Fw: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)

Mon Aug 30 16:23:02 EDT 2004

I forgot when you reply it goes to the sender. Here is my reply to Fred.
Ed Yeary W4TEY
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Yeary" <w4tey at bellsouth.net>
To: "Fred Flowers" <fred_flowers at msn.com>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)


> All in all I have to agree with Fred. A lot of the arguments against tone
> just don't hold water. However, I think a major problem on 2 meters is
> "paper repeaters" that have been coordinated but not on the air for years.
> These repeater pairs could be put to better use by someone willing to get
> and keep them on the air. SERA is to be commended for doing "something"
but
> it was forced down people's throats {a la the ARRL's way of doing
things?}.
> Not a well received way of doing it. Hopefully SERA and the ARRL will both
> do "something" about paper repeaters and free up some spectrum IMHO !
> Ed Yeary W4TEY
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Fred Flowers" <fred_flowers at msn.com>
> To: <kyham at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
>
>
> > Dave & everyone else whining about tone on repeaters,
> >
> > You have most likely never owned a repeater.  I wont boor you with the
> > details, however building and putting a repeater on the air is a big
> > investment.  While I own, control it & have the power over who uses it,
I
> > don't believe in closed repeaters.  That being said I have tone on all
> three
> > of my repeaters.  I do it to protect my investment.  I don't want
> > co-channel, intermod & whatever other junk out there keying up my
> repeaters,
> > burning up the PA's.  Tony & I have 4 repeaters linked.  They are linked
> to
> > a group in TN.  This couldn't be done without tone.  We can't have one
> > repeater locking up the whole system.
> >
> > I don't understand why you people like to listen to the heterodyne in
band
> > openings.  I sure don't want some mobile, talking to a co-channel
> repeater,
> > keying mine up.  My users don't want to hear that crap.
> >
> > I've heard all kind of reasons not to tone.  Although none are valid.
The
> > one about emergency comms is BS.  If one is not smart enough to use
tone,
> > that person is not smart enough to be involved.  The one about some new
> > young ham not having a tone capable radio just knocked me down.  Stop
> > pawning off your old junk on the new kids.  The one about someone on a
> fixed
> > income not able to afford a new radio is the nut-cracker.  Go to a
> hamfest,
> > buy a rig and give it to him.  I went to a hamfest over the weekend and
> saw
> > nice 2 meter rigs with tone for $100.00 to $150.00.  Get together with a
> few
> > guys or your club and do a good deed.  Get two, the kid needs one to
> replace
> > the junk you sold him.
> >
> > The only people with a dog in this fight are the repeater owners.  The
> users
> > don't have a say.  Let it fly I have my flame suit on.
> > Fred Flowers
> > KF4QZN
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Dave" <wa4qal at ix.netcom.com>
> > To: "Brandon Nuttall" <bcnuttall at yahoo.com>; <kyham at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 9:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
> >
> >
> > > Brandon Nuttall wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dave,
> > > >
> > > >--- wa4qal at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>I wonder what the source of the information is for
> > > >>that web-site.  I quickly
> > > >>found one glaring error on it (It has a 146.685
> > > >>machine in both Lexington
> > > >>and Georgetown, which obviously is in error.).
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >I disagree that that is a "glaring error." First, most
> > > >people can hit the Georgetown 146.685 repeater from
> > > >Lexington with a 5 watt HT and a rubber duck.
> > > >Secondly, the frequency and offset are correct in both
> > > >instances.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, I happened to find that error within about 15 seconds of
bringing
> > > the
> > > site up, so that makes it pretty glaring to me.  I could probably find
> > > some
> > > other errors there if I wanted to take the time to study the list a
bit,
> > > but I
> > > wasn't that interested in it.
> > >
> > > As for being able to bring up the Georgetown repeater with 5 Watts
from
> > > an HT and a rubber duck, sure, that's probably possible from parts of
> > > Lexington.  But, I'm pretty sure that you couldn't do it from the
> southern
> > > part of Fayette county near the river.  On the other hand, you can
bring
> > > the machine up from I-75 near Corinth, and, if you were thinking that
> > > the machine was in Lexington, I doubt if you'd even try from there.
> > >
> > > >As to the source of information, the source is amateur
> > > >radio operators. For example, if you return to the
> > > >artscipub.com listing of Lexington repeaters, you will
> > > >see that I have added a note stating the correct
> > > >location of the repeater. It was as simple as clicking
> > > >on the More link.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's fine, but the problem is that not all repeater owners are that
> > > great about
> > > listing their information.  And, while the information can be
corrected
> > > when an
> > > error is found, I'm sure that there are still errors in there that
> > > haven't been found
> > > yet.  But, probably more troublesome is the case when a repeater
> changes.
> > > In that case, the information is still out there saying that it exists
> > > on a certain
> > > frequency, with a certain tone, and it may not be there at all.  Sure,
> > > one or two
> > > of these won't be a catastrophe, but as the data degenerates more and
> > > more,
> > > it becomes more problemmatic.  And, I won't even touch on the
situation
> > > where
> > > someone adds incorrect information (e.g., a machine goes down for
> > > maintenance,
> > > and someone adds a comment that it's been taken down permanently).
> > >
> > > >It is sometimes a challenge to determine if and which
> > > >tone is in use. I have an HT that will scan for tones,
> > > >but I need to hear a QSO on the repeater to do it. I
> > > >found one solution on a repeater in Evansville,
> > > >Indiana. I had looked in the ARRL repeater book and
> > > >had the frequency programmed. When I keyed it, the
> > > >repeater IDed and announced that a tone of xxx.x was
> > > >in use. I couldn't bring up the repeater again until I
> > > >set the tone.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've seen (and could even build, if I was interested enough) a tone
> > > decoder.
> > > Or, it's even possible to find a tone by brute force.  But, all of
that
> > > takes
> > > time.  And, if I'm traveling cross country, I don't want to take the
> > > time to
> > > find out the tones necessary to access a machine.  Sometimes, it's
nice
> to
> > > just put the rig on scan, and wait for it to lock in on a busy
> frequency.
> > > That's pretty painless now since you don't have to funble through a
book
> > > (while driving), looking for the pair and tone combination (only to
find
> > > that
> > > the information is stale).
> > >
> > >
> > > | This, of course, suggests a very simple solution.
> > >
> > > >Announce the tone frequency when the repeater IDs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, if you'd only seen the bloody confrontations that I have about
voice
> > > versus CW ids on repeaters that I have.  Some clubs and/or members are
> > > PASSIONATE about the type of ID that their machines have.  I'm not
> > > saying that either position is the correct one, and I can even
> sympathize
> > > with both sides.  But, how many hams out there are going to copy the
> tone
> > > frequency at 20 words per minute in CW?
> > >
> > > >Brandon
> > > >KG4RRI
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > WA4QAL
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Support Amateur Radio in Kentucky!
> > > http://www.kyham.net/
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Support Amateur Radio in Kentucky!
> > http://www.kyham.net/
>