Nate, All you need is a cooler with a bunch of 807's and some scotch (or whatever you're drinking these days), and you have the snowstorm (aka blizzard) in check.
Yes, you're right. In Wisconsin, where I live, 2 inches of snow in the fall or spring brings out the worst of the drivers in the area. Good choice of words . . . . sheesh, wimpy wimpy wimpy. Don, KD9PT ----- Original Message ----- From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:18 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Jim, your example does not have the inputs on top of the outputs. You have outputs side by side 15 MHz apart. That's common in a lot of places (including Colorado here). They're talking about inputs 15 KHz away from outputs. That's a tad more difficult. Bob, I understand the THEORY of California's bandplan, but in reality, users rarely push that much power. I do see that you guys limit deviation -- which is the key to making it all work wedged in that tight. I get it, but I don't. if you know what I mean. (GRIN) Back to monitoring all of the "blizzard" traffic on the local repeaters. everyone's all fired up here over a regular Colorado March upslope snowstorm. Haven't been enough storms this year, obviously -- everyone's all a-twitter about a maximum of 2' of snow, with many areas getting less. Only 12" in my backyard so far. Maybe we should ship some of our Califoriadoans (Californians who moved to Colorado in the 90's) out to Albany, NY or something so they can see REAL snow. hahaha. Some "lake effect" dumpage would get their snow-o-meters recalibrated in their heads. Schools closed, shelters open here. Whatever! Bunch'a 4WD driving soccer moms in this town, these days. NWS issuing a Blizzard Warning for the metro Denver area without 3 hours of sustained 35 MPH winds, is almost shameful. This is just a snowstorm. not a blizzard. Sheesh. Wimps. ARES is out running nets for shelters and stuff. I guess it's good practice for 'em. "We're out of donuts, over." I'm always glad to hear the repeaters getting used, but sometimes you do have to laugh at us hams. (sigh vs. grin on this one). Trying to keep this mini-rant on-topic, sorry! I did have fun driving around earlier laughing at all the "green" Priuses sliding all over the place on their low-rolling-resistance tires. Wonder how "green" they are upside down in the ditch, and later in the scrap yard? Hah. I just crawled along in the proper vehicle for where we live. the Jeep Cherokee. The Jeep, the 4 BF Goodrich All-Terrain T/A KO's, proper cold weather clothes, the bag with the tire chains, tow straps and other "snow driving" goodies just in case, and off ya go. smooth driving helps too, of course. we need a whole winter of this, maybe it'd scare some of these people into moving away. LOL! /me turns curmudgeon mode off now. sorry! Had to rant. Nate WY0X From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:28 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB In the early '70s I coordinated a repeater in Texas(146.985) between a 146.97 repeater in Dallas and a 147.70 repeater near Sherman. One was 50 miles and the other about 40 miles away. My coordination required that I not have any complaint from either already established repeater to continue my operation. I operated this repeater for quite a few years before Texas shifted to a 20 kHz spacing plan, when I was assigned a 147.16 frequency. I never had any complaint while using a Spectrum transmitter and receiver which I had assembled on a chassis with a homebrew controller. I am sure that many of the CA repeaters using this band plan operate without any problems, so it is a workable band plan, proved many times. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Wed, 3/25/09, n...@no6b.com <n...@no6b.com> wrote: From: n...@no6b.com <n...@no6b.com> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 9:54 PM At 3/25/2009 15:35, you wrote: >Back in the day, a channel was 30 kHz wide. When they were split to meet >demand, California was not the only coordination jurisdiction which chose >to put the "half channels" upside down. From what I gather from the >old-timers, it was easier to protect your input from a single, consistent >signal, (the other repeater's output,) 15 kHz off your input but far away, >than it was to deal with an ever-changing pool of users who could be right >under your site, trying to work the distant repeater with high power and >frequency tolerance inferior to the distant repeater. Precisely, Paul. Glad to see others have figured out the reasoning behind our oft-trashed bandplan. The best part is that with a little extra planning & spec'ing, 60 or even 40 mile separation isn't necessarily required to make it work, although you've got to use good equipment - no 30 kHz channel-spec' d radios without modifications. >California had to be first in finding solutions to many band-crowding >issues. Maybe hams there will be the first to narrow-band? Our 4 D-Star pairs are spacing @ 10 kHz; no interference complaints so far. Bob NO6B
