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
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
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Actually the Texas band plan was like theirs, my output was on 146.385 with an input on 146.985 between the 146.97 and 147.00 outputs. Texas did not keep it for long though, before converting everyone to 20 kHz spacing instead of the original 30 kHz with the splinters 15 kHz away but upside down to the original 30 kHz band plan. Sorry I was not clear on my post as to where my output was located. It seemed to work OK as far as I could tell. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Thu, 3/26/09, Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com wrote: From: Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 5:18 PM Jim, your example does not have the inputs on top of the outputs. You have outputs side by side 15 kHz 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. .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Bob Ricci wrote: I'm going to combine several issues into one email. With the help of this group and individuals like Bob - NO6B, I finally have our first repeater online. It sounds great but of course needs work. We currently have an interference issue from a repeaters whose output is 15 Khz away from our input and pound in at over 100 over S9 and more. My meter cannot read that high. Software reports that their signal is 1146uV (that's as high as it can read.) Coverage prediction software indicates that the RX level over the path should only be 224.5uV if they are transmitting 50 watts into a 6dB gain atenna. Considering that we are over 100 miles away from the other repeater its clear we have a problem that involves working with the other repeater. But alas, this is southern California and not so black and white. Any suggestions are greatly appreciate while I work with the frequency coordinators. I know that an Angle Linear does a good job filtering inband signals, but can it get close enough to effectively notch even some of the interference? 15 Khz is pretty darn close. WTB: I am looking for a GM300 for 6 meters or equivelent. Bob - AF6D The first question I can think of-is the interference you get continuous while the other repeater is transmitting, or do you just hear 'blips' of modulation peaks? If you only hear peaks, either your receiver could use a better IF/detector section, or they are hitting the deviation too hard (much more likely in my opinion.) If it's continuous, again, you might have a receiver issue, or they might be a little dirty. If you have something like a Micor or MastrII rx, and it's working right, then you're about as good as it gets.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites. A 5 KHz deviated signal doesn't really fit into 15 KHz of channel space, this is well-known. But why is their output on top of your input like that? Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
California does a lot of things like that, with 15KHz outputs away from inputs in the 2 meter repeater band. It does work if your keep the deviation down to under 4.5 KHz. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:21:03 PM PDT From: Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites. A 5 KHz deviated signal doesn't really fit into 15 KHz of channel space, this is well-known. But why is their output on top of your input like that? Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
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. California had to be first in finding solutions to many band-crowding issues. Maybe hams there will be the first to narrow-band? 73, Paul, AE4KR -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:21:03 PM PDT From: Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
At 3/25/2009 14:19, you wrote: Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? No, that is our bandplan, is by design. Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites. Nope. We routinely place repeaters less than 50 miles apart 15 kHz away have no adjacent channel interference. One of our more recent coordinee's systems was built by me has outputs + AND - 15 kHz from his input only 30 miles away. No ACI. A 5 KHz deviated signal doesn't really fit into 15 KHz of channel space, this is well-known. ...which is why we mandate 4.2 kHz peak deviation, along with a modulation bandwidth spec of 3 kHz max w/-20 dB rolloff @ 4.4. kHz. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
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
[Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
I'm going to combine several issues into one email. With the help of this group and individuals like Bob - NO6B, I finally have our first repeater online. It sounds great but of course needs work. We currently have an interference issue from a repeaters whose output is 15 Khz away from our input and pound in at over 100 over S9 and more. My meter cannot read that high. Software reports that their signal is 1146uV (that's as high as it can read.) Coverage prediction software indicates that the RX level over the path should only be 224.5uV if they are transmitting 50 watts into a 6dB gain atenna. Considering that we are over 100 miles away from the other repeater its clear we have a problem that involves working with the other repeater. But alas, this is southern California and not so black and white. Any suggestions are greatly appreciate while I work with the frequency coordinators. I know that an Angle Linear does a good job filtering inband signals, but can it get close enough to effectively notch even some of the interference? 15 Khz is pretty darn close. WTB: I am looking for a GM300 for 6 meters or equivelent. Bob - AF6D
