Aurora Colorado - digital to analog

Status
Not open for further replies.

K4XB

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
79
Location
Aurora, CO
In-building RF coverage

Analog/digital is not that significant for in-building coverage. For Fire incidents, mobile repeaters help at the scene. For everyday coverage, in-building bi-directional amplification is the answer.

Even with those, there is still the problem of basic physics that cannot be overcome. If there were very localized spots within the buildings that did not have coverage, that may be something the users have to live with.

Ever since I worked in radio back to 1971, any radio system was only specified or guaranteed to work in 95% of the overall coverage area.

In these incidents in Aurora, if they checked only within a couple of square meters of a specific point and found "CC Scan", well that's the way radio waves can cancel within a certain area.

K4XB, Scotty
 

Thayne

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
2,144
About all I can say is that whole thing is full of errors, and about as useful as boobs on a boar--but maybe it would work for a term paper being graded on a certain minimum number of words being used.

The discussions of decibels, digital, frequencies, simplex, repeaters, voltage, etc. ad nauseum and the interesting statement that Denver Fire and others always dispatch in digital was a good one too.

Other than that it is really cool---:cool: And by the way I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, I am just somewhat warped I guess. Someone should ask the guy from Pericle down in Colo Springs what he thinks about it!!
 

K4XB

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
79
Location
Aurora, CO
In-building coverage

About all I can say is that whole thing is full of errors

The discussions of decibels, digital, frequencies, simplex, repeaters, voltage, etc. ad nauseum and the interesting statement that Denver Fire and others always dispatch in digital was a good one too.

Someone should ask the guy from Pericle down in Colo Springs what he thinks about it!!
I agree. The use of technical terms in this paper was a mixed bag. The guy from Pericle was already a consultant on the Aurora radio system. Let's blame him!
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
3,229
I will try to take a stab at clarifying this report. Maybe these tidbits will be useful.

1. Analog is "the opposite" of digital.

2. Simplex is "the opