Metro APRS coverage continues to expand

Since I last wrote about this subject, the metro has gained and lost a few digipeaters and I-Gates. Of course, W0YC-5 (formerly W0YC-10) at the U of MN has been back in action for months now. Others stepped in to fill the gap, and most of those pieces of the network remain. Two new stellar machines have joined the effort in the past month or so: the WB0ZKB-3 digipeater in Maple Plain and the KE0CGZ digipeater and I-Gate in Prior Lake. WB0ZKB-3 picks up the woefully-neglected west, and most often feeds the KE0CGZ gateway. The KE0CGZ gateway is further fed by the Chaska WB0ZKB-10 and Shakopee KF0ZH digipeaters, and even the Woodbury K0JDD-1 digipeater seems to send its packets across town to the same I-Gate. 

This is the current, worst-case metro-area digipeater coverage. It reflects the coverage areas for HTs and mobiles in somewhat-obstructed locations: 

12/2014 worst-case metro area digipeater coverage

As you can see, there are gaps in the south and north-east, but these are actually covered by other gateways (some receive-only). I'd venture that a digipeater somewhere between Circle Pines and Forest Lake would find some use, if only to improve redundancy of the network. Bear in mind that this map doesn't include the coverage provided by gateways -- only digipeaters.

All of these machines contribute to the real-time VHF propagation effort by virtue of their packet data being available to the public. Each one is a virtual propagation beacon, but also one that automatically tracks which other "beacons" it can hear.

One sure way of examining coverage is to look at the path map of the individual digipeaters and gateways. These represent the the areas that the particular machine actually handled during December 2014. The more red the block, the more packets that came from that area. I'm just going to pick a few of the newer (and also some of the lesser-known) pieces of the network that make the local APRS network function. 

Let's start with the new KE0CGZ I-Gate in Prior Lake: 

It's almost too wide of an area to display clearly, but you can see that it gates packets from Eau Claire in Wisconsin, up to Saint Cloud, and down to Mankato and Rochester. Bear in mind that this map includes gated packets passed on by other digipeaters.

 Next, let's look at the path map for the new western digipeater, KB0ZKB-3: 

I-94 most of the way to Saint Cloud is covered, and the north-central areas are backed up to provide redundancy for other gateways if the direct path becomes difficult.

 The south-west digipeater, KB0ZKB-5, also repeats packets with decent coverage:

Hwy 212, and the southern passes of I-35 and Hwy169, are covered. And fill-in coverage for Hwy 52 is also provided.

Next, we can take a look at the other south-western digipeater, KF0ZH:

While concentrating on its local area, KF0ZH also manages to help fill in the western suburbs. Like KB0ZKB-5, its proximity to the KE0CGZ gateway ensures that the received packets are efficiently gated to the APRS-IS service -- from which they are available to the entire world. 

One of the previously-mentioned receive-only gateways in the NW metro is N0FKB. In spite of a lack of nearby digipeaters to feed it, it does a fine job of gating packets by itself: 

This is one of the gateways that helped fill in while W0YC was down. The metro core is well-covered, and the north-central metro is also backed up. While the more long-range coverage is sporadic, this can still serve to increase redundancy of the network coverage. 

Another of the metro I-Gates is KB0GTF-10 in Richfield:

This gateway covers the southern suburbs quite well, and contributes to the coverage of both the north-west and north-central areas of the metro. It further helps fill areas to the south-east that the Red Wing digipeater (KC0FXY-2) tends to struggle with. 

There are, of course, other gateways and digipeaters providing their niches. But this isn't intended to be an exhaustive examination; only a look at how a few elements work with each other to get the packets sent by hams "home". Some gateways are "part-time", possibly in operation while the individual running them is at work and their rig is sitting unused at home. Sometimes mobile hams will operate a digipeater out of their vehicle while driving, and in so doing help out the effort to sustain coverage.

All of these gateways and digipeaters are run on a completely voluntary basis. Very few are sponsored by clubs. Nobody is co-ordinating this effort. Individuals simply pitch in and make it work. 

If you're interested in joining this effort, KC0VRV wrote detailed instructions on how to set up a receive-only APRS gateway for this blog back in October. You could easily let your VHF rig provide coverage to your fellow hams while it's sitting there unused, and you don't even need to transmit. Just connect the audio to a computer that has internet access, install some software, and start gating packets. You could even use an old analogue scanner.

To check the path map for a particular digipeater or gateway, go to aprs.fi and zoom the map down to your local area. Then look at the toolbar on the right. You'll see an icon of a funnel (third from the bottom). This is the filter. Clicking it opens the filter options. Un-check the box marked "All stations", and check the box for either "Digipeaters" or "I-Gates" -- or both. This will show you only those kind of APRS stations. Next, left-click on a station. This brings up a dialogue box, and you should click "INFO" at the top. This takes you to a page displaying the packet data for the station. Click on "show map" to see the path map. You can further select the particular month you wish to see data for by using the drop down labelled "Select month" on the left toolbar. 

