FYI.
Cross-posting to IllinoisDigitalHam list and Repeater-Builder list from
the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
Thoughts folks?
Thanks to Mark N5RFX for doing real testing.
First real attempt I've seen at really quantifying the performance of
the receivers. Would love to see tests of the repeaters
At 8/31/2007 11:18, Nate Duehr wrote:
>FYI.
>
>Cross-posting to IllinoisDigitalHam list and Repeater-Builder list from
>the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
>
>Thoughts folks?
>
>Thanks to Mark N5RFX for doing real testing.
Thanks Nate. This is most informative. Now if you throw in the added
benefit of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 8/31/2007 11:18, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> FYI.
>>
>> Cross-posting to IllinoisDigitalHam list and Repeater-Builder list from
>> the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
>>
>> Thoughts folks?
>>
>> Thanks to Mark N5RFX for doing real testing.
>
> Thanks Nate. This is most informative.
It's like using burst for repeater access - the burst tone opens up the
repeater and anyone can use it until it resets. D-STAR is using the same
concept. Once the repeater is open, anyone can use it until it sees a
new header with a different repeater ID.
Correct?
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> [
At 9/1/2007 12:14, Nate Duehr wrote:
>Bob, since the discussion has been happening on the D-Star list
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- many people on the RB list and maybe
>IllinoisDigitalHam may not be aware that there's been some investigation
>into how D-Star repeaters that are co-channeled behave.
>
>Y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>At 8/31/2007 11:18, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
>
>>FYI.
>>
>>Cross-posting to IllinoisDigitalHam list and Repeater-Builder list from
>>the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
>>
>>Thoughts folks?
>>
>>Thanks to Mark N5RFX for doing real testing.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks Nate. This is most inf
At 9/1/2007 16:51, you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >At 8/31/2007 11:18, Nate Duehr wrote:
> >
> >
> >>FYI.
> >>
> >>Cross-posting to IllinoisDigitalHam list and Repeater-Builder list from
> >>the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
> >>
> >>Thoughts folks?
> >>
> >>Thanks to Mark N5RFX for doing real
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>At 9/1/2007 16:51, you wrote:
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>At 8/31/2007 11:18, Nate Duehr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
FYI.
Cross-posting to IllinoisDigitalHam list and Repeater-Builder list from
the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
Th
On Sep 1, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Ron Wright wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Part 97.201 reads:
>
> (b) An auxiliary station may transmit only on the 1.25 m and shorter
>
> wavelength bands, except the 219-220 MHz, 222.000-222.150 MHz, 431-433
>
> MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments.
>
> However, this is from Part 97 date
At 9/2/2007 10:21 AM, you wrote:
> >>>
> >>Bob,
> >>
> >>Does this mean TASMA has made the determination that DStar "repeaters"
> >>are not by definition a repeater (as part 97 would define a typical
> >>analog mode repeater) and can be operated outside the defined repeater
> >>sub bands as an auxi
At 9/3/2007 11:58 PM, you wrote:
>For better or for worse, the Report & Order that went through this
>year with the CW changes, etc... also included allowing Auxiliary
>stations in 2m. (Note: Many areas local bandplans have not kept up,
>and may never... VHF is busy and cramming in more Auxiliary
On Sep 5, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Bob Dengler wrote:
> FWIW, the control op didn't need to be physically at the IRLP node
> in order
> to control it, but rather present at a CONTROL POINT. This means
> one could
> control their IRLP node via a radio control link (not common but
> possible),
> or
Would these frequencies be in violation of FCC. I am thinking aux freq must be
in same band segments as repeaters or am I missing something.
Also if part of a repeater would have to be. 145.5000-146. are not
repeater freqs, input or output.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Dat
At 9/1/2007 09:18, you wrote:
>Would these frequencies be in violation of FCC. I am thinking aux freq
>must be in same band segments as repeaters or am I missing something.
No.
>Also if part of a repeater would have to be. 145.5000-146. are not
>repeater freqs, input or output.
They are
AIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 2007/09/01 Sat PM 06:03:39 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Cc: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] [Fwd: DStar Channel Spacing]
>
>At 9/1/2007 12:14, Nate Duehr
At 9/1/2007 16:45, you wrote:
>I really do not see a problem with D-Star repeaters existing with analog
>as long as D-Star follows the analog band plans set forth by the repeater
>councels.
We've been trying to co-channel D-Star with analog systems & it hasn't been
working well. Kind of like t
repeater.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 2007/09/01 Sat PM 05:27:25 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] [Fwd: DStar Channel Spacing]
>
>At 9/1/2007 09:18, you wrote:
>>Would these frequencies be
At 9/1/2007 17:01, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Part 97.201 reads:
>
>(b) An auxiliary station may transmit only on the 1.25 m and shorter
>
>wavelength bands, except the 219-220 MHz, 222.000-222.150 MHz, 431-433
>
>MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments.
This is outdated.
>However, this is from Part 97 dated Oct
18 matches
Mail list logo
