[CTSARA] [GNARC]Projectsand Activites: AnIdea and InformalSurvey
Chris- KB1QXR
kb1qxr at arrl.net
Sun Aug 23 13:54:07 EDT 2009
few more responses
Curt-
heh sorry for the long post. I am inclined to agree, or at least not
disagree, with your comments- this is where we're getting out of my area of
expertise (as an asterisk/telephony/IT geek) and into yours (as a more
experienced ham). I have plenty of experience with asterisk and programming
small gadgets with somewhat-abstract control schemes (like an Arcom), and
from what I read in the instructions I'm 99.9% sure they can be made to
peacefully coexist on the same machine. It will probably require fairly
extensive programming of the Arcom (a lot more than just set frequencies and
put in a password) but I'm confident that can be done. In the first few
pages of the Arcom it says that all functions can be made to require a
prefix code, or security key- that's what tells me it will work (and as you
say, the control operator can elect to change them). It also talks about
macros etc which I can go into more detail when we meet. So I'm quite
confident that an Asterisk system and an Arcom can be made to coexist
together without confusing one another.
However, I have relatively little experience with RF screwups and old radios
with miscalibrated DTMF encoders. I can suggest that based on much work
with Asterisk, I can say a noisy line will just not recognize a DTMF tone,
and that a double-digit (if this is set up correctly) won't cause anything
other than an invalid command message.
I think building a small scale test might be a good idea...
Jon Shapiro-
I have also observed a lot of inactivity on W1EE, which is what gave me this
idea. I believe (perhaps incorrectly in my relatively newbieness) that the
best way to stay familiar with a system and ensure it's in good running
condition is to use it regularly. This exposes any weaknesses and areas
that need improvement.
For example, I've for the ~year I've had my license been mostly inactive,
occasionally listening to what's going on but rarely if ever transmitting.
In the past week or two I've been more active and only through that have I
discovered that my HT and its small 'rubber duckie' coil antenna are
woefully inadqueate (TX-wise) for doing more or less anything from inside a
vehicle.
So while a long drive time rag chew might not be the most efficient use of a
multi-thousand-dollar linked repeater setup, the point isn't the rag chew,
the point is that the system is being used. From using it, the users become
familiar with its operation, with its quirks (such as where there are dead
spots and how much range it has with a particular radio/antenna, etc).
Jon Solomon-
If it's not already being used, that's why I suggest the link. Any
communications system is only as good as the number of people you can reach
with it. If that number is '0', then the system isn't too useful.
Back in the dark ages before internet e-mail, users would subscribe to a
service like CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc. You could email, but only
within your service (so for example, an AOL user couldn't email a Prodigy
user, and vice versa). As such it wasn't that useful, especially as it was
quite likely that your friend would use a different service than you. But
then all the services linked to the Internet, and with the increase in
contactable users it became exponentially more useful for everybody.
I see repeater linking the same way- increase the number of easily
contactable users, and the system becomes more useful for everybody, which
leads to more traffic. As you say, you could just call on ONE repeater and
have a nice QSO on the way to work...
I also agree that a repeater should be used and not sit idle (as per my
response to Jon S). If there is emergency traffic, then you want somebody
(anybody) to hear it, which won't happen if people aren't using the
repeater.
Also a quick question- I'm not a SARA member yet but I plan to become one
(I will turn in my form/$ at the next meeting if I can make it); am I
allowed as a non-member to check into the Sunday 'net if I'm around?
73s
Chris KB1QXR
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Solomon [mailto:jonstv at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:41 PM
To: Dr. Jon Shapiro
Cc: "ctsara Mailman"
Subject: Re: [CTSARA] [GNARC]Projectsand Activites: AnIdea and
InformalSurvey
Jon-
While all ideas need to be ironed out, I think you are making some odd
points...
I agree with you that if it's not already being used, how will linking help.
Truthfully, I think the NLK repeater has a little more coverage and
therefore gets more use. Everyday I get in my car (workday) I
sign on. After 9am, I usually have a nice conversation with 'GRB.
But other than that, rarely do I get a beep back. I'll hop up to NLK and
down to the WECA, but usually nothing there. My 8 minute commute doesn't
coincide with anyone else's. True, I work only VHF right now; no reason, I
just do. BUT, I do wonder if, rather than having to call on three different
repeaters (and how long do I wait, I mean my
commute /is/ short) I can give one call and find someone to talk to.
I also think that we should consider unlinking them for heavy talk times.
Repeaters don't seem to get as much traffic in this area as they did when I
was in MD, especially during rush hour.
As for a linked system on 95 (and the Merritt!) it's NOT cheaper to use a
cell. We're already paying for the gear, power and HVAC. The
repeaters are installed and there to use. And they SHOULD be used.
