;Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>At 11/9/2007 13:12, you wrote:
>
>>I know of very few who do this.
>>
>>Joe M.
>
>I don't know of anyone that does this. Yet it is in the rules.
>
>I think the
wrong he/she can be held responsible.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/11/13 Tue AM 12:55:55 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>I think i
At 11/12/2007 22:55, you wrote:
>I think it's an interpretation of how you define failure of the control
>link. You could use an active low COS and if the repeater controller
>sees three minutes of continuous low, it assumes the control has failed.
>
>But, that is a discussion for another day - or
I think it's an interpretation of how you define failure of the control
link. You could use an active low COS and if the repeater controller
sees three minutes of continuous low, it assumes the control has failed.
But, that is a discussion for another day - or another list.
But, you brought up th
At 11/9/2007 13:12, you wrote:
>I know of very few who do this.
>
>Joe M.
I don't know of anyone that does this. Yet it is in the rules.
I think the legal "out" here is that automatic control relieves the need
for remote control, with only the latter requiring the heartbeat timer.
Bob NO6B
I know of very few who do this.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote:
>
> >OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me:
> >
> >§97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station.
> >...
> >(b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station
> >to a per
I believe that, as long as he has the SSID turned on for the WiFi link, he's
OK with the ID requirement.
How else would one ID on 2.4G WiFi??
Mark - N9WYS
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Paul Plack
...or, if you're calling wifi a ham-band link, how you'
The way most HSMM stations do - you use your callsign as the SSID of the access
point, and have beaconing enabled!
- Original Message -
From: Paul Plack
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97
...or, if you're calling wifi a ham-band link, how you're ID-ing that sucker!
- 73, Paul AE4KR
- Original Message -
From: Laryn Lohman
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question re
Understood. For my question, I was thinking along the lines of using
the 2.4G radios as a WiFi user, not as an Amateur user.
I just wanted a clarification, because using 2.4G WiFi for a portion
of a control link is no different than using a 49 mc. cordless phone,
or a 1900 mc. cellphone to punc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Clark
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:27 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
One
Bob,
I think you are kidding, hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 2007/11/09 Fri AM 10:46:08 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>At 11/8/2007 18:12,
lto:larynl%40hotmail.com> com>
>Date: 2007/11/08 Thu PM 10:25:46 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
>
>Ron, please clarify why you thin
Remember that this is only required if you do not use automatic control.
This is why most repeater owners implement automatic control, and then use
telecommand as a backup.
Keith
On 11/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote:
>
> >OK, here is where i
At 11/9/2007 07:01, you wrote:
>Laryn,
>
>My only reason for thinking 2.4 G would not be legal for control it did
>not fall within the Auxiliary frequencies allowed for control or Telecommand.
The entire 2.4 GHz amateur band is available for auxiliary stations.
Bob NO6B
At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote:
>OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me:
>
>§97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station.
>...
>(b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station
>to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in
>the control link.
>
>Do
5:46 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>Ron, please clarify why you think that Part 97 would not allow using
>2.4 gc. WiFi for a control link...
>
>Laryn K8TVZ
>
Ron Wri
Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> >
> > Nate Duehr wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote:
> >>
> >>> Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard
> >>> to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE
> >>> first, dual-band mobile to feature ful
om: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:28 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
> control
>
>
>
> Simplex: One
How do you define when 'it fails'. That is the real question that has
existed for decades. I don't think anyone can answer that. I think it's
more of a theoretical 'what if' scenario as to what should happen - a
guide to use.
Joe M.
Dennis Zabawa wrote:
>
> OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy
OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me:
§97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station.
...
(b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station
to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in
the control link.
Does that mean that the link must be active
: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:00 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A
"crossband" repeater is still a repeater and must therefore
Thanks for the clarification! Craig
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith, KB7M
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:00 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:35 PM, John Barrett wrote:
> A repeater is NOT full duplex.. it is not simultaneously processing
> completely separate audio streams in and out.. it is processing the
> SAME audio in and out. There is only ONE audio path – full duplex
> requires TWO. Telephones accompl
ember 08, 2007 10:28 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both.
Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both.
