ultra-cheap VHF rigs and start doing cheap UHF only rigs. Or 220. Or 900. Or 1.2 GHz. (Yeah, see how silly that sounds? They're not going to.) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
NOBODY (including the FCC) cares what the ARRL's stand is They are so far out of reality so often on things like this that few listen. I have a repeater with a 10 meter FM remote base that has been running for nearly 10 years, and many have been doing in LONG before me. I am an OO, and I would never give this issue a second thought. If it were illegal, Riley would have jumped on it a long time ago. Heck, until a few years ago the ARRL was calling 29.600 the calling channel which shows how little they know! -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:25:34 AM CST From: Paul Plack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's point. It's not about what modes are authorized on a given frequency, it's about what constitutes an auxiliary station. The ARRL's position is that the linking of a whole community of users from a VHF/UHF repeater input to 10M does not constitute a remote base or auxiliary station, but rather a crossband repeater. As such, all inputs and outputs must be in their respective repeater subbands. You can disagree, but that's the ARRL's stand. It's somewhat stick-in-the-mud, but not inconsistent with the League's other positions. Here's a link to the ARRL's FAQ topic, Is it legal to have a remote base with an output on HF below 29.5 MHz? http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/faq-aux.html#_Toc70492015 Note that the reference to 222.15 MHz as the minimum frequency for operation of the uplink is obsolete since the rewrite of 97.201, (which now allows much of 2m,) but the reasons for the position are explained. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: wd8chl To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. Brian Romine wrote: Even though according to one ARRL official if a repeater is linked in any manner to 10m; the 10m frequency must be within the 10m repeater sub-band. Only if the 10M radio is FM. Running a 10M remote base on SSB is just fine wherever SSB is allowed, and the trustee can operate. Shows ya how much the ARRL knows...
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
kb1we6r wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Nope-FM is only allowed above 29.500, so we only have 29.5-29.7 for ANY FM activity. Jim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Jim,
I'd be interested to know where in part 97 you find any restriction on FM below
29.5. (Without debating it, of course.) ARRL bandplan, yes, but FCC rules?
Keith, we're also stuck with band-planning on other bands which didn't
anticipate the popularity of FM repeaters. 2m is even more screwed up. Why have
only 600 kHz offset, when it could have easily been double that? Duplexers
would have been smaller, less expensive, worked better, etc.
The answer is nobody had figured out in the early 1960s that FM repeaters would
grow to be the dominant mode on the band. Originally, repeaters used 30 kHz
channel spacing with inputs between 146.0 and 146.4, then a 200 kHz buffer zone
for simplex, and outputs between 146.6 and 147.0. When additional repeater
subbands were added, it would have made sense to go to a 1 MHz split, but at
the time too many repeater ops would have bitched about buying crystals and
retuning duplexers.
73,
Paul, AE4KR
- Original Message -
From: wd8chl
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
kb1we6r wrote:
Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no
activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room
for a better repeater plan).
Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA
Nope-FM is only allowed above 29.500, so we only have 29.5-29.7 for ANY
FM activity.
Jim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Actually, FM is allowed anywhere on HF. You just have the keep the modulation index less than or equal to 1. It's REPEATERS that are only allowed above 29.500 MHz. Joe M. wd8chl wrote: kb1we6r wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Nope-FM is only allowed above 29.500, so we only have 29.5-29.7 for ANY FM activity. Jim Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Originally, repeaters were only legal on 146 MHz, I think.
I know techs didn't have access to the ones on 147 MHz at first.
Joe M.
Paul Plack wrote:
Jim,
I'd be interested to know where in part 97 you find any restriction on
FM below 29.5. (Without debating it, of course.) ARRL bandplan, yes,
but FCC rules?
Keith, we're also stuck with band-planning on other bands which didn't
anticipate the popularity of FM repeaters. 2m is even more screwed up.
Why have only 600 kHz offset, when it could have easily been double
that? Duplexers would have been smaller, less expensive, worked
better, etc.
