Since both the previous mentioned north/south reverse co-channel repeaters are owned by a few "mule heads"... I simply wrote a macro to place the repeater in ctcss for a time after a 30 second time out. Members normally encode tx ctcss (sub tone) so they don't even notice the change. The band openings are not so much of a big deal anymore...
One other thing... trusting ctcss/dcs operation to deal with problems can and often does fool/delay fixing of the real gremlin. And as many of you know... you can't hide behind ctcss/dcs operation very long or the gremlin will come looking for you... just to say hello and "remember me?". The Northern - Southern California reverse repeater band plan is kind of unique. Some of the addtional problems are sourced back to carrier squelch machines and their actual frequency spacings. Again the two north/south locations use different "channel spacings". Oh the fun in the sun we have... cheers, skipp > Mike Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 10:20 PM 02/23/07, you wrote: > >PL is no cure for interference or desence, it just hides it until > >someone actually tries to use the repeater. > > > > > Yep. All the more reason to require PL'd inputs and make sure that > > > systems don't have compatible PL tones with the one on the reverse... > > I never said it was - in fact I've made that point several times on > various pages on the repeater-builder web site. > > But if you have two systems that normally can't hear each other, but > once in a while a band opening allows it, then you have to assume > that the coordinators did the best job that the could given the environment. > The system owners shouldn't be running a carrier squelch system, or > if they are, have PL decoders installed that can be enabled. > One of the local carrier squelch systems have an 82.5 decoder, and the > club newsletter plainly says something like "Our club repeater is carrier > squelch on (frequency), however circumstances may require a 82.5 tone. > We suggest that you program your radio for full time 82.5 encode." > > My prior statement was made from the assumption that both were > established and coordinated systems. I said that if they are going > to be there, that they can at least NOT have the output tone of one > be the input tone of the other. > > Mike WA6ILQ >