Your TX frequency is
>
> Nate Duehr wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote:
>>
>>> Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard
>>> to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE
>>> first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As
>>> des
Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both.
Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both.
Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency.
Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time.
A repeater is Full Duplex operation. I
Ron, please clarify why you think that Part 97 would not allow using
2.4 gc. WiFi for a control link...
Laryn K8TVZ
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary
frequency. Has to b
On Nov 8, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Paul Plack wrote:
>
>> Nate,
>>
>> You'd have fewer thermal cycles, but a wider range of extremes
>> between hot and cold, since continuous duty for four hours would get
>> the joint to a higher peak temp.
>>
>> Am I m
On Nov 7, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Paul Plack wrote:
> Nate,
>
> You'd have fewer thermal cycles, but a wider range of extremes
> between hot and cold, since continuous duty for four hours would get
> the joint to a higher peak temp.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> 73, Paul AE4KR
>
Well, the maxim
On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote:
> Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard
> to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE
> first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As
> designed, it's crossband repeat fu
My comments on this were generalized. Note the use of terms like "common
dual-band radio" and "run of the mill dual-band radio".
Even the Kenwoods that supposedly support remote control don't do it in a
way that is usable (I know. I own one. I tried it. And it is a kludge that
would only work u
On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Keith, KB7M wrote:
> This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused.
> A "crossband" repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow
> all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common
> dual-band mobile radio that s
ng them to unplug the repeater
to turn it off would be acceptable, but not to turn it on.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/11/08 Thu AM 11:07:26 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question r
om
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>John Barrett wrote:
>> a Time Of Day macro to me is an automated function.. how can something that
>> is automatic not be considered automatic control
>>
>> OK - lets de
-Original Message-
>From: "Keith, KB7M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Nov 8, 2007 11:59 AM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>This is an issue that is highly misu
y 220 or 440 under these rules?
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jim
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:07 PM
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question
: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
Ron Wright wrote:
> John,
>
> Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary
> frequency.
Change that to "PRIMARY" control. Nothing illegal about control on
144.39, just that that can&#x
At 11/7/2007 11:28, you wrote:
>But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the
>repeater? (or landline ot local)
97.213(a). Remote control may only be performed by telecommand, , & only
auxiliary stations may provide an over-the air control link.
Bob NO6B
At 11/7/2007 00:54, you wrote:
>So a repeater is both an Automatically Controlled station and a
>Telecommand Station? (And a Repeater Station on top of that?)
Close. A repeater can be an automatically controlled station OR a station
under remote control via telecommand. Further, if the telecom
Ron Wright wrote:
> John,
>
> Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary
> frequency.
Change that to "PRIMARY" control. Nothing illegal about control on
144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control.
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
Kevin Custer wrote:
> Oh, BTW the rules discussion is fine for now.
>
> Kevin Custer
>
Oh, this isn't an argument at all!
;c}
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
John Barrett wrote:
> a Time Of Day macro to me is an automated function.. how can something that
> is automatic not be considered automatic control
>
> OK - lets define terms here...
>
> An automated function is anything the controller does without human input
> beyond keying up and talking.
No
Joe,
I think this is what we are looking for:
Under Definitions:
(43) Telecommand/. A one-way transmission to initiate, modify, or terminate
functions of a device at a distance.
§97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station.
An amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface may be und
PM 08:37:40 CST
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
> >control
>
> >
> >Joe,
> >
> >You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on
> >Auxiliary fre
8:54:38 CST
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
> >control
>
> >
> >
> >Do you guys see a problem running thecontrol link on 144.390 (APRS) or one
> >of the 145.* packet fre
ohn Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:54:38 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
>control
>
>
>Do you guys see a problem running thecontrol link on 144.
Joe,
It is in 97.213.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: Ron Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:37:40 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
>control
>
>Joe
t;Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 10:58:00 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>And what rule says this? (this is my original question)
>
>Joe M.
>
>Ron Wright wrote:
>>
:36 PM CST
From: George Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
> -Original Message-
> >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM
> >To:
ilder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 7, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Ron Wright wrote:
> A hang time is good. How long well it depends. Many repeater users
> I know use it to gove
Regarding using the repeater input as a control frequency...
