Dear Mark,
I did hear both ends quite clearly on a handheld whilst driving back home
from Sevenoaks to TW and the last few minutes as I parked up.
Oddly other than a rather tinny audio from the 70cm it came through nicely at
TW.
Not that I know much about the Wouxon radios, but I read that the time out 1-7
minutes can be turned off.
Maybe next time I'll get back to take part in the net.
Regards
Chris Pegrum
chris@xxxxxxxxxx
73 de M0NAY
The views expressed in this email are personal and may not necessarily reflect
those of Chris Pegrum unless explicitly stated otherwise.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you should not copy it for
any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Senders and
recipients of email should be aware that, under the Data Protection Act 1998
the contents may have to be disclosed.
This email has been scanned by the AVG Email Security System. For more
information please visit < http://www.avg.com/gb-en/homepagel>
However Chris Pegrum cannot accept liability for viruses that may be in this
email and we recommend that you check all emails with an appropriate virus
scanner.
On 28 Jul 2015, at 07:17, Mark Kent <mark.antony.kent@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dave, that seemed to go very well yesterday, good show!
A few more thoughts:
For listening to Joe, I monitored the 70cms trunk, as I couldn’t hear him on
2m.
I’m pretty sure I can set up the Baofengs to dual-monitor, so that could be
an easier approach, and would avoid switching.
The time-outs were interesting, but so long as overs are not too long,
they’re mostly not a problem.
The Wouxon was pretty hot at the end of the evening, so I’m not sure whether
they’re really designed for a 100% transmit cycle; I certainly wouldn’t want
to do this on high power, but I don’t think we need to.
Steve 2E0VKH could clearly hear the Bidborough 70cms trunk, but not the
Otford one.
73 Mark G8PHM
On 27 Jul 2015, at 19:56, Dave <d.j.g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark the link is up at Hildenborough.
Both you and I will not be able to operate the net as we will be using low
power hand held radios and I doubt any non loca stations will hear us.
Dave
From: wkars-members-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wkars-members-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Kent
Sent: 26 July 2015 17:12
To: wkars-members@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wkars-members] Report on x-band working trial for Club Net
tomorrow [ Re: Monday evening net - cross-band working - FT897 ]
Top level summary: we plan to trial tomorrow for the club 2m net with
access in Sevenoaks area on 145.4125 and Bidborough on 145.375. Please read
on for details.
Fellow members, in the spirit of amateur radio, Dave M0YOU, Jeremy 2E0KJJ
and I, G8PHM Mark, conducted a x-band North Downs Coverage Extension Test,
NDCET. These were fully supervised station tests, with no “remote” working,
but allowing other licensed amateurs to operate our station equipment from
remote locations, whilst the stations were supervised by their licensed
operators.
At Otford:
Wouxon KG-UV950P for x-band, plus Baofeng handy for access, plus FT897 for
single-band working
At Bid borough
Kenwood TS-2000 for x-band, plus unknown handy for access.
Basic setup:
UHF Trunk: 433.400 U16 (power ~ 5 watts at each end)
VHF Access: 145.375 V30/145.4125 V33 (power ~ 5 watts at each end)
The test setups:
============
TS-2000 and KG-UV950P were both set to cross-band repeat, initially on the
same UHF and VHF channels. This relies on Vox detection of a carrier, and
the radio will then re-transmit the detected carrier ‘out’ on the other band.
Initial tests were set up with the TS-2000 operating x-band, and M0YOU
calling via a hand-held, with G8PHM operating the FT897 on 70 cms to
directly access the ’trunk'. This was highly effective, with each direction
fully quieting the receivers, and good quality audio.
Secondly, tests were set up with x-band operation at both ends, but using
the same 2 metre channels at each end with no CTCSS detection.
This was not satisfactory, as each end could ‘hear’ the other, and without
the CTCSS protection, we had a howl-around problem.
The solutions tried were a) different CTCSS at each end, and b) different
VHF access channels at each end.
