Please check out the below listed page and you will learn about the fairly
newly created National Capitol Region D-Star Association, which is comprised of
several metropolitan DC area D-Star groups.
http://d-star.mit.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page
There are are approximately six working
Is there an adjustment for receiver sensitivity on either the RP 2C or the
RP4000V? Once a transmitted signal gets more than about 100 or 200 yards away
from the site we can not key the repeater. We have checked antenna, duplexer,
and feed line and all of those seem to be working well. Once
Hey Steve, you may find this link helpful.
http://www.bosshardradio.com/dstarrepeatertesting/
This link provides for a PTT switch on the TX and a receive FM audio monitor
point. (note the repeater does NOT demodulate dstar date into audio, but you
can easily inject narrow FM (+/- 2.5KHZ
Steve
There have been many documented problems with the RP4000V.
One thing is to test for desense - this snip from
a message by Steve NU5D, covers it well:
Its very simple to listen to the receiver discriminator with an audio
monitor while injecting an FM tone into the receiver, and key the
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Steve Bosshard wrote:
It seems with so much brain power floating around out there that
linking software could screen the sending station's UR and either
unlink or send a call progress tone from the repeater letting the
person making the call know something
On Aug 9, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Steve Glen wrote:
Is there an adjustment for receiver sensitivity on either the RP 2C
or the RP4000V? Once a transmitted signal gets more than about 100
or 200 yards away from the site we can not key the repeater. We
have checked antenna, duplexer, and
On Aug 9, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Fran wrote:
I SAY LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS. IT WORKS FINE. I don’t understand why
to want to stop them from going to the reflector
Duh. That's an easy one. It's so simple it appears to elude everyone.
Because the people on the Reflector CAN'T TALK BACK
So what! They can't push a couple of buttons IF they want to talk back!!!
It doesn't seem to disrupt anything in my opinion!
Fran
-Original Message-
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009
Nate Duehr WY0X wrote:
If D-Plus would simply refuse to send any packets to links or
Reflectors with anything other than CQCQCQ in the UR field, the
problem would be solved.
It's a *really easy fix* that allows both callsign routing and
Reflectors to live in relative harmony, and only
Fran wrote:
I SAY LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS. IT WORKS FINE. I don't
understand why to want to stop them from going to the
reflector
Goes back to the issue of mixing callsign routing and
using a reflector. There are cases where sometimes a
listening party will only hear one side of the
Nate Duehr wrote:
On Aug 9, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Fran wrote:
I SAY LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS. IT WORKS FINE. I don’t understand why
to want to stop them from going to the reflector
Duh. That's an easy one. It's so simple it appears to elude everyone.
Because the people on the
Our repeater is always linked to a reflector and we want people to be able
to call route to us, so it is NOT a good solution.
Fran
http://www.miele-family.com/weather
http://www.miele-family.com/weather
_
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
mailto:dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com , Fran f...@... wrote:
So what! They can't push a couple of buttons IF they want
to talk back!!!
It's not a talk back issue, it's a resource issue. If a user has
selected an explicit callsign routing then I would beg
At 12:19 PM 8/10/2009, you wrote:
So what! They can't push a couple of buttons IF they want to talk back!!!
It doesn't seem to disrupt anything in my opinion!
I agree with Nate, it seems a simple solution to handling the
different traffic types. If UR = CQCQCQ, then it's fair game for
At 12:36 PM 8/10/2009, you wrote:
Our repeater is always linked to a reflector and we want people to
be able to call route to us, so it is NOT a good solution.
Well, they WOULD be able to callsign route to you. What Nate's idea
avoids is the repeater having to carry the callsign routed
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Fran f...@... wrote:
Our repeater is always linked to a reflector and we want people to be
able
to call route to us, so it is NOT a good solution.
Seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere along the way. The proposal is
for how -=OUTBOUND=- traffic
At 12:59 PM 8/10/2009, you wrote:
Seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere along the way. The proposal is
for how -=OUTBOUND=- traffic should be handled / routed, not inbound.
Maybe it's me that misunderstood?
No, sounds like you got it right Iain. I understood Nate's idea the
same way as you
On Aug 9, 2009, at 8:43 PM, Adrian wrote:
It´s really no big deal for the amount of callsign routed incoming
calls
that occur.
A vast percentage of op´s, had to relearn(or even discover) this
part of
d-star
during the contest.
That's kinda my point. Aren't most people often avoiding
On Aug 9, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Fran wrote:
Our repeater is always linked to a reflector and we want people to
be able to call route to us, so it is NOT a good solution.
Fran
Nothing about my solution would stop that. It would simply stop your
Gateway from routing THEM to the
That's kinda my point. Aren't most people often avoiding callsign
routing in the U.S., because of bad interactions between the two types
of routing?
There are a lot out there that simply don't know how to do it properly,
or could not be bothered with it, but probably some for that reason.
I
20 matches
Mail list logo
