Temecula CHP is now using 39.340 162.2 PL. I also heard the dispatcher mention they were no longer simulcasting with Oceanside units on the Tan.
They had been using the Blue 1 (39.140) for a while due to problems with the Tan simulcast.
Temecula CHP on 39.340
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
Brandon could this have possibly been caused by interference?brandon wrote:Temecula CHP is now using 39.340 162.2 PL. I also heard the dispatcher mention they were no longer simulcasting with Oceanside units on the Tan.
They had been using the Blue 1 (39.140) for a while due to problems with the Tan simulcast.
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
The VRS is on 769.91875 using NAC of DB9
I don't know exact reason other than they had been using the Blue 1 for a while. The Tan wasn't working too well up this way. There is a thread on the RadioReference forums with more information. http://forums.radioreference.com/san-di ... ecula.html
I don't know exact reason other than they had been using the Blue 1 for a while. The Tan wasn't working too well up this way. There is a thread on the RadioReference forums with more information. http://forums.radioreference.com/san-di ... ecula.html
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
OK. I was only mentioning the interference because I know the Lo-Band 46MHz channels tend to have a lot of interfence. Explains why there are usualy no trunked systems using that band.
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
That's not why you don't EVER find trunking systems on low band.cvrules90 wrote:Explains why there are usualy no trunked systems using that band.
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
The trunked systems I know don't use any frequencies below the standard VHF public safety band.
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
It's just not practical. let's see...cvrules90 wrote:The trunked systems I know don't use any frequencies below the standard VHF public safety band.
1. Filters, TX combiners and duplexers for low band are huge and expensive.
2. Frequency management and licensing for multiple repeaters can be difficult at low band.
3. Low band antennas frequently don't lend themselves well to wide band performance. Trying to transmit 39 MHz channels and 46 MHz channels is difficult on one antenna, and the nature of licensing on low band could make it close to impossible to get enough channels close together enough to work.
4. Continuous control channels on low band would occasionally be a world wide problem when propagation conditions open up.
5. Etc. etc.
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
Thank you, zz, for some valuable information. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge on the technical side of radio monitoring...it is much appreciated.
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
I want to add interference to that list.sp1989 wrote:Thank you, zz, for some valuable information. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge on the technical side of radio monitoring...it is much appreciated.
Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340
The issue was the spacing between the transmit sites and the area covered. The Riverside sites created unwanted noise on the signal in the Oceanside operating area, and the San Diego County sites created unwanted noise on the signal in the Temecula operating area. Separating the two Areas has greatly resolved the problem.cvrules90 wrote:Brandon could this have possibly been caused by interference?brandon wrote:Temecula CHP is now using 39.340 162.2 PL. I also heard the dispatcher mention they were no longer simulcasting with Oceanside units on the Tan.
They had been using the Blue 1 (39.140) for a while due to problems with the Tan simulcast.