The answer is nobody had figured out in the early 1960s that FM
repeaters would grow to be the dominant mode on the band. Originally,
repeaters used 30 kHz channel spacing with inputs between 146.0 and
146.4, then a 200 kHz buffer zone for simplex, and outputs between
146.6 and 147.0. When additional repeater subbands were added, it
would have made sense to go to a 1 MHz split, but at the time too many
repeater ops would have bitched about buying crystals and retuning
duplexers.
73,
Paul, AE4KR
- Original Message -
From: wd8chl
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help,
split site, high noise floor.
kb1we6r wrote:
Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE
with no
activity (even when the band is open, there should be
plenty of room
for a better repeater plan).
Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA
Nope-FM is only allowed above 29.500, so we only have
29.5-29.7 for ANY
FM activity.
Jim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim - you meant to say Repeaters are allowed above 29.500, not FM. FM is allowed above 29.000 MHz. LJ No, the only thing I should've added was 'wide-band' FM, ie, anything that occupies more bandwidth then a normal AM signal.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
I would question that statement. If it's a remotely controlled station (commonly called a Remote Base), it can operate anywhere. It's only the CONTROL LINK that must be in an 'appropriate' band segment (or via phone). SkyCommand is a good example of that. The remotely controled station operates anywhere on HF. In the case of a remote base on a repeater, the repeater frequencies double as Auxiliary Frequencies and it is legally identical to SkyCommand. The only difference is that both AUX frequencies are duplexed in the same band. There are simply too many clearly legal examples that contradict what the ARRL guy said. Joe M. Brian Romine wrote: Even though according to one ARRL official if a repeater is linked in any manner to 10m; the 10m frequency must be within the 10m repeater sub-band.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, JOHN MACKEY wrote: So if the transmit offset for a CB radio was overcome, and converting from AM to FM for a CB radio was overcome, adding CTCSS is a simple issue that will be easily overcome. Adding CTCSS to a repeater has been an issue as long as I've been a ham. I think the only thing that has allowed progress to be made is that the older hams who object eventually fall into a silent majority .. or become silent keys. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
All the things which made adding CTCSS to a rockbound Regency HR2A in 1970 a pain in the butt still make it a pain to add it to a CB conversion. Among the big ones, no good way to change and read out which tone is selected from the front panel, and no memories in which to store tone info with frequencies. I know, I know...but I hope there's always room for Rube Goldberg homebrew conversions in some corner of ham radio! Perhaps I can learn to work with with PICs so I can build a little microprocessor controller that handles all that, provides memories, and displays the PL's EIA code on the flourescent display. Hmmm...maybe I could put in an 8-pin mic jack and share my Alinco's DTMF mic with up/down buttons... Look what you guys have started! And I heard him exclaim, as ten meters went dead... Merry Christmas to all! Now...y'all go to bed! Ho ho ho! 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Kris Kirby To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, JOHN MACKEY wrote: So if the transmit offset for a CB radio was overcome, and converting from AM to FM for a CB radio was overcome, adding CTCSS is a simple issue that will be easily overcome. Adding CTCSS to a repeater has been an issue as long as I've been a ham. I think the only thing that has allowed progress to be made is that the older hams who object eventually fall into a silent majority .. or become silent keys. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for 10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or digital access for every transmission. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:13 PM CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote: It's been tried many times since the 1970's. LJ The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of success any such petition needs to clearly demonstrate that the expansion would have minimal impact on other non-repeater 10 meter activities. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
John, I think CTCSS should remain voluntary. I'm not sure how well it would work with my CB conversion. I'd love, though, to get rid of remote bases on distant UHF and VHF repeaters indiscriminately spilling local chatter out on 10 FM during band openings. Nothing like having your contact with DX interrupted by two old guys from Boston talking about a colonoscopy on their local 222 MHz machine. Or trying to monitor 29.6 when its covered in heterodynes from hams who don't even own 10m rigs! 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for 10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or digital access for every transmission. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:13 PM CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote: It's been tried many times since the 1970's. LJ The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of success any such petition needs to clearly demonstrate that the expansion would have minimal impact on other non-repeater 10 meter activities. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
