<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Bob, UHF is a real jewel for Amateur Use. I changed my Echolink link from VHF simplex to a local UHF repeater for the very same reason you indicated....no blocking of signals...</div><div><br></div><div>I was just as you were (all VHF) until a few months ago...</div><div><br></div><div>KO4Lloyd</div>
<blockquote webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;" mce_style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div >
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [aprssig] APRS and UHF voice<br>
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu><br>
Date: Tue, July 28, 2009 10:18 am<br>
To: "'TAPR APRS Mailing List'" <aprssig@tapr.org><br>
<br>
Old Dog - New Tricks... <br>
VHF =>> UHF<br>
<br>
For some reason, for my 40 years of VHF mobile operation, I seem<br>
to only use 2m repeaters, just I guess out of habit.. And as an<br>
APRS mobile operator with a D700, I put up with the occasional<br>
blocked voice and blocked packets while I drive around only<br>
using the 2m band. But this weekend Appalachian Trail event was<br>
an obvious eye opener for me.<br>
<br>
With all the coordination we were doing on 445, it was just an<br>
all new experience to be TALKING on the radio, and seeing<br>
packets coming in at the same time. And never be blocked when<br>
packets went out. And with Murphy and his entire family hanging<br>
around all the mountaintops, we were using the voice<br>
coordination channel orders of magnitude more than expected.<br>
<br>
In my mobile, I have 117 VHF channels in memory and only ONE<br>
(446.0 national simplex) in a UHF channel. Yet, in my area, we<br>
have scores of UHF repeaters... And really good ones too<br>
(though silent 99.9% of the time)... That I have never bothered<br>
to use... Thanks... This gives me a new bunch of people to talk<br>
to...(and better reliability on APRS at the same time)...<br>
<br>
In fact, for the Golden Packet attempt next year I hope we can<br>
eliminate all 2m contact freqs, the reason being that every<br>
second we might be talking on 2m, is totally blocking our reason<br>
for being there, weak-long-haul packets. Also, every time a<br>
packet goes out, we lose a second of audio on the voice channel<br>
and have to ask for repeats..<br>
<br>
I agree, that the UHF is several dB worse than the 2m links for<br>
omni-omni links, but I hope that is just something we plan for,<br>
because once we are operational and lots of packets are flowing,<br>
we cannot afford to lose even one packet (that may have taken 13<br>
hops to get to us and only have one hop to go to its<br>
destination) because we were talking on 2m.<br>
<br>
So thanks for raising this issue. In fact, I'm going to<br>
re-program my mobile and see who is out there on UHF!<br>
<br>
Bob, WB4APR<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
aprssig mailing list<br>
aprssig@tapr.org<br>
<a target="_blank" href="https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig" mce_href="https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig">https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>