time.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:29 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Requiring CTCSS
Or do like I do,encode 71.9 and decode 141.3 just to confuse the
automatic feature in most riceboxes
That's not meant to be an argument against using
tone, just pointing out
one of the problems. Two possible solutions are: 1)
A common tone defeat
code on DTMF which would allow a transient user to
at least access the
repeater long enough to hear the announcement (there
are a couple
At 08:57 PM 12/3/2004, Paul wrote:
snip The only down side that
I can see is people that don't have a repeater directory in front of them
would not be able to talk on the repeater. A ID with a voice announcement
about the CTCSS tone frequency would/and is going to fix that problem on my
Some of us program in an announcement that comes up once an hour and
states the PL, also there is an ID that comes up every so often that my
system ENCODES the PL along with that ID (users hear the repeaters, and
can catch the PL in their radios with decode). Tell me this . how
many
Or if they would have had tone you could have just dialed up there tone.
- Original Message -
From: Q [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Requiring CTCSS
Or do like I do,encode 71.9 and decode
On one of the systems that I take care of, we fought interference from a
paging transmitter for about 12 months before making the choice to go to PL
access full time. In our case, the signal was weak enough that a mobile on
the fringe of our coverage area could cover it, but strong enough to
I think that CTCSS is used too often on
inputas 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
KI4AWK wrote:
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
KI4AWK wrote:
I am proud to say now that it is open carrier
squelch with no problems.
Great. Now your repeater becomes our problem during a
band opening. We can't select the repeater that
shares your frequency during the opening. All we get
is hetrodynes.
Joe
Yahoo! Groups Links
*
As Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF, pointed out so well a number of years ago:
5-2 ... is one half of 10-4 ... ;)
Neil - WA6KLA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... snip ...
I've often thought the 100hz tone would be a good idea for use on
some simplex channels were the ex-CBer contingent
Neil McKie wrote:
As Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF, pointed out so well a number of years ago:
5-2 ... is one half of 10-4 ... ;)
Neil - WA6KLA
mercy sakes...
;cD
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
11 matches
Mail list logo