I'm not sure more 10m pairs are really needed. When the band is open, 50 pairs would all have heterodynes. When the skip closes down, few hams use 10 FM locally. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote: It's been tried many times since the 1970's. LJ The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of success any such petition needs to clearly demonstrate that the expansion would have minimal impact on other non-repeater 10 meter activities. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
So for a realistic solution you need to place some form of tight pre-selection in front of the receiver. Cavities might be possible but not practical. I'm not sure if they're cost effective to buy but for an Amateur Radio 10 Meter Repeater Project but... piezo (crystal) filters for 30 MHz are probably going to be a viable path if you have the time, cash and tango. I'd build them but you can buy them Piezo Technologies in Florida has merged with another company now found at: http://www.mtronpti.com/ You'd be looking for a front-end filter: http://www.mtronpti.com/products/index.php?category=Crystal+Filterprodid=293418 Sit down before you review the price sheet pdf file... there's a reason why it takes so long to download... da' prices are fairly hefty. Piezo xtal filters are kind of lossy, but when they become the life-saving only game in town you will quickly learn to live and forgive the loss of a few dB. cheers, skipp kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, yes, the split is too close to do much! I recently had both sites equipment here to check it out, everything looks good and plays (individualy) here with no problems. With the transmitter turned off, weak signals can get in and sound great on the UHF link. I just learned that there is a CAR TYPE BATTERY CHARGER across a battery at the receive site. aAARRRGGHH!! I don't know why the noise appears only when the transmitter (miles away) comes up though, but the first order of business is to pull the plug on that thing and see what happens. (maybe it is playing havok with the Maxtac's noise blanker?) Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
At 12/23/2007 00:48, you wrote: It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for 10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or digital access for every transmission. Although this would be very desirable, I doubt the FCC would write it into Part 97. It typically leaves such details to us in the form of coordination standards bandplans. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
At 12/23/2007 03:56, you wrote: I'm not sure more 10m pairs are really needed. When the band is open, 50 pairs would all have heterodynes. I disagree. Thinning out the current density by a factor of 5 would solve a lot of problems, given the difficulty in constructing a working 10 meter system, I don't think we'd see a large increase in the number of systems should the size of the band be increased. When the skip closes down, few hams use 10 FM locally. The same is true of every other mode on 10 meters, as well as the other HF bands. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
That sounds like a great way to cause massive, worldwide interference problems when the sunspots return. But hey, you can petition the FCC for it and see what happens if you'd like. 'JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Johnny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa. Johnny Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r capyo670@ wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
A lot of that comes from the guys that insist on running carrier access. Just because it works when the band is dead doesn't make it OK in my book. Jeff As it is, with only four 10-Meter repeater frequencies available, they're all unusable howling messes when the band is open. LJ
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
I would recommend first using a spectrum analyser at the TX site to make sure the TX is not generating the noise. If you see the noise at the TX site, determine if internal to the TX or external. If the site is clean proceed to the RX site. At the RX site, check with a spectrum analyser to see if the noise only exists when the TX is on; if true you most likely have intermode involving a third source. If the RX site has the noise even when the TX is off, it may not open the squelch but is heard when a signal opens the RX squelch. If this is true, it could be something local at the RX site and is just a matter of locating the source. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need ideas to cure desense on a 10 meter repeater. Details; 1. 100KHz split, (29.66 out 29.56 in) 2. Maxtracs on both ends, UHF link 3. Several miles of separation 4. Sometimes it works OK with no desense, but usually when the tx comes up, a buzzing type of noise wipes out most signals, even ones that were full quieting before. 5. The buzzing sounds like powerline noise. 6. There is some kind of wireless node nearby. What other types of noise generators could be exagerated by the additon of the 10m transmitter? Is it possible to make a notch filter out of big hardline at 100KHz with acceptable insertion loss? Would a window filter (DCI type) help with that type of noise? ...Keith WE6R