Set it to require a control operator action to bring it back from the 3-minute
timeout. That would solve the jammer issue. Just use your own transmitter to
make sure it times out, then don't reset it till the trouble has passed.
I had
On Nov 7, 2007, at 7:54 PM, John Barrett wrote:
> Do you guys see a problem running the control link on 144.390 (APRS)
> or one of the 145.* packet freqs ?? As a packet mode link ?? I’m
> sure the 2.4g WiFi control link is fine, just want an opinion about
> running control capability piggy-
On Nov 7, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Ron Wright wrote:
> A hang time is good. How long well it depends. Many repeater users
> I know use it to govern the time between transmissions by letting
> the repeater drop before they take it. They do this to allow
> breakers. Some think it resets the tim
- Original Message -
From: "MCH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
> But again, the question is: Are EITHER of these required?
>
> Can the repe
> repeater, but there is still the requirement of a control operator being
> responsible, just not at the control point.
>
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
>
> >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 05:36:58 CST
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
And what rule says this? (this is my original question)
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
>
> One must have control of a repeater or any Ham transmitter and it must be
> done on the proper control link, most of 2 meters and 222 MHz and above, by
> wire (phone line, etc) and in person.
right
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:38 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
Joe,
You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on
Auxiliary frequencies only, most of 222, most of 4
11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it.
>
>Joe M.
>
>Ron Wright wrote:
&
r-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>>From: Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:50 PM
>>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder]
om
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>I had a guy at a meeting last night who wants to get rid of the
>'expensive' phone line. I told him it was required for control of the
>repeaters. He asked where that was in Part 97, and I didn&#
matter what band,
could not be used for control, but this went away years ago.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: John Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 02:57:14 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference t
07 Wed PM 05:36:58 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>But again, the question is: Are EITHER of these required?
>
>Can the repeater be run strictly with Automatic Control?
;Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>
>On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:46 PM, MCH wrote:
>
>> That's what I'm seeing, too. The control link used to be required. I'm
>> thinking it got axed from Part 97 - per
Yeah, with that rule gone I'm surprised at how many repeater
controllers still enforce it. I'd prefer longer hang-times for less
transmitter cycling, really.
Let me introduce you to the PTT Delay Timer
http://www.repeater-builder.com/projects/pttdelay.html
Might as well leave it
I recall when that 5 second rule was removed. Someone put their repeater
on 24-7-365 and it was legal from a transmission point of view. Now,
when it comes to interference that is another matter.
BTW, I have emailed Riley about this. I'll let the list know what he
says.
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:46 PM, MCH wrote:
> That's what I'm seeing, too. The control link used to be required. I'm
> thinking it got axed from Part 97 - perhaps around the same time that
> the rule that repeaters must discontinue transmitting within FIVE
> SECONDS of the input going inactive was rem
On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:36 PM, MCH wrote:
> But again, the question is: Are EITHER of these required?
>
> Can the repeater be run strictly with Automatic Control? Part 97 seems
> to indicate it can.
I think from a purely "legalese" point of view, you can get away with
not having either one.
Then
In a message dated 11/7/2007 6:37:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
writes:
I seem to recall a part in the rules which required some means of
control in addition to Automatic Control. I cannot find that now.
Joe M.
Repeater rules and part 97 in general has changed a lot.
That's what I'm seeing, too. The control link used to be required. I'm
thinking it got axed from Part 97 - perhaps around the same time that
the rule that repeaters must discontinue transmitting within FIVE
SECONDS of the input going inactive was removed.
I believe the prohibition on the list is d
rom: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM
> >>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question
> >>reference to Repeater control
> >>
> >>But where does it require a control link (
But again, the question is: Are EITHER of these required?
Can the repeater be run strictly with Automatic Control? Part 97 seems
to indicate it can.
I seem to recall a part in the rules which required some means of
control in addition to Automatic Control. I cannot find that now.
Joe M.
Keith,
e by other operators.
(Part 97.205g)
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:47 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
Jo
Whether or not using the input of the repeater for control purposes fulfills
the requirements of Part 97, , using DTMF commands on the repeater input
presents two potential problems:
1. For it to be reliable, you have to be able to pretty much capture the
receiver. It doesn't take
much o
On Nov 7, 2007, at 12:56 PM, George Henry wrote:
> Primary control CANNOT be on the repeater input frequency. What if
> the repeater is being jammed?
