<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I would be concerned that any inexpensive handheld is not going to have sufficient front end filtering to survive at a busy, mountain-top communications site no matter what band it’s on. I’d be more inclined to see if Bridgecom’s 222 MHz repeater could be adapted for simplex packet use. Even then, the proper cavities and/or circulators to keep the local RF out of the radio would easily cost more than the radio.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Also, going into any heavily-populated commercial radio site with intent to permanently install an $85 handheld attached to an outside antenna probably won’t make you any friends with the other users. If there is any hint that your $85 radio is causing interference to the other revenue-generating systems at the site, the operators will complain to the site owner/manager who will rightly, in my opinion, kick you off the site.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The ARRL band plan lists 223.52 to 223.64 MHz as being for “Digital, packet”. Of course, the ARRL band plan is just a suggestion. You’d have to verify the availability of whatever frequency you chose with the local amateur radio repeater coordinators and spectrum managers.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Bob…<o:p></o:p></span></font></p><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> aprssig [mailto:aprssig-bounces@tapr.org] <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Robert Bruninga via aprssig<br><b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:34 PM<br><b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> TAPR APRS Mailing List <aprssig@tapr.org><br><b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [aprssig] 9600 Baud East Coast Backbone<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>We are dreaming of a 9600 baud East coasst packet backbone along the route of the APRS Golden Packet event. <a href="http://aprs.org/ec9600net.html">http://aprs.org/ec9600net.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I wonder if the 5W 220 MHz HT featured in QST this month would make a possible radio. Many of these sites are high and adjacent to plenty of VHF and UHF commercial rigs.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Does that mean the 220 MHz is relatively free of front end overload at most commercial sites?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Could just a simple 1/4 wave coax stub bring the RF levels down to workable levels?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The radios are 5W and show 0.16uv sensitivity for $85. Moving the backbone to 220 coiuld then allow either 2m or UHF for local user access to the backbone. I had wanted 50W rigs for the 10 dB margin, but maybe 5W will do some of the links. <br><br>I have zero experience with 220, so I thought I would ask here.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>What is the channel we can use on 220 band for 9600 baud packet?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Bob, WB4APR<o:p></o:p></span></font></p></div></div></div></body></html>