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Comm-spec even gives instructions on how to make CTCSS work on AM CB radios! Really, 10 FM radios are so plentiful, that uncertainty regarding how well a converted CB would work with CTCSS is not practical. Besides, I'll bet the bigger technical challenge would be to get a converted CB to do 100KHz offsets. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:49:45 AM CST From: Paul Plack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. John, I think CTCSS should remain voluntary. I'm not sure how well it would work with my CB conversion. I'd love, though, to get rid of remote bases on distant UHF and VHF repeaters indiscriminately spilling local chatter out on 10 FM during band openings. Nothing like having your contact with DX interrupted by two old guys from Boston talking about a colonoscopy on their local 222 MHz machine. Or trying to monitor 29.6 when its covered in heterodynes from hams who don't even own 10m rigs! 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for 10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or digital access for every transmission. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:13 PM CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote: It's been tried many times since the 1970's. LJ The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of success any such petition needs to clearly demonstrate that the expansion would have minimal impact on other non-repeater 10 meter activities. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Bob- You are probably correct that the FCC would suggest it be left to coordination. But that has been the plan for the last 25 years, and we see that it is a failure. I few dim-wits refusing to use CTCSS spoil it for everyone. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:40:11 AM CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12/23/2007 00:48, you wrote: It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for 10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or digital access for every transmission. Although this would be very desirable, I doubt the FCC would write it into Part 97. It typically leaves such details to us in the form of coordination standards bandplans. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
John, The old HyGain AM/CB to FM/10m conversions were a snap to set up for 100 kHz offsets - a switch and a second TX offset crystal, or a diode-matrix or EPROM which subtracted 10 from the divider chain instruction when PTT went low. My SMC (a British CB that came already converted for 10 FM use) uses the former hi-lo power level switch next to the display for selecting simplex/offset, accomplished using an add-on chip to interpret for the channel switch based on PTT line sense. It's amazing what 3 or 4 watts mobile and a 4-foot loaded whip will do with a good repeater on 10m. (Even more amazing when you have to run simplex in a densely wooded area.) The issue with the CTCSS is not so much how to hook it up, but getting low frequency audio tones to behave in a PLL circuit not designed to handle them. I'd just rather shut the repeater down during band openings, or perhaps program the controller to switch to carrier access at night, than require tone full-time. Then again...maybe nobody's homebrewing or converting AM stuff anymore... 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. Comm-spec even gives instructions on how to make CTCSS work on AM CB radios! Really, 10 FM radios are so plentiful, that uncertainty regarding how well a converted CB would work with CTCSS is not practical. Besides, I'll bet the bigger technical challenge would be to get a converted CB to do 100KHz offsets. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:49:45 AM CST From: Paul Plack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. John, I think CTCSS should remain voluntary. I'm not sure how well it would work with my CB conversion. I'd love, though, to get rid of remote bases on distant UHF and VHF repeaters indiscriminately spilling local chatter out on 10 FM during band openings. Nothing like having your contact with DX interrupted by two old guys from Boston talking about a colonoscopy on their local 222 MHz machine. Or trying to monitor 29.6 when its covered in heterodynes from hams who don't even own 10m rigs! 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for 10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or digital access for every transmission. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:13 PM CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote: It's been tried many times since the 1970's. LJ The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of success any such petition needs to clearly demonstrate that the expansion would have minimal impact on other non-repeater 10 meter activities. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
