Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

OMG! WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! ;-> Joe M. Bob Dengler wrote: > > Pitting the most sensitive CTCSS decoder vs. the most sensitive noise > squelch, I'd have to give the edge to the CTCSS decoder provided the > user runs at least 700 Hz of CTCSS deviation.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 06:23 PM 09/05/07, you wrote: >At 9/4/2007 12:40 PM, you wrote: > >Al, > > > >Has nothing to do with pride, just sound sense that we don't need > >tone. Tone has its uses, but not a solve all problems approach. > > > >In my case solves no problem and in fact does create one...vacationers > >hav

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 9/4/2007 12:40 PM, you wrote: >Al, > >Has nothing to do with pride, just sound sense that we don't need >tone. Tone has its uses, but not a solve all problems approach. > >In my case solves no problem and in fact does create one...vacationers >have trouble finding the tone freq. Most directo

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 9/5/2007 04:11 PM, you wrote: > >> And Here is a Dumb Tech Question , If You had a PL And had the > >> receiver SQ All the open would Not the Receive Be hotter then > >> with No Pl and the SQ Closed enough to keep from keying up / > > > The answer is, no. > >I wouldn't say no for all examples

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Don KA9QJG wrote: > And Here is a Dumb Tech Question , If You had a PL And had the > receiver SQ All the open would Not the Receive Be hotter then with No Pl > and the SQ Closed enough to keep from keying up / It's not a dumb question, but it is a common misconception. The answer is, no. Se

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

of our Echolink node. Just my 2-cents worth. Mike WM4B WA4ORT/R (146.25/85) From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:40 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builde

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Something I don't understand why everyone trouts TONE access as a > cure all for interference. The interference is still there and for > weak signals they cannot access the repeater because of the > interference. Sure the repeater is quiet but it limits the coverage. > >

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Interference. Once corrected have great coverage. The tone access was only a Band-Aid to not hear the interference. David - Original Message - From: Laryn Lohman To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:26 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: s

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

I do Not Use a Tone to keep users out, Just to help Eliminate the garbage coming in, Not People, I see a lot of Comments on PL Receive, But none on Transmitting a PL, I have a Few users that use you know the other Ham Equipment not Motorola , Ge Etc. That lives in the Chicago area and c

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Something I don't understand why everyone trouts TONE access as a cure all for interference. The interference is still there and for weak signals they cannot access the repeater because of the interference. Sure the repeater is quiet but it limits the coverage. I maintain an ARMY MARS repeater

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Of Ron Wright Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:40 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. Al, Has nothing to do with pride, just sound sense that we don't need tone. Tone has its uses, but not a solve all problems approach. In my

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Al, Has nothing to do with pride, just sound sense that we don't need tone. Tone has its uses, but not a solve all problems approach. In my case solves no problem and in fact does create one...vacationers have trouble finding the tone freq. Most directories are not always up to date and to h

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

$600. Gotta be someone else. 73, ron, n9ee/r >From: Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2007/09/04 Tue AM 12:17:03 CDT >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > > > >What we HAVE seen

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

On Sep 1, 2007, at 4:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part > 97.3 (a)(22). > > As an example, we have one system on test coordination that has ~20 > dB of > desense. It can't be used anywhere with an HT, even 5 miles away & > line-o

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 9/2/2007 04:38, you wrote: >Although I think most coordinating councils do a good job, they do here in >Florida, I really do not want the council telling repeater builders what >equipment to use. We don't tell or even "officially" recommend (coordinate) specific types of repeater equipment.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 9/1/2007 21:17, you wrote: >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:35 PM >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > > >[snip] > >> > >>You guys have control of the qual

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

ge Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2007/09/01 Sat PM 11:17:49 CDT >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > > >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Sa

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. [snip] >> >>You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when >>issuing coordinations? &g

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > If you "push" that all repeaters in an area run the same tone, and > then some doofus comes along and his lashed up mess of a couple of > mobiles and a mobi

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

And how would that eliminate the interference? Sure, it would mask it, but it would still be there. So, is it better knowing about a problem so you can fix it or 'live in ignorant bliss'? CTCSS/CDCSS is not a solution for interference. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: > > I just said someone (typical

