Scott, This isn't really a rules discussion as much as a good amateur practice discussion.
If you're simply the user of someone else's repeater, and the faulty UHF link transmitter is dumping a spur on a local public service repeater's input, do you want them knocking on the repeater licensee's door, or yours? There's a reason the rules are written as they are. You can't just make unwitting mobile users responsible to answer for the proper operation of your transmitter. Actually, there are ways to legally ID your link which would still not let most interference victims actually find your callsign. Frequency-shift keyed CW? Who'd ever figure that one out? There could also be a discussion on whether CW makes sense for IDs in this day and age, but at least it's expected...a two-way shop trying to help a customer would know enough to record it and play back slowly to count dots and dashes, etc. If you make the transmitter the "dumb" end, all you really need there is a timeout timer on the link receiver which requires a specific signal over the link to reset. Then, if interference appears on the link, (and happens to have the same PL tone as your system,) worst case, you shut down the receive site system controller, transmit a carrier on your UHF link frequency for 3+ minutes to time it out, and neither end will come back up until commanded. Also works if your link transmitter gets stuck in transmit. Have your "return from timeout" message from the receive site controller be a DTMF sequence, different PL tone, etc., sent over the link to reset the dumb site's timeout. IMHO, the "waste of money to spend the extra $$ for two controllers" is a bridge you crossed when you chose to go split-site. In the overall scheme of things, the money to run a minimal controller for the "dumb" end is not a big part of the investment in a split-site HF repeater. But then...you have the connections to put together a 10m repeater cheaper than most of us do, so I guess "$$" is all relative! 73, Paul, AE4KR ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Zimmerman To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 10 Meter Repeater It could be and *should* be to be legal, I guess. In my opinion, it would be more in the spirit of good amateur practice to be able to shut off the Tx in case of interference on the link, rather than to ID the link frequency. If the user's audio is being passed completely, their callsign is being transferred on the link frequency as well. While I agree, if someone wanted to press the issue, that the user's callsign cannot ID the link; but it *is* being ID'd by an amateur operator. The best way to handle the situation would be to use two controllers, one on each end. Doing this would allow shutdown of the system in many ways from either end. But to me it's a waste of money to spend the extra $$ for two controllers. Not to get into a rules discussion, but I think that the issue of ID'ing linkback frequencies for split site machines and remote receivers should be FCC ruled separately than Remote Base linking between two sites. It would definitely make it easier as far as linking equipment is concerned. I don't know how to accurately define one purpose from the other to propose a rewrite to the rules. Other than FCC rule, I personally see no reason why a remote receiver link or split site link would need to be ID'd locally. In my opinion, the user's ID should suffice to ID any audio path his audio would take. In other words, the amateur is ID'ing the transmission, not the equipment he is using. Scott Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 612 Barnett Rd Boswell, PA 15531 ----- Original Message ----- From: "MCH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 10 Meter Repeater > Shouldn't the controller be at the 10M RX site so the link is ID'ed too? > It's the 10X TX site that can be 'dumb'. That's the way mine is. > > > Joe M. > > Scott Zimmerman wrote: >> >> Tom, >> >> The method I have built for customers is using split sites. (transmitter >> at >> one site and receiver at another) These sites should be separated by >> about >> 1/2 to 1 mile. A UHF or 220 link is used to go between the two sites. We >> use >> GE MII equipment for all the Tx's and Rx's. Basically it requires two >> radios: a 10M MII and a UHF MII. We swap the 10M Rx into the UHF radio >> and >> the UHF Rx into the 10M radio. The result is a 10M -> UHF and a UHF ->10M >> cross band repeater. The 10M Rx end is usually made to be dumb. Whatever >> comes in on the 10M Rx goes out on the UHF link channel. (CTCSS, Voice, >> etc.) This end of the system is simply controlled by COS logic on the 10M >> Rx. >> >> The system controller is located at the 10M Tx site. Since everything is >> coming back on the UHF link, you can run CTCSS on the system (helpful to >> eliminate co-channel users) The CTCSS decoder nicely interfaces with the >> on-site repeater controller. The other advantage is that you have a UHF >> frequency that you can run a control signal into to shut the system down >> if >> needed. >> >> This is a basic overview, but it will give you some ideas. >> Scott >> >> Scott Zimmerman >> Amateur Radio Call N3XCC >> 612 Barnett Rd >> Boswell, PA 15531 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "tom_kd8deg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:23 PM >> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 10 Meter Repeater >> >> > Hi All, >> > >> > HELP >> > >> > Is there anyone out there with any knowlage with building a 10 meter >> > repeater. My self and another ham want to put up a 10 meter repeater >> > and finding nothing in the great World Wide Web on how to go about it. >> > >> > 73 >> > >> > de Tom KD8DEG >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.13/1246 - Release Date: >> > 1/27/2008 6:39 PM >> > >> > >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: > 1/28/2008 10:59 AM > >