With this information, you can dig in to some of the machines that I left out, and also explore the rural area coverage.

Amateur radio licences decline again

The U.S. hit the peak number of total licensees back in June 2014. While the stats show consistent upgrading to higher licence Classes, the totals continue to decline. 

There were 761 fewer hams from August to September (the latest month for public figures). That doesn't sound like a lot, but last year during same period we gained nearly the same amount (753). I don't recall a lot of hams dismissing those gains as being small. Instead, there was a general giddiness among hams over the amazing growth. 

About half of September's decline (356) came from 'obsolete' licence Classes: Advanced and Novice. 
Technician licences dropped 333. General Class lost 144, and Extra Class gained 81.

There's no good way to 'spin' this. Sure, some Techs upgraded, but the more that you push this line of reasoning the more you are forced to concede that a whole lot of Generals left the scene. If 333 upgraded to General, then why did the total number of Generals go down? You can't claim that the Generals upgraded to Extra, because there aren't that many new Extras.

September's drop in total licences is looking pretty good in comparison to July's drop of over 1450. July saw 680 'obsolete' Class licences go dead, which was supposed to be some kind of consolation. Optimists pointed to this situation as the hobby simply experiencing the deaths of people that had been "on the books" for some time. Apparently hams didn't ever die prior to July 2014, then. No, of course they did. The effect on the numbers was just hidden by the new growth of people joining the hobby. Now that the number of new hams has dwindled, the true situation (which the optimists ignored) is readily apparent. 

As long as the bulk of the drops each month are in the 'obsolete' Classes, most hams will continue to ignore the underlying issue. The Great Die-Off has begun. The Great Growth is over. Even during that period of growth, it was noticed by some that the majority of new hams were retirees or nearing retirement.

It doesn't take a numbers genius to see that the hobby is no longer replacing its dead with new hams. And, with a licence term of ten years, the true situation could be a heck of a lot worse than these figures show. Any sober analysis should take into account that there are a whole lot of "licensed operators" in the cemetery already.

Of course, these are just numbers. Licences don't talk; people do. With activity declining, it really doesn't matter how many people have licences. What matters is how many are actively using them. That's something that these statistics don't reveal.

The other issue is the distribution of licence numbers. Some States are growing, while others are losing hams. The State breakdowns end at June 2014 -- the peak. Even in this rosy light, the divide between growing and stagnant parts of the country is obvious. 


The bottom line is that anyone who currently has even a remote interest in radio has already tried amateur radio. There might be a lot of people with a licence and an unused HT stuck in a drawer, and they might renew their licences because it's not hard to do so. But only a delusional person would count these people as "active" hams. For whatever reason, they have not found the hobby to be compelling and it's unlikely that they will encourage others to try it out. Yes, they are still counted in the numbers. But that means nothing in the real world.

EDIT: Throughout 2015, more than 30.7k Technician Class licences will expire, and about 3500 General Class licences will also expire. More than 61.5k licences will expire in total. Many will, of course, renew. If 75% renew (perhaps optimistic, considering mortality), that means we need to find more than 15.3k new hams in 2015 just to tread water. In 2011, the totals grew by 7.5k, and in 2012 we added 7.6k to the total. This means that the hobby needs to draw about twice as many new hams in 2015 as it has done in the "boom" years. It will take a renewal rate of more than 88%, and no drop in new operators getting their first licences compared to the "boom" years, for the totals just to stay even. Keep this in mind as you spin optimistic scenarios in your imagination.

Cheap 1.25M option: BaoFeng UV-82X

Getting on the 1.25M isn't as easy as 2M or UHF, as the options for a rig are limited. For a full-powered rig, the TYT TH-9000D still seems to be best option, and various manufacturers make clones of this radio. The Alinco model has the DSub9 connector already installed on the back, ostensibly for packet use. Otherwise, it's the same radio. The TH-9000D is, itself, a clone of an AnyTone rig -- though AnyTone never bothered to make a model for 220 MHz. 

The TH-9000D (1.25M model) is now available domestically for $150 (plus shipping), and from China for $150 (free shipping). My experience with the U.S. distributor (radio-mart.com) is that the guy takes over a week to actually ship your order, so it's not much faster than buying from China. Any problems are only resolved by shipping the radio back to China, so there's little advantage there either.

But maybe $150 is a bit too much of a gamble for a band like 1.25M, and for a monoband radio at that. Then, you have to consider an HT. Wouxun and TYT make dual-band HTs that include 1.25M, though reviews of those radios are mixed. My experience with the TYT UHF/1.25M offering is not positive, as the radio is worthless for UHF, and it's selling for over $90. The Wouxun, at $130, hardly seems worth it.