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

> > Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's > technical standards > > would be a bit above the "mess" you describe above. I know > we (TASMA) > > wouldn't coordinate such a system. > > > > Bob NO6B > > You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when > issui

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> If you "push" that all repeaters in an area run the same tone, and then some doofus comes along and his lashed up mess of a couple of mobiles and a mobile duplexer hooked up with RG-8X and it sta

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> If you "push" that all repeaters in an area run the same tone, and > >> then some doofus comes along and his lashed up mess of a couple of > >> mobiles and a mobile duplexer hooked up with RG-8X and it starts > >> opening itself... he'

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

MCH wrote: > Which results in OH 'claiming' 30 of the 32 (or 38) available tones. > > That leaves 2 or 8 tones for everyone else. Not a particularly fair or > reasonable plan. > > Joe M. ?? -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Which results in OH 'claiming' 30 of the 32 (or 38) available tones. That leaves 2 or 8 tones for everyone else. Not a particularly fair or reasonable plan. Joe M. Jim wrote: > > Right-Cleveland area 2M repeaters have used 110.9 since the mid-70's, > since most of the PD's & FD's in Cuyahoga Co

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Jack Taylor wrote: > PL access is a useful tool when all other means have been taken to get > rid of undesirable audio artifacts on a repeater. Usually this includes > harmonious > coordination with the other users at a site and a knowledgeable technical > approach to the problem. > > All to of

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Bob Dengler wrote: > One concept that really helps in this area is CTCSS tone frequency > standardization, IOW tones by region. All you then need to know is the > freq. being used in the area you're traveling to. Many areas are already > well established: 110.9 in Rochester NY, 107.2 in Niaga

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> If you "push" that all repeaters in an area run the same tone, and >> then some doofus comes along and his lashed up mess of a couple of >> mobiles and a mobile duplexer hooked up with RG-8X and it starts >> opening itself... he's just as likely to blame it on "that big

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 8/28/2007 23:08, you wrote: >On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > At 8/28/2007 16:01, you wrote: > >> Bob Dengler wrote: > >> > >>> One concept that really helps in this area is CTCSS tone frequency > >>> standardization, IOW tones by region. All you then need to know >

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

I think I still have one of the Heathkit DTMF mikes with the 555s. Heath had so many problems with it drifting due to wide temp ranges and aging they eventually discontinued it. Also since the 555 had square wave output its low group tones harmonic would get into high group tones interfering w

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

ederal government. It is good to find the problem yourself, but fixing the problem is another issue. Tone is a good fix for some of these. 73, ron, n9ee/r >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 2007/08/28 Tue PM 11:29:35 CDT >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject:

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

AM 01:08:58 CDT >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > > >On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> At 8/28/2007 16:01, you wrote: >>> Bob Dengler wrote: >>> >

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 8/28/2007 16:01, you wrote: >> Bob Dengler wrote: >> >>> One concept that really helps in this area is CTCSS tone frequency >>> standardization, IOW tones by region. All you then need to know >>> is the >>> freq. being used in the are

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 8/28/2007 16:01, you wrote: >Bob Dengler wrote: > > > One concept that really helps in this area is CTCSS tone frequency > > standardization, IOW tones by region. All you then need to know is the > > freq. being used in the area you're traveling to. Many areas are already > > well established:

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Nate Duehr wrote: > > It seems to me that if you have all the repeaters in an area running the > same CTCSS tone, and start fighting a mixing problem... everything is > going to be back to keying everything else in short order. That's the beauty of it. You will be dealing only with ham repeaters

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Bob Dengler wrote: > One concept that really helps in this area is CTCSS tone frequency > standardization, IOW tones by region. All you then need to know is the > freq. being used in the area you're traveling to. Many areas are already > well established: 110.9 in Rochester NY, 107.2 in Niaga

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

a band aid to hide the lack of expertise of those concerned. Jack - N7OO - Original Message - From: Jim Brown To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. Any new repeater

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Same in WPA... The recently adopted CDCSS codes are not on the map yet. Joe M. Bob Dengler wrote: > > One concept that really helps in this area is CTCSS tone frequency > standardization, IOW tones by region. All you then need to know is the > freq. being used in

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 8/28/2007 12:39 PM, you wrote: > > If CTCSS is still "turning people away" after almost 40 years of > > it being "out there" and in heavy use for at least 30 years, > > perhaps they need to be. > >In rural and remote areas it often ends up a bit of chore for >traveling-through mobiles to locate

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

skipp025 wrote: > You mean to tell us there are so many repeaters on the air in > Texas that even the low population rural area repeaters must > operate constant ctcss? Not sure about Texas, but here anyway -- the requirement is there that the repeater must at least HAVE the ability to switch

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 8/28/2007 04:27, you wrote: > > W.r.t. early homebrew encoders, I never really liked the 555 version > > because of the non-sinewave output. Since the encoder need to cover > > more than an octave, fixed filtering of any kind couldn't be used to > > clean it up. > >You can find the 555 used as

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

The 555 has been used for many timer applications. However, it timing is controlled with and RC network and these are difficult to keep within any tight accuracy like that of DTMF encoding. Besides there are plenty of xtal controlled devices for this. And as you said the output is a square wa

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Yep. - Original Message - From: "Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > If you S1 is like mine Chuck, do you remember the low battery alert - > the user

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Any new repeater coordination in Texas MUST have CTCSS or DCS access, no exception. Only older coordinations are grandfathered with open squelch access. It just does not make any sense to put on a repeater these days without some kind of access control. Unfortunately, some hams equate ac

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

A trick I used years ago for audio FSK RTTY on two meters was to put a frequency divider behind the 555. Generating the 2125 and 2295 frequencies for transmitting was done at 10 times the freq in the 555, and a resistor was switched in the 555 timing circuit to shift the frequency. Doing it th

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

If you S1 is like mine Chuck, do you remember the low battery alert - the user could not hear it, but everyone else could ? steve - former S1 owner. Chuck Kelsey wrote: > Yep. That's what I did, added a ComSpec encoder to my 4AT. > > My Tempo S1 has the added encode with DIP switch. Both radios

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 8/27/2007 08:58, you wrote: >I do remember that the Icom 02AT had subaudiable tone as an encode >(TX) function over 20 years ago. As to the repeaters, it has and >continues to be an owner option in most areas of the US. I don't >there is a real date as to when it was introduced in repeaters. >

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 07:39 PM 08/27/07, you wrote: >Larry, Gord VE3HKE used subaudible tones to limit access to the >autopatch on VE3TTY. I still have mine! It was a Ferrotronics unit >that was adjusted with a pot, definitely not programmable! > >I seem to remember that was around 1972/73, not much later because th

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 8/27/2007 03:56 PM, you wrote: >Yep. That's what I did, added a ComSpec encoder to my 4AT. > >My Tempo S1 has the added encode with DIP switch. Both radios work fine >today. > >Chuck >WB2EDV Yeah, I had one of those for each band (S5, S2, S4). The problem with the S2 & original S1 (not S1A) w

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

Correct, regarding LARRY! My statement was SPECIFIC to PROGRAMMABLE encoders. -- Original Message -- Received: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:52:30 PM CDT From: "Chuck Kelsey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > No, Larry asked th

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

No, Larry asked the question and said nothing about being programmable. See below. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: "MCH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > But it was not

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

d encode as an option. > > Chuck > WB2EDV > > - Original Message - > From: "JOHN MACKEY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 1:27 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > > > The Icom 02AT was

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

t;Chuck Kelsey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The 2AT (series) before the 02AT had encode as an option. >> >> Chuck >> WB2EDV >> >> >> >> - Original Message ----- >> From: "JOHN MACKEY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

The 2AT (series) before the 02AT had encode as an option. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: "JOHN MACKEY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > The Icom 02AT was either the f

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

At 10:27 AM 8/27/2007, you wrote: >dded later with a bolt on chassis using the famous long copper tone >reeds. I would guess that era to be sometime between 1965 and 1975 >when 2m repeaters first caught on (became popular) with the general >ham public.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..

2007-08-27 Thread JOHN MACKEY

The Icom 02AT was either the first, or nearly the first, to offer built in programmable CTCSS. -- Original Message -- Received: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:16:29 AM CDT From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. > I do r