It can if you have a retired ham who's always home and has an 18-el
yagi and 1000 W VHF amp. :-)
Just kidding, just kidding... but I'm sur
John Barrett wrote:
> According to Part 97.205e, ancillary functions (phone patch, etc) are not
> considered remote control… which seems to limit the meaning of remote
> control to enabling or disabling the repeater as a unit.
Technically, turning off (unkeying) the transmitter, and identification
07, 2007 3:01 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
And that can be done though DTMF with my controller from
the receive frequency on the repeater.
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:57:14 -0600
"John Barrett&quo
John Barrett wrote:
> No where can I see it stated that there MUST be a control link for a
> repeater !!
When it is in automatic operation, you are correct. It's when it is
doing something other then repeating or identifying that it needs a
control link. Someone punching in a code that commands
er 07, 2007 2:41 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question
>reference to Repeater
> control
>
>
>
> Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control of the
> repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:41 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
control
Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control of the
repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the DTMF ton
On Nov 7, 2007, at 1:21 PM, MCH wrote:
> I had a guy at a meeting last night who wants to get rid of the
> 'expensive' phone line. I told him it was required for control of the
> repeaters. He asked where that was in Part 97, and I didn't have an
> answer for him. This is why I'm asking the quest
links with the ability to completely cut power to the repeater . so I'm
covered there :-)
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Henry
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 1:57 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Re
---Original Message-
>>From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM
>>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question
>>reference to Repeater control
>>
>>But where does it require a control lin
On Nov 7, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd wrote:
> and there is a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency
> limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details.
>
> Adam kb2jpd
Actually if you want to be very specific about it, Auxiliary Stations
are now allowe
;
> Joe M.
>
> George Henry wrote:
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> > >Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM
> > >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question re
eater. (nobody lives within 3 minutes, and even if they did, that
person would always have to be home.
Joe M.
George Henry wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
&
-Original Message-
>From: Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:50 PM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>Most 2M Repeater operators use their input free s
-Original Message-
>From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to co
Most 2M Repeater operators use their input free so I think you know
what that means.
On 11/7/07, MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the
> repeater? (or landline ot local)
>
> Joe M.
>
> Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd wrote:
> >
> > and there is
But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the
repeater? (or landline ot local)
Joe M.
Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd wrote:
>
> and there is a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency
> limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details.
>
> Adam kb2jpd
vember 07, 200711:15 AM
>To:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder]Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
>
>and thereis a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency
>limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details.
>
&g
This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it.
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
>
> It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc) or on
> 222 MHz and above.
ay, November 07, 2007 11:15 AM
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater
> control
>
>
>
> and there is a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency
> limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details.
>
> Adam kb2jpd
>
>
>
Hi, I don't get QST. Any details you can share here?
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:15 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 que
and there is a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency
limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details.
Adam kb2jpd
MCH wrote:
> So a repeater is both an Automatically Controlled station and a
> Telecommand Station? (And a Repeater Station on top of that?)
>
> Joe M.
Depends on what it's doing at a given instant. If it is actually
repeating an incoming signal, and nothing else, it's a repeater, and can
be un
Joe,
All Amateur Radio transmitting stations have to have a control operator,
someone, a licensed Ham responsible for the proper operation, repeater, mobile,
HT, base, etc. It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone
line, etc) or on 222 MHz and above. It is that a repeater ca
So a repeater is both an Automatically Controlled station and a
Telecommand Station? (And a Repeater Station on top of that?)
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> At 11/6/2007 22:04, you wrote:
>
> >Part 97 debates are not allowed on the list, but this is not a debate.
> >
> >It used to be that
At 11/6/2007 22:04, you wrote:
>Part 97 debates are not allowed on the list, but this is not a debate.
>
>It used to be that repeaters had to have some means of control (Control
>link or telephone), and that they had to cease operations within 3
>minutes of failure of the control link.
>
>Is that
99 matches
Mail list logo
