Re: [Repeater-Builder] Requiring CTCSS

3 Dec 2004 12:48:13 -0000

I think that CTCSS is used too often on input as a crutch for "solving" (covering up) interference problems. I'll bet a properly-operating carrier-squelch repeater will work better than one with a tone, simply because it is open to interference that must be FIXED, not just covered up with tone. I learned this the hard way. I have a 6 meter machine at 51.7 right next to a TV channel 2 and a 70 MHz pager link transmitter, and many other high-power devices. It was toned input at first, (to shut it up) and operated very poorly until I spent time and money on filtering and a good receiver. I am proud to say now that it is open carrier squelch with no problems. I do have a tone on the output, where the user can implement it or not for receiving trouble. I do believe that outputs should have tone, just out of courtesy, for user's sake. 
 
P.S. Put down your SERA book, you won't find it! :)

John -KI4AWK
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 1:15 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Requiring CTCSS

Living 1/2 mile from 'RF hell" on top of Lookout Mtn. requires that a repeater must have tone before I can listen to the channel without putting up with constant intermod. We have several untoned repeaters here in the Denver area that can't understand why someone would want tone on the output without a toned input even after explanation of the problem. For this reason, I would like to see a tone required on all repeater outputs (maybe 100hz) even if the inputs are untoned for those of us with intermod problems. All 4 of my personal repeaters are toned.

I've often thought the 100hz tone would be a good idea for use on some simplex channels were the ex-CBer contingent have taken over. I would still like to monitor some channels (.52 in this case) if there was some way to filter out the drivel.

Just my .08 cents worth (inflation)

Art - KC7GF
Golden, CO












Yahoo! Groups Links

Reply via email to