The cheapest option -- and a reasonably good one -- is the BaoFeng UV-82X. The UV-82 is, by virtually all accounts, superior to the familiar UV-5R. John at miklor.com has written up a comparison of the two. Higher output power, and better TX/RX audio are significant differences over the old UV-5R that so many roll their eyes at. The UV-82 also has two PTT buttons -- one for the "A" band, and another for "B" band. There's also a speaker mic that's compatible with this dual-button arrangement. 

The UV-82X, at $50 (free shipping), seems like a pretty good option. It pushes over 5W on 2M, and the addition of an external antenna would make it an adequate home or mobile option. Certainly, this wouldn't take the place of a full-powered 50W two-metre FM mobile rig. But it would allow you to play with 220 MHz and sample the local repeater coverage, without being isolated from the activity on 2M. And it wouldn't be an expensive gamble, either. 

I use an old UV-5RS in my home office. Though it has lower output power than the UV-82X, I can readably work the Columbia Heights .660 and .500 repeaters, plus the Arden Hills 223.940 machine, using nothing more than an indoor 1/4-wave whip mag-mounted to a metal paint can sitting next to the window -- from out in Plymouth. So, if you doubt that you can do anything on the band with an HT, you'd be wrong. I've also had good luck reaching these repeaters with the same 1/4-wave whip on my car driving around the west metro. If you can improve on these marginal antenna solutions, the extra power afforded by the UV-82X should allow you to do pretty well getting in to the excellent local repeater infrastructure on the band. 

Locally, the repeater situation continues to improve. The 224.660- (100.0 PL) machine has excellent coverage, along with EchoLink access, and plans for cross-band linking. The 224.500- (114.8 PL) repeater isn't quite at the level of the .660, but it's now functional and is improving. The Arden Hills 223.940- (100.0 PL) remains as reliable as ever, and the link to the HandiHam network will be restored in the future. This would allow the HandiHam network to expand its coverage in the north and east, and the 1.25M band could be one of the best ways to get in for a lot of people that struggle with the VHF .450 coverage. 

There are other repeaters that show potential, as well. The 223.900- (100.0 PL) still requires higher power and better antennae to access, but no one involved in that project is content with that situation. There are plans to add a 70W PA to improve range, and potential linking schemes are being considered. Likewise, the 224.940- (100.0 PL) is searching for a better site that could allow it to become one of the "big boys" on the band. 

Right now, it's going to take a sustained effort to build up a core group of operators on the local 1.25M scene, and some kind of cross-band option on one of the local machines so that those who jump in on the ground floor aren't isolated from the rest of the amateur radio community.

Loose Notes 12/13/14

A few scattered observations this weekend:

• A tip of the hat to KA0KMJ (John), an MGRC member, for letting me know that their Maple Plain 147.000+ (no PL) repeater actually has tone squelch implemented. Now I don't have to hear all of the intermod when I go into Minneapolis and want to use the Maple Plain machine. John further explained that the decision to go without an input PL tone was made to accommodate operators in the area with old two-metre rigs that can't "do" CTCSS. Also, per John, the Robbinsdale UHF 444.775+ (114.8 PL) is sponsored by the MGRC (though the listing says otherwise), and the marginal 443.700+ machine in Maple Grove is not the Club's only foray into UHF.

•  I had a brief chat on that same 147.000+ repeater this afternoon with a mobile ham (callsign mangled). He was heading down to Texas, and had a 5W Yaesu HT and a mag-mount antenna on the van. I found it ironic that he told me that he couldn't get into the Maple Plain machine from his home in Howard Lake, but that he was reaching the repeater from near Northfield while mobile talking to me. The 147.000 seems to have really good "ears". I also had a long conversation with WA0ZDE (Rick) shortly after that using my 9W Leixen with an indoor mag-mount antenna on the opposite side of the building from Maple Plain. I've always liked the 147.000, though activity is definitely low.

•  KE0NA (Dave) is working on The Aggrandizer 223.900- (100.0 PL) repeater today, adding a receive pre-amp. The repeater transmits with okay coverage out to Plymouth, but doesn't hear people trying to get into it well enough for mobile use yet. Give the upgraded machine a try.  

• I had a long chat with N0GOI (Terry) last night on the 444.050+ (114.8 PL) machine. Work is nearly complete on the VHF and UHF repeaters in Foreston, and they are both on the air. Terry always has some exciting plans, and it's interesting to talk to him. The two Foreston machines will be linked (cross-band), but this link will have the ability to be disabled for SkyWarn -- with the UHF machine handling the normal local traffic. UHF is a "tough sell" in the rural areas, but cross-band operation will allow those willing to try it out the chance to still keep in contact with the VHF users. There are also some potential plans to implement the Raspberry Pi RF link boards that N0YNT (Matt) and N0BFG (Ryan) are currently experimenting with. That's "down the road", of course, and the controllers still need to be upgraded or modified to work with the linking scheme. 