I would have to agree with Keith WE6R, the FCC has been on a roll here lately re-banding several different frequency bands, why not reband the 10m band to accomodate more repeater pairs? One thing some people seem to be missing in this thread... at least I haven't seen anyone else mention it... are the numerous 10m 'remote bases' that are out there. Even though according to one ARRL official if a repeater is linked in any manner to 10m; the 10m frequency must be within the 10m repeater sub-band. Just my two cents worth.. Brian Romine KC5CAY --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Kincaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That sounds like a great way to cause massive, worldwide interference problems when the sunspots return. But hey, you can petition the FCC for it and see what happens if you'd like. 'JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Johnny jstowers@ wrote: I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa. Johnny Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r capyo670@ wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
So if the transmit offset for a CB radio was overcome, and converting from AM to FM for a CB radio was overcome, adding CTCSS is a simple issue that will be easily overcome. The problem with your idea of I'd just rather shut the repeater down during band openings is that plan just never seems to work. Guys are good about doing it for a while, then the persistance fades away (I've seen that MANY times) -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:35:36 PM CST From: Paul Plack [EMAIL PROTECTED] The old HyGain AM/CB to FM/10m conversions were a snap to set up for 100 kHz offsets - a switch and a second TX offset crystal, or a diode-matrix or EPROM which subtracted 10 from the divider chain instruction when PTT went low. My SMC (a British CB that came already converted for 10 FM use) uses the former hi-lo power level switch next to the display for selecting simplex/offset, accomplished using an add-on chip to interpret for the channel switch based on PTT line sense. It's amazing what 3 or 4 watts mobile and a 4-foot loaded whip will do with a good repeater on 10m. (Even more amazing when you have to run simplex in a densely wooded area.) The issue with the CTCSS is not so much how to hook it up, but getting low frequency audio tones to behave in a PLL circuit not designed to handle them. I'd just rather shut the repeater down during band openings, or perhaps program the controller to switch to carrier access at night, than require tone full-time. Then again...maybe nobody's homebrewing or converting AM stuff anymore... 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. Comm-spec even gives instructions on how to make CTCSS work on AM CB radios! Really, 10 FM radios are so plentiful, that uncertainty regarding how well a converted CB would work with CTCSS is not practical. Besides, I'll bet the bigger technical challenge would be to get a converted CB to do 100KHz offsets. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:49:45 AM CST From: Paul Plack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. John, I think CTCSS should remain voluntary. I'm not sure how well it would work with my CB conversion. I'd love, though, to get rid of remote bases on distant UHF and VHF repeaters indiscriminately spilling local chatter out on 10 FM during band openings. Nothing like having your contact with DX interrupted by two old guys from Boston talking about a colonoscopy on their local 222 MHz machine. Or trying to monitor 29.6 when its covered in heterodynes from hams who don't even own 10m rigs! 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for 10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or digital access for every transmission. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:13 PM CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote: It's been tried many times since the 1970's. LJ The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of success any such petition needs to clearly demonstrate that the expansion would have minimal impact on other non-repeater 10 meter activities. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Where this runs into issues is the question of spirit of the law. The rules for aux operation started many years ago, and envisioned individual licensees operating remote stations by remote control, on a somewhat secure basis. Indiscriminately opening an aux HF station to a community of users like that attracted by a repeater, under automatic control, doesn't appear to violate any rule I can find. You're essentially calling the transmitter on your repeater a repeater and an aux station at the same time, but again, no rule prohibits that. Like anything else, it's only a real problem for the people who abuse it. Sure is annoying on 29.6 in a band opening, though. And manufacturer support for a feature does not mean it's legal! 