Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Digital for a Link?  (Read 23604 times)

AF6D

  • Member
  • Posts: 530
    • AF6D
Digital for a Link?
« on: June 11, 2017, 01:22:27 PM »

I need to link two or more 2m sites together and I don't want to use the internet because in the event of a Southern California emergency, like an earthquake, the lines will likely be down. The distance is far enough that Ubiquity probably is not a solution. Using old school 430 something or even 900 something for linking seems to be more appropriate. It is effectively would be a repeater in between a repeater. I haven't done this before. Since this would be repeater traffic I would need to run the radio with less transmitter power. But then we get variables like thunderstorms and whatnot with static crashes - not an issue on 430 but I know that at 900 megahertz refraction can be an issue and we get more than enough snow and rain for this to be a possibility.

I'm worried about the distance and I can't go direct line of sight. I have to go to a intermediate site. For example site A to site B to site C and then the reverse. Would it be better to run these as 20 kilohertz analog links or as 12.5 kilohertz digital links? My thinking is that the goal would be running lesser power but maintaining legibility regardless of conditions. Am I just overthinking this? Should I just run straight analog with horizontal yagi's? How about the audio? I can learn by actually doing it or by knowing what to expect. I imagine level control is going to be very important.
Logged

KG4RUL

  • Posts: 3781
    • HomeURL
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2017, 01:40:56 PM »

Start by looking at this site: http://www.repeater-builder.com/rbtip/
Logged

AC7CW

  • Member
  • Posts: 1789
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2017, 04:57:06 PM »

Have hams experimented with passive repeaters? [back to back yagis]
Logged
Novice 1958, 20WPM Extra now... (and get off my lawn)

AF6D

  • Member
  • Posts: 530
    • AF6D
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2017, 03:32:44 AM »

Start by looking at this site: http://www.repeater-builder.com/rbtip/

Any repeater owner is well familiar with that site. It does not answer my question. Would you like to take a try at it?  ;)
Logged

AF6D

  • Member
  • Posts: 530
    • AF6D
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2017, 03:34:50 AM »

Have hams experimented with passive repeaters? [back to back yagis]

I have thought of that but using corner reflectors. I just don't know if it is worth the time. I know that the railroads (at one time?) used passive repeaters. But should I consider like P25 for the back-haul that will make it more reliable and less opportunity to mess with?
Logged

K4JJL

  • Member
  • Posts: 1194
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2017, 09:53:02 AM »

Have hams experimented with passive repeaters? [back to back yagis]

I set up a couple of these for GA Power years ago for use in the power plants.  Only really worked on high band.  UHF was way too lossy.
Logged

AF6D

  • Member
  • Posts: 530
    • AF6D
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2017, 09:11:52 PM »

And UHF is the link band. AND...   25 miles away and then another 35 to the other site. That's why I asked about RF links.
Logged

N8EKT

  • Member
  • Posts: 694
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2017, 03:44:55 PM »

analog with horizontal polarity is still your best bet

and I would link over 220mhz to keep the path loss down

Logged

KD4LLA

  • Member
  • Posts: 509
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2017, 08:38:59 AM »

It's been 17 years since I was in the Fairbanks, AK area, but there the KL7KC club had multiple repeaters linked by 220mhz.  I just checked the KL7KC web page and there is not much left of the repeater system it seems.

You might try contacting someone there at the Arctic Amateur Radio Club.
Logged

WB0DZX

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
RE: Digital for a Link?
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2017, 04:04:33 PM »

1. Any link antenna at a high elevation will likely be low on the tower, if not on the shelter itself.
2. Circular (preferred) or horizontal polarization should be used instead of vertical.
3. A circularly polarized antenna is much more easily protected by a (homemade) radome, which should be black for UV protection and faster snow/ice melting.
4. Direct, and especially falling, icing and/or snow loads, along with wind, will be a problem - more so with a corner reflector or horizontal yagi-uda.
5. A corner reflector on a tower or monopole is more likely to have its azimuth and/or elevation accidentally changed by a climber. (Now what was the original orientation?)
6. A digital link adds complexity and, for retrievable intelligence, has to always be of sufficient strength, probably requiring more power and/or antenna gain than analog to maintain link reliability.
7. An analog link is much more forgiving of temporary/seasonal path loss, allowing intelligence during a reduced circuit merit resulting in less than full quieting. An analog link should always have analog tone squelch rather than digital squelch.
   
Mike WB0DZX
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up