• Terry also told me that the UHF 443.575+ (114.8 PL) repeater in NE Minneapolis -- operated by KD0WIL (Eric) -- has been upgraded to a 60W MSF-5000. It took 15W to "ker-chunk" the .575 from here in Plymouth, but it came back with an S7 signal once I got in. This is a repeater operating out of Eric's house in Northeast, so reaching Plymouth is pretty good. At some point, I understand that it will be linked into the MAGIC system to boost their eastern UHF coverage. Eric is also trying to implement EchoLink on the repeater, but no word on what his near-term objective is for a link. 

•  It turns out the 224.500- (114.8 PL) repeater just needed a re-tuning of the duplexer to get into working shape, per N0FKM (Dan). The machine isn't up to Dan's standards yet, but once it is, he'll be exploring cross-band links to at least one of his other (five) repeaters.

• With the ten-metre contest going this weekend, I tried the webSDR receiver in Louisiana for a listen on the 'action'. Though this receiver is primarily for the propagation beacon sub-band, I was quite surprised to find a whole lot of phone activity in the lower section of the band reserved for CW and digital modes. I heard nothing but American phone stations over the course of an hour in this sub-band -- at least the part covered by the webSDR receiver. Wow, that's some HF "elite" we have. Can't even follow the band plan. Any phone contacts made below 28.300 on the band should be disqualified for the purposes of the contest. Why would anyone even try digital modes with these bozos stomping all over the sub-band? I guess that contesters really are better operators than the rest of us.
   

Leixen VV-898: a second look

  I previously reviewed the Leixen VV-898 10W dual-band rig, and it's proven to be acceptable if you aren't in an area with strong intermod interference and if the majority of the repeaters in your area employ tone squelch (TSQ). The early Leixen product, the VV-808 monoband, ran into problems with reception. There was a continuous "popping" noise, and it was supposedly fixed by replacing the CPU chip. The VV-898 has the same problem, though to a much lesser degree. Simplex and GMRS channels "pop" when scanning, even though there is no activity on the frequency, and even though no "pop" is heard when you stop the scan on any of those frequencies and just listen. Setting the squelch very high can eliminate most of this, but then you lose weak signals. Or you can turn on tone squelch and keep the regular squelch at its normal level.

  Of course, tone squelch isn't very useful for simplex. The radio can be used for simplex FM on VHF, 70cm, or GMRS without tone squelch if you aren't scanning (i.e. just monitoring or working a single channel). Two-metre simplex at 9W is a 'challenge' anyway, and 70cm FM simplex isn't used much. If you're working GMRS simplex, then you are probably communicating with someone that you know on an agreed-upon channel and you aren't scanning. Still, you should be aware of this shortcoming if you are considering the VV-898, and it's something that I didn't give sufficient mention to in my previous review.

  Repeaters without tone squelch on the output are a similar problem. I have them programmed in, but I take them out of the scan by using Menu 39. These repeaters are still programmed in and available to use, but I'm not exposed to the "popping" sound when scanning for activity. For some people, that might be a problem. For my own case, I tend to monitor one repeater at a time -- though using the the dual-watch function of Menu 7 to listen for activity on a second repeater or simplex frequency. Again, this is something that you should be aware of before buying the radio.

  Still, after over two months of use, the Leixen VV-898 has been a good purchase for my uses.

  I set up a station at one of my friend's cabins during deer hunting season using a VV-898 and a roll-up J-pole, and I loaned him a Baofeng UV-5R programmed for MURS (unlicensed simplex VHF) frequencies. The arrangement worked splendidly, and he was able to reach the cabin to call for someone to pick him up at the end of the day. Like most people, he had never seen FM two-way as a valid, useful tool in his lifetime beyond childhood memories of noisy AM CB rigs in cars. I ended up giving him the spare Baofeng (who doesn't have a spare Baofeng?) programmed for MURS (only), and I gave him the HYS TC-898UV (which is a copy of the Leixen VV-898) that I had. The TC-898UV was programmed for MURS, marine VHF (for the nearby lakes), and the local Weather Service frequency (transmit locked out). I also added the local ham radio repeater (with transmit locked out). The whole thing was password-locked using the programming software, though I doubt that he (or anyone likely to use it) would have the skill or inclination to mess with it. The whole thing ran on the $13 Leixen-made power supply and used a roll-up J-pole bought on EBay tacked to an indoor wall. For most hams, this would be considered a joke of a rig. Yet he was thrilled to have this addition to the family cabin, and he was especially interested by the local amateur repeater that he never knew existed in the area. If there was actually activity on the repeater, he would have probably got his licence just for the opportunity to chat with the locals. As it was, the marine VHF channels offered a sufficient chance for chit-chat with others in the summer, anyway.