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. HF Remote bases have been supported for decades by various repeater controller manufacturers. They're not just limited to outputs in the 10M FM Repeater band, you'll hear them on 75 meters, 20 meters, 10M SSB, etc. It's legal to repeat the 160M CW band up to UHF, if you want to. It's completely legal! -Original Message- From: Brian Romine Sent: Dec 23, 2007 9:21 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor. I would have to agree with Keith WE6R, the FCC has been on a roll here lately re-banding several different frequency bands, why not reband the 10m band to accomodate more repeater pairs? One thing some people seem to be missing in this thread... at least I haven't seen anyone else mention it... are the numerous 10m 'remote bases' that are out there. Even though according to one ARRL official if a repeater is linked in any manner to 10m; the 10m frequency must be within the 10m repeater sub-band. Just my two cents worth.. Brian Romine KC5CAY --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Kincaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That sounds like a great way to cause massive, worldwide interference problems when the sunspots return. But hey, you can petition the FCC for it and see what happens if you'd like. 'JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Johnny jstowers@ wrote: I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa. Johnny Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r capyo670@ wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Hi Keith, Do you have the equipment to check each location for desense and effective sensitivity? It would be very hard to make a notch cavity from Hard-line with enough Q to allow a decent 100KHz split. Even placing a band-pass cavities will help only so much... A DCI Filter would not be the right type of filter with enough of the protection you're hoping to receive. One last thing... what type of 10 meter antenna are you using and what type of match does it provide? The key is probably first listening to the receiver and UHF Link operation without the remote transmitter side on the air. First find out where the gremlins really visit your party so you don't chase your tail and waste time... cheers, s. kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need ideas to cure desense on a 10 meter repeater. Details; 1. 100KHz split, (29.66 out 29.56 in) 2. Maxtracs on both ends, UHF link 3. Several miles of separation 4. Sometimes it works OK with no desense, but usually when the tx comes up, a buzzing type of noise wipes out most signals, even ones that were full quieting before. 5. The buzzing sounds like powerline noise. 6. There is some kind of wireless node nearby. What other types of noise generators could be exagerated by the additon of the 10m transmitter? Is it possible to make a notch filter out of big hardline at 100KHz with acceptable insertion loss? Would a window filter (DCI type) help with that type of noise? ...Keith WE6R
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Thanks, yes, the split is too close to do much! I recently had both sites equipment here to check it out, everything looks good and plays (individualy) here with no problems. With the transmitter turned off, weak signals can get in and sound great on the UHF link. I just learned that there is a CAR TYPE BATTERY CHARGER across a battery at the receive site. aAARRRGGHH!! I don't know why the noise appears only when the transmitter (miles away) comes up though, but the first order of business is to pull the plug on that thing and see what happens. (maybe it is playing havok with the Maxtac's noise blanker?) Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Keith, Do you have the equipment to check each location for desense and effective sensitivity? It would be very hard to make a notch cavity from Hard-line with enough Q to allow a decent 100KHz split. Even placing a band-pass cavities will help only so much... A DCI Filter would not be the right type of filter with enough of the protection you're hoping to receive. One last thing... what type of 10 meter antenna are you using and what type of match does it provide? The key is probably first listening to the receiver and UHF Link operation without the remote transmitter side on the air. First find out where the gremlins really visit your party so you don't chase your tail and waste time... cheers, s. kb1we6r capyo670@ wrote: I need ideas to cure desense on a 10 meter repeater. Details; 1. 100KHz split, (29.66 out 29.56 in) 2. Maxtracs on both ends, UHF link 3. Several miles of separation 4. Sometimes it works OK with no desense, but usually when the tx comes up, a buzzing type of noise wipes out most signals, even ones that were full quieting before. 5. The buzzing sounds like powerline noise. 6. There is some kind of wireless node nearby. What other types of noise generators could be exagerated by the additon of the 10m transmitter? Is it possible to make a notch filter out of big hardline at 100KHz with acceptable insertion loss? Would a window filter (DCI type) help with that type of noise? ...Keith WE6R
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa. Johnny Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Uhhh... because the FCC only allows repeater operation between 29.5 and 29.7 MHz? [see 97.205(b)] When you aren't given a choice, the decision is pretty easy. Joe M. Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Feel free to petition the FCC to allow this. ;- Joe M. Johnny wrote: I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa. Johnny Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote: It's been tried many times since the 1970's. LJ The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of success any such petition needs to clearly demonstrate that the expansion would have minimal impact on other non-repeater 10 meter activities. Bob NO6B
