Local ham repeaters: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
https://walthamara.org/about/repeaters/ | https://walthamara.org/about/repeaters/ | ||
[[File:146.64 coverage prediction.png|thumb|146.64 coverage prediction]] | [[File:146.64 coverage prediction.png|thumb|center|146.64 coverage prediction]] | ||
== Quincy, 146.67 == | == Quincy, 146.67 == | ||
Revision as of 22:21, 6 July 2022
This is really for my own sake and probably not useful to others. Some geekery around local ham repeaters.
Signal reports are from a discone in my attic. Coverage predictions are from Radio Mobile Online, and bake in a whole lot of assumptions for something I generally don't have many details for, so don't take them with any seriousness.
Boston, 145.23
-105 dBm or so. A close-in hill leaves the signal a lot weaker here than it would otherwise be.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010124070500/http://www.barc.org/barc/repeater.html had a lot more information than the current site.
Danvers, 145.47
-97 dBm
Waltham, 146.64
Received at -92 dBm. Pretty close to what models indicate.
https://walthamara.org/about/repeaters/
Quincy, 146.67
-105 dBm
https://mmra.org/repeaters/QCY/
North Reading, 146.715
-91 dBm
Boston, 146.82
-109 dBm (weaker than I'd expect)
https://mmra.org/repeaters/BBY/
Derry, 146.85
-91 dBm
Westford, 146.955
-80 dBm. Receiver jumped between -80 and "> -80 dBm"
Paxton, 146.97
-108 dBm. Fairly weak.
IIRC the receive antenna is much higher up the tower so it might hear me better than I hear it.
Blue Hill, 146.985
-105 dBm
Billerica, 147.12
>-80 dBm
Marlboro, 147.27
-93 dBm received https://mmra.org/repeaters/MRW/#14727