  And so, by giving away the HYS model, I was in the market for a VV-898 to put in my car. I knew from prior experimentation that the radio could work off the the 13.8 vDC jack in the "stash box" of the vehicle without causing problems for either the car's electrical system or the radio by introducing interference. I ordered a VV-898 directly from Leixen on AliExpress, along with the power cable. In two weeks, it had arrived. I un-boxed it, programmed in the channels. I hooked it up to an antenna and keyed the mic. 

It didn't work.

It would turn on, allow me to listen to FM radio, change channels, edit from the front panel...but it wouldn't transmit or receive. 

I was ready to box it up and send it back. But I looked back at the older saved files and compared them to the one found on the new radio. It took a while to figure out, but the radio came defaulted to uselessness. The problem was found under the "Special Functions" tab, in the "stun" section.

 

 

If the two circled boxes aren't checked, the radio won't transmit or receive. This is especially stupid, since it seems that un-checking them would remove "TX inhibit". 

This is one of those "clever" functions that the Chinese manufacturers boast about in the product descriptions: the stun function. Completely useless for amateur radio, it allows a central dispatcher to shut down a radio remotely. 

Once the two boxes were checked, the radio worked just fine. 

As long as I have the screen-shot up there, I'll point out how to set the time and date -- which is something that confused me initially. Checking the box marked "Time Of System" sets the radio to the same time as the computer that is programming it. Double-clicking on the "Time out" field opens up a calendar dialogue with a check box for "Today". Checking that box sets the radio's clock for that day. EDIT: See John's comment below for a clarification of this function.

I've put a file on my Google Drive with settings that work. The channels are programmed for the local repeaters, of course, but you can easily change or delete them. You should be able to download it. 

I know that there are operators in other countries that would find the VV-898 to be suitable rig. The UK, for example, has a licence Class limited to 10W. And Indonesia also has a "no code" Class limited to 10W on VHF/UHF. India's Restricted Grade licensees are similarly limited to 10W on 2M and 70cm. 

I'm no expert on foreign licence privileges, but I know that Indonesia alone is ranked third in the world for licensing numbers. So radios like the Leixen VV-898 do have their niche. Even in the suburbs where I operate, ten watts with an indoor antenna allows me to reach several popular repeaters quite well. In urban areas, I could see a lot of apartment dwellers or renters with restrictive landlords finding this to be a quite adequate radio to get on the air with. Not everyone needs 50W and a beam on the roof.

Loose Notes 12/7/14

Just a few scattered things that I've run into lately. They don't merit a full post of their own, but worth mentioning: 

• The Columbia Heights 1.25M (220 MHz) repeater on 224.500- (114.8 PL) has considerably improved this week. The receiver has improved enough for me to "ker-chunk" it with an indoor, stock duck, 2.5W HT from here in Plymouth. The signal that comes back is S9 and clear of the noise that plagued it before. A check with the HT and the TYT TH-9000 revealed that it does, in fact, transmit clear audio. N0FKM (Dan) has struggled with this repeater for some time, but he's finally found the issue, judging from the results. The 224.500- joins Dan's other 1.25M machine on 224.660- (100.0 PL) on the band. This makes seven 1.25M repeaters now functioning in the metro, with varying levels of coverage. There's an inside joke that there are more repeaters now than there are people with 1.25M rigs. I don't think that's true, because there are people with Kenwood TH-F6A's that have 220 TX capability, and there are others with dual-band Chinese HT's that cover the band, too. There's also EchoLink on the .660 machine, and there are schemes afoot to cross-band link other machines to 1.25M. So you don't even necessarily need a 1.25M rig to join in the effort to save the 220 MHz band for ham radio. It's "use it or lose it", and you're licensed to use the band, right?

 

• Though it's been a tough time in the personal lives of the two-man team responsible for the LSAC network in northern MN, there are positive developments. The Grand Marais 147.360+ (114.8 PL) linked repeater will be getting a new site on a disused Verizon tower, which should help improve coverage of the eastern end of the remote Superior National Forest. Also, 33cm (900 MHz) repeaters in Duluth are now linked into the LSAC system. And six-metre FM repeaters have joined the network, too! Now if we can only get that 443.325+ (146.2 PL) back into shape, the metro area will have access to the network. N0BZZ (Randy) reports that activity levels are good and that the repeaters are getting use. 