Both methods were helpful.
My (PHM) view is that using different access channels at each is probably
the simplest to implement, but on a busy 2 metres, could cause some issues.
Next best would be for CTCSS codes to be different for each access location,
but note that this might result in some interference for some people able to
‘hear’ both access outputs at his/her QTH.
Considerations for club net testing
----------------------------------------------
Firstly, Dave and I intend to set this up tomorrow, using the channels as
indicated above, for the club net. This means that for people wanting to
get onto the net at the Sevenoaks end, they should select V33, and for those
near Bidborough, they should select V30.
It would also help to monitor (listen on) the trunk channel, U16, as well
as, and perhaps in preference to, the local access channel (V30 or V33)
where possible.
Hence a setup for Bidborough would be: Transmit on 145.375/V30; receive on
433.400 U16
And a setup for Sevenoaks would be: Transmit on 145.4125/V33; receive on
433.400 U16
Other thoughts
——————————
Additional trunk access points could be setup, which would have to support
433.400 U16, plus an access channel. The access channel would need to be
different to V30 and V33 to avoid howl-around, and could even be on another
band, such as 4 metres, 6 metres or 10 metres, so long as the x-band
capability is available. Keith, G4JED, was considering setting up something
similar, which could be very helpful also, but would need to find a
different access channel again, or we’ll need to develop a CTCSS tone plan
instead.
The cross-band devices have to be supervised at all times, and the operators
should announce their own callsigns on those radios every 15 minutes for the
‘traditional’ licence requirement. Unsupervised use would require a NOV
and suitable permissions!
The details of operating another station remotely are not entirely clear to
me, it might, for example, be helpful for people accessing via Bidborough to
announce their own callsign and mention ‘via M0YOU’, whereas those accessing
via Sevenoaks to announce their own callsign, but also mention ‘via G8PHM’.
As the basic requirement is every 15 minutes, it would not be required on
every over, unless you’ve waited a very long time!
A repeater at the club shack has been suggested several times, by several
people. These experiments could form the beginning of such an activity, but
note that the reason for doing this cross-band work is so that we can work
around the geographical limitations of the North Downs, so a single point
device will probably not satisfy that alone.
And finally, the choice of 70cms as the trunk could be questioned, 4m or 6m
could also be suitable, or even 23 cms if anyone has the equipment. The
availability of rigs which can monitor the trunk would be much lesser, so
those using handies to access could find that they cannot ‘hear’ other local
stations accessing their access point, but in the grand scheme of things,
perhaps this will not be a huge issue.
Experience of using this method could show that, say, 4m trunks or 6m trunks
might be feasible.
Lots to think on!
73 Mark G8PHM
On 26 Jul 2015, at 15:53, Mark Kent <mark.antony.kent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gordon, yes, noted, I’ve seen the same generally. They’re great,
inexpensive, sort of ‘Zenith E’ of radios, but there are some issues…
deviation certainly is one.
Dave, the choice of 433.375 was spectacularly dumb, I think 433.400 would
be much better, as it’s a standard ‘simplex’ channel.
Any chance you could move your radio to 433.400?
Ta,
Mark
On 26 Jul 2015, at 14:57, Gordon Bubb <gordonbubb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We (Raynet) have found Chinese radios of whatever flavour need their
deviation set to wide. Narrow seems very narrow, nobody can hear you. Wide
however is fine, comes over like any other radio. All the ones we've come
across have a wide/narrow menu setting.
Gordon
G7KNS
On 26 July 2015 at 13:53, d.j.g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <d.j.g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The Wouxon the KV-UV8D hand held also does cross and repeat for about £80
if we could get away with connecting it to the tri band vertical at the
club meeting room would give good coverage.
But like all the cheap Chinese radios I have encountered they have very
narrow deviation which can't be adjusted.
If a 6m repeater were to go up in the area the club site would be A prime
location.
Not sure if we could do that with the hall owners at minimal cost but
would be good if we could get away with it.