(Cell phones, on the other hand use minutes and battery power.) As
operators, it's best if we become familiar with the local call signs, as
well as familiarity with the voice of said calls. The last thing
you want in an emergency is not knowing if you are talking to someone
next door, or out of the emergency area. It also gets users familiar with
there radios so in the time of an emergency (hurricane, snow storm), they
can pay attention to their surrounding and not their radios. Besides, cell
phones are more dangerous, IMHO. With a radio, if something happens that
you need to react to, I don't think a person has any qualms with dropping
the mic and doing what they need to do; most people try to hold their cell
phone. And you can't talk in a group on the phone (except a conference
call!)
Of course, that's why you pause before picking up the QSO; for emergency
traffic. Pausing is NOT something that is done often enough on most of the
repeaters around here.
As for the tower of the new repeater, I don't have the answer; but we are
sharing it with the local first responders; I presume it will hold up. Will
yours? My mobile 1/4 wave sure will (as along as my car does ;)
So, I'll be on tomorrow around 9am.... who will be there?
(I'll probably miss the 'net tonight because of work.)
My $0.02, see you Thursday...
'73s
Jon S.
W3EIC
On Aug 23, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Dr. Jon Shapiro wrote:
>
> Why dont you guys use the repeater that is there. I have it on for
> hours this week end ( prompted by these emails) and hear a few key
> click at the most.
>
> Its hard from the thread whether you all want to link the repeaters,
> or come up with some innovative new system.
>
> If the repeaters are tied up on I95 for one big long rag chew so you
> can drive from New Rochelle to Bridgeport, ... use a cell phone. Its
> cheaper and clearer.
>
> The repeaters should be for local use to get local help ( drive
> assistance, local info, emergency), . If no one is monitoring each
> repeater, as is done for groups such as ECARS ( 7255 khz) which is on
> for 8 hours a day, then the repeater is just a toy to be saved for
> emergencies... what is the tower
> wind rating? Hurricanes anyone. The only one I ever hear and/or
> talk to on
> the Stamford Repeater regularly is John Sabini.
>
>
> Jon Shapiro
> AB1HI
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Curt Seaton" <seaton.1 at netzero.net>
> To: <kb1qxr at arrl.net>; "ctsara Mailman" <ctsara at mailman.qth.net>;
> <gnarc at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [CTSARA] [GNARC] Projectsand Activites: AnIdea and
> InformalSurvey
>
>
>> Whew, my eyes are tired..... Thank you for the Asterisk info, I
>> still
>> want to discuss how this will be used as compared to what already is
>> available once we program the controllers to do some of these
>> functions. But I still want to talk with you folks about the
>> considerations of incomplete DTMF tones, due to improper touch tone
>> levels into various radios, and the 'twist' of the difference in
>> levels of the high and low groups of touch tones as in certain radios
>> that are
>> 'marginal' in deviation. Also what happens when the RF carrier is
>> 'weak' or a momentary noise burst or pop makes the touch tone decoder
>> think it received two digits instead of the desired 'one' digit,
>> etc... there are many things we 'could' do, and as you may have
>> read
>> in the Arcom manual there are specific digits 'reserved' for specific
>> tasks unless the control operators elect to change them. I
>> understand some other controllers (like the CAT family) do things a
>> little
>> different also.. It is just not a simple bee-boop and all works
>> as you
>> wish always... Also consider the 'cover tones' that some other user
>> may not have heard and then he elects to send some DTMFs and
>> over-ride your sequence... lots to consider and that is why I feel
>> pretty strongly about discussing this eyeball to eyeball.
>>
>> If we conclude that some of these features are worth persuing, I will
>> offer up an Arcom controller to 'experiment' with, so we can evaluate
>> what it will and will not do. In order to do this, and test
>> properly, I would ask one of you guys to build up a "repeater
>> simulator" box that would have some LED's and switches that could be
>> used to simulate the COS, CTCSS decode, and the controller's LED will
>> need a PTT pullup to activate it. IT would be super helpful to have
>> a small audio amplifier and loudspeaker for the repeat audio in order
>> to 'hear' what would normally be transmitted over the repeater. A
>> pair of these test boxes would allow us to test two ports at the same
>> time, to test out linking
>> and unlinking also... I can provide a drawing of what is needed
>> if you
>> guys wish to build them up... maybe make them nice enough to sell to
>> other repeater owners to test their controllers as controllers
>> without
>> having a radio always... I can explain this more later too...
>> Hope
>> to see you all Thursday evening...
>>
>>
>> Curt
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> CTSARA mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ctsara
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:CTSARA at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this
>> email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> CTSARA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ctsara
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CTSARA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
______________________________________________________________
CTSARA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ctsara
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:CTSARA at mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
More information about the CTSARA
mailing list