 

• K0LAV (Paul) recently told me about a new site that he has access to in Rockford, which is roughly 25 miles west from downtown Minneapolis. There's a Time-Warner cable building that's no longer used, along with a 150-foot tower (estimated). Paul has plans to put one of the links for the SuperLink network in the building, which would link the St. Cloud node to White Bear Lake. Word is that N0YNT (Matt) is mulling over some plans at the Rockford site, too. Remote receive sites, links to metro repeaters, and APRS digipeaters are possible. The site has a lot of unused antennae that need to be removed, and a lot of old equipment that's been abandoned inside. The 6GHz microwave horns sound especially daunting to remove, as they aren't small or light. There's plenty of (75-ohm) feed-line and arms for mounting antennae on the tower, once the old Yagis are taken down. No internet at the site, so EchoLink, AllStar, and APRS gateways aren't happening. But there's potential for some exciting developments to the west of the metro area in the future. 

 

• I heard the NCO on the HandiHam net Thursday talking about a new trend in amateur radio: micro-nodes and nano-nodes. It wasn't clear to me how the whole thing worked, but I'll mention it in case someone else knows more about it and feels like writing something up for the blog. The idea is that you use a sub-1W HT in your home that's linked to something like an IRLP thin client, allowing you to walk around your place and talk to IRLP-linked machines around the world without creating RF interference with your neighbours or requiring an exterior antenna. More information is here, along with a $500 0.2W UHF FM simplex client with built-in IRLP and EchoLink. There are only about a half-dozen IRLP nodes in MN, but the idea is to be able to connect with machines all over the world -- from Antarctica to New Zealand, from Armenia to Bermuda. IRLP nodes use Linux and a special board -- so if this has been a barrier to adoption, then these thin clients could make the difference in allowing a wider audience of hams make use of the technology.

Western MN 444.900 network sounds interesting

Often I've heard stories about the particular challenges of rural FM amateur radio: operators prefer 2M simplex to repeaters, UHF is dismissed as too weak or just "newfangled", repeaters have to cover relatively large areas to gain enough potential activity due to lower population density, etc. But an interesting listing showed up on the RepeaterBook Twitter feed this week, and I looked in to the details of the 444.900+ (136.5 PL) repeater in Madison, MN. It was so intriguing as an example of a rural repeater doing innovative things that I contacted the owner, NY0I (Dean) for more information. He generously obliged.

Madison is in the western part of the State near the South Dakota border. South Dakota has its own state-wide, always-linked, cross-band repeater network called SDLink, and some of that inspiration may have rubbed off on the Minnesota side.



The 444.900+ is a UHF repeater in a rural area, which is unusual. But it also links to two UHF machines in Clear Lake, SD which fills out the edges of the SDLink coverage between Watertown and Toronto, SD. It's not part of the SDLink network, though. Between the Madison and Clear Lake repeaters, Hwy 212 is covered from Montevideo(MN) into Watertown (SD). A UHF linked network in a rural area is something different.

The Clear Lake UHF machines have implemented EchoLink (node 578534), so it's possible to access the Madison 444.900 through the internet. The node is currently down, though. 

I asked Dean for the technical details of the link arrangement between the UHF machines, which are 30 miles apart. This is how he explained it: 

Audio is streamed live, via RF.  The 900 is located in Madison MN, as is a typical repeater system, with 1 stand alone antenna, at 250 ft.  The link portion of the repeater, uses a its own separate receiver, with it own separate antenna at 30ft.  So it basically “hears’' the 300 transmitter, and dumps that audio directly into the receive audio of the 900, which then retransmits the 300 audio feed.  At the 300 site, located in Clear Lake, SD, is a receiver, that basically does the same thing.  All sites utilize the NHRC-4 controller.     The 950 site, which is located south of Watertown, SD, performs the same way at the 900 site does in Madison, MN.

The ".950 site" is the 444.950+ (136.5 PL) in Clear Lake SD. The ".300 site" is the 444.300+ (136.5 PL), which is also in Clear Lake. 

As I mentioned before, UHF is viewed kind of dimly by many hams for various (incomprehensible) reasons. Even here in the metro area, there's a faction that "doesn't see the point" of UHF. It's only been through hard work and innovation that a "critical mass" of operators have embraced the 440 band here. Ironically, all of this innovation happened on UHF because of the shortage of VHF repeater pairs, and because so many of the two-metre repeaters are dominated by those living in the past and opposed to any development whatsoever. I wondered if Dean faced the same situation in western Minnesota, and I asked him how the new UHF network was received by the local operators: 

Very tough sell, it is as if the old timers feel like they are cheating on VHF, if they use the UHF system.  Our UHF systems out performs our VHF system, hands down.

Having said that, one might wonder why Dean moved in this direction. As in so many cases, it came down to availability of gear for the band: 

I found this repeater going to be trash, within hours, so I bought it from the city for $1   With the NHRC controller, free- pre installed 7/8 hardline, $ 50 JTB-3 antenna, and some hamming, it was built on a shoe string budget.

 

There's also a separate VHF network linking Ortonville, Madison, and Dawson. VHF hasn't been abandoned, but rather enhanced by linking scattered machines into a full-time network.

NY0I sent this map of the VHF system

Imagine trying to sell our local Wise Elders on the idea of a three-machine VHF linked system. It would violate the sanctity of their individual fiefdoms. K0LAV (Paul) had to sneak an AllStar link to the Mille Lacs area into the MARA .850 repeater, N0GOI (Terry) has been dismissed as a wild-eyed nut for his plans to link the Foreston 2M machine to the metro, and N0BVE (Don) has been sneered at by the local cognoscenti for years for his innovative, cross-band (gasp!) HandiHam linked network. 

Maybe it's easier to do innovative things outside of the ideological and political constraints found in the metro. Dean certainly has risen to the challenge. LSAC, for being a two-man operation, has successfully defied conventional wisdom for a long time. The Central MN network linking UHF and 1.25M (what's that?) repeaters is still making these "weird ideas" work. It's possible to do innovative things. It's happening right now in places like Madison, MN and the world isn't coming to an end.

Maple Grove Repeater Club fumbles with UHF

This past week, I heard about a new UHF repeater going on-air in the NW suburbs. That's great, because there aren't many UHF repeaters out this way in Plymouth. Mostly I'm using those in Minneapolis and working the edges of their coverage. There's the TCFMC's 444.100, the 444.375 in Plymouth, and the relatively new 444.725 hybrid In Osseo. That's it. 

You may think that's a lot, but the .375 is (as N0FWG put it) "under-utilised". I'm somewhat less than welcome on the "dot one" due to unflattering (but true) posts on the TCFMC, and it's fair to say that I'm not missing out on much there anyway beyond the morning roundtable. I'm still experimenting with various indoor antenna solutions that will let me reach the .725 from my study, but I can reach it quite well with an exterior antenna. Still, it's a new repeater that doesn't have community built up around it yet. 

And so I was excited about the MGRC's venture into UHF. In past conversations with President WD9IGX (Tim), I had noted a complete disinterest in UHF as far as the Club went. I don't think that Tim even owns a UHF-capable rig. Nothing wrong with that, of course. And a few of the prominent Club members actually operate UHF repeaters: N0FWG (Jerry) runs the Plymouth 444.375, N0ZRD (Gordy) runs the Robbinsdale 444.775, and KA0KMJ (John) has three machines on the air (443.000, 444.425, and 444.725). Conversations with these three, however, also left me with the distinct impression that the MGRC had priorities other than a UHF repeater for the area, and that "cross-band" was a dirty word in that crowd.

Learning that the new repeater was operated out of a Maple Grove hospital on 443.700+ (186.2 PL), I programmed it in to my FT-897D for a test that I believed would involve an awesome UHF machine put up by experts on the band. 

Imagine, then, my disbelief when this new repeater came back with a (noisy) S3 signal when I threw out my sign. The thing is seven miles from me, and it sounds like a "hobby" repeater in Wisconsin! An HT connected to an antenna on your roof could do as well working simplex. No one was on it, so I couldn't get a signal report. Yeah, it was disappointing. 

Then this morning, thinking that I had maybe judged it harshly when it was so new, I threw out my sign on the frequency again using a three-element Yagi aimed to the north-west with ten watts. It didn't come back at all. It was already "off-air". 

As K0LAV (Paul) informed me, 443.700+ is one of the SNP pairs on the UHF band. It's much easier to get permission to operate a repeater on an SNP pair, but you don't get exclusive use of the frequency. Generally, SNP pairs are used to test repeaters before they move on to a fully-co-ordinated pair. Maybe this is as good as we can expect, though. Sure, it could cover a stretch of I-94 from 169 up to (maybe) Rogers, and it could cover Elm Creek Park. If it were linked to the .375, I could maybe see some kind of practical use for such a low-coverage machine. But, as we all know, linking is "cheating" in some incomprehensible way. 

I could see a more compelling case for a GMRS repeater that would try to cover some of the nearby parks, than I could imagine a rationale for a 70cm repeater that struggles to reach Plymouth.

Exploring two-metre FM

In the past month, I've spent more time on two-metre FM than I have in the preceding six months. Normally, I'm on UHF and 1.25M, as my FT-897D was in repairs for a few months and I could only get on VHF with an HT. So I kind of got out of the habit of checking two-metre repeaters, or even swapping in a 2M antenna on my mount. When I put the Leixen VV-898 in my study with an indoor mag-mounted whip, I spent a little time finding out which repeaters I could reach, but not really engaging in conversations on VHF. But I finally programmed all of the local two-metre repeaters into my FT-897D and took the risk of putting up my more-conspicuous monoband VHF whip outside here at the condo, and it's a different world. 