Has the rule on talk through changed? Is it something we now use on our
licence?
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Mark Kent" <mark.antony.kent@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <wkars-members@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [wkars-members] Re: Monday evening net - cross-band working -
FT897
Date: Sun, Jul 26, 2015 13:37
Gordon, funny you mention that! Jeremy 2E0KJJ’s Wouxon is basically a
budget 8900.
On 26 Jul 2015, at 13:36, Gordon Bubb <gordonbubb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark,
You need an 8900!
Gordon
G7KNS
On 26 July 2015 at 13:34, Mark Kent <mark.antony.kent@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dave, a 6m repeater could certainly be of interest, but the particular
interest here is a temporary cross-band managed talk-through for the
WKARS net.
A 6m repeater could be of interest in any case, but the only place I can
put one would be in my garden. It’s not an ideal location, but is at
least available!
73 Mark G8PHM.
On 26 Jul 2015, at 13:26, d.j.g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I have several radios that can cross and repeat and a commercial inband
repeater that works on 2m.
What are you trying to achieve? Are you looking at a potential repeater
site?
You need to be mindful of licence conditions when using talk through.
If you are looking at a potential repeater site we need a 6m repeater in
the area.
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Mark Kent" <mark.antony.kent@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <wkars-members@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [wkars-members] Re: Monday evening net - cross-band working -
FT897
Date: Sun, Jul 26, 2015 13:10
Dave, looks very interesting - it gives a DTMF remote control of the
audio path, so far as I can tell.
Jeremy 2E0KJJ is presently resident, and has a wouxon quad bander which
can, apparently, do cross-band repeating, so we’re going to give that a
try today.
It could be a very simple solution. Maybe.
73 Mark G8PHM.
On 26 Jul 2015, at 12:39, d.j.g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Try one of these they work very well
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Radio-Tone-Cross-Band-Repeater-Controller-Full-Duplex-/300909287802?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item460f97597a
Dave M0YOU
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Mark Kent" <mark.antony.kent@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <wkars-members@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [wkars-members] Monday evening net - cross-band working - FT897
Date: Sun, Jul 26, 2015 12:02
The FT897 is not capable of cross-band repeating.
To make this work, I think I’ll need two rigs with VOX, one for each
band, and a multiplexer or separate antennae for said bands.
The venerable FT-480r doesn’t have VOX, so it would need additional
electronics.
The FT-897 does have VOX, and I have a VX7R, and a couple of Baofeng
handies which also have VOX and multi-band coverage.
So one possibility looks like this:
1. FT-897 set to RX-TX on 433.375, with Vox engaged, and connected to
70cms antenna; set to 10 Watts so okay for all licence classes.
2. Handy set to RX-TX on 145.375, with Vox engaged, and connected to
2m antenna.
The audio-out of handy goes to audio-in on FT-897.
The audio-out of FT-897 goes to audio-in on Handy.
Both rigs are set with CTCSS for both RX and TX to something other than
103.5Hz, but very close in frequency to avoid any audible products from
accidental mixing.
The FT-897 forms the link to Bidborough from Otford at 70 cms.
The handy provides a local RX/TX for the Darenth Valley area.
=====
This is a complex setup, and would be much simplified by using a rig
which can cross-band repeat out of the box.
=====
In any case:
At Bidborough, the equivalent is set up. Note that the 70 cms path
would need the same CTCSS setup, but the 2m access would need a
different CTCSS from the Darenth Valley end to avoid opening up both
ends simultaneously.
Clearly this would only be up with the operators present, so we’d use
it for Nets, and then take it down.
For this approach to work, all stations would need to be able to reach
one or other end of the 2m access points for both TX and RX with
adequate S/N, or access the 70cms directly, but that would require
being able to access both the Sevenoaks and the Bidborough stations
simultaneously.
The approach does seem to be fascinating, involving using radio to do
the same kind of thing which echolink is doing using the internet.
thoughts?
Ta, Mark G8PHM.