[aprssig] Re: I may be setting up a digipeater

[Keith VE7GDH]

Joe NE3R wrote...

> Transmitting the object from the other digi would be ideal, but its
> owner has declined to do so. The two digis would have nearly
> identical coverage, which is nearly the same coverage as the repeater.

Hmmm... did he happen to indicate why he declined to do so? Was there a
technical reason, or something else? What is the callsign of the other digi?
Is it a "sorta high elevation" WIDEn-N digi?

> I'd want to keep this as simple as possible, multiple radios and TNCs
> wouldn't be ideal.  I was hoping to set it up on 99 because having two
> digis with the same coverage listening on the same frequency seems
> like a waste.  I suppose I could just set it up to beacon and not
> digipeat, but that also seems like a waste of a good transmitter.

As Bob indicated, listening on 144.990 and transmitting without listening on
144.390 would perhaps not be as bad as I had indicated. It would certainly
help low power mobiles & handheld trackers operating on 144.990 especially 
if they are having trouble being heard on 144.390. Certainly a more ideal 
situation would be if the operator of the other digi would simply create the 
object by putting it in his beacon text and sending it out every 10 minutes 
with no path. You could then (if you wished) find a more useful place to 
install your digi... somewhere it would provide coverage that the other digi 
doesn't already cover.

73 es cul - Keith VE7GDH
--
"I may be lost, but I know exactly where I am!"