It's pretty easy to reach the 146.790- (100.0 PL) machine in Faribault, I've found. Along with that, the 147.360+ (136.5 PL) in Hampton (near Northfield) is quite accessible, Becker's 147.345+ (85.4 PL) is nice and clear, and the 145.210- (114.8 PL) in Crown (between Zimmerman and Isanti) is almost like a local machine as far as coverage. The west is now open to me with the (previously mentioned) 145.230- (114.8 PL) Maple Lake HandiHam repeater (which is not linked to the network). 

Certainly, we have some excellent local VHF repeaters, and the activity is generally higher on them than what you find in the more far-flung reaches of 2M FM. And you can reach across Wisconsin on the UHF WINET repeater in Arden Hills. And, generally, UHF is where actual, meaningful conversations are common. But I can see where 2M gets its reputation for distance. 

This is what I found out tonight by investing less than an hour on two-metre FM: 

• The 145.290- (114.8) repeater in New Brighton is back on the air, after being down most of the week. The owner, N0FKM (Dan), has told me before that the repeater doesn't tolerate cold weather well. The City won't let him add a space heater to the shack, and there isn't enough activity to keep the machine warm by simply transmitting. So when it gets cold, maybe think about a QSO on the .290 to warm that machine a bit. 

• The Hudson 145.130- (110.9 PL) machine has developed a nasty hum in the audio, though it's reaching Plymouth better than it did last winter. 

• I had a brief chat with a guy at the National Weather Service station, K0MPX (John), on 146.520 FM simplex. I've heard the station on the 444.775+ (114.8 PL) machine in Robbinsdale before during bad weather, but I had no idea that they used VHF, much less simplex. S9 here in eastern Plymouth from Chanhassen, so they must have a decent rig and antenna for two metres. It might be an interesting way to check your simplex range, but be sure to have your local weather info at hand. 

• It seems crazy, but I "ker-chunked" the two-metre 146.865- (146.2 PL) in Giese (northwest of Sandstone) for an S3 signal. Gotta hand it to LSAC, even though their .325 UHF repeater has been down for about a year. 

• I could kind of reach the 145.250- (100.9 PL) machine in Baldwin (WI) at S6, but there was a huge amount of noise. I think that somebody came back to my sign, but I couldn't read them in all of the noise. It seems a lot easier to reach the east metro and beyond into Wisconsin on UHF, though I understand that the 146.850- does pretty well with a remote receive site in Roberts, WI. Still, it's trivially easy to reach the UHF 443.025+ machine in River Falls directly, and the 442.075+ (110.9 PL) repeater in Arden Hills can be readably reached with an indoor 4W HT from here in Plymouth -- and that links you into all of the UHF machines across Wisconsin. 

So that sums up an interesting evening exploring the more distant reaches of two-metre FM. I always prefer close-at-hand quality conversation to distant non-conversation, but I have to admit that there's potential there.

St. Cloud UHF repeater correction

Previously, I wrote about an updated listing for a UHF repeater in St. Cloud, the 443.450+ (123.0 PL). 

There was some confusion between 443.850+ repeater (which is D-Star) and the 443.450+ repeater (which is analogue). KD0RRA (Travis) kind of sensed that something was not quite factually correct in my post, and he confirmed the situation with St. Cloud local KD0ILS (Peter): 

"The "kcld440" (443.450 pl 123.0) as a lot of people call it is operated by the st. Cloud club and is still analog and knowing the club will probably stay that way indefinitely. The tower is on the west side of Roosevelt road between cooper and 22nd street south. Currently this repeater is momentarily down for duplexer alignment.

The DARC dstar (443.850) was going to be on sherbune hall at scsu but with the help of alex Hartman kd0whu the digital repeater is on a the kvsc (college radio station) tower, south of quarry park. "

This explains why I doubted the estimated coverage of the repeater shown in the updated listing; it simply isn't on-air at the moment. A 60-mile coverage radius is impressive, if it's true. 

This also explains the mix-up, as the D-Star repeater (444.850) just moved to a new site. Nothing significant really changed for the analogue repeater (443.450), but the listing was updated with the coverage radius. 

So, to be absolutely clear: 

• The 444.850 repeater is a D-Star repeater, it's on a great new site, and it allegedly reaches into the northern suburbs, at least.
• The 443.450 is a standard analogue repeater, and its owners are estimating a 60-mile coverage radius, which would include most of Minneapolis and parts of St. Paul...when it is back on the air. 

Thanks to Travis and Peter for getting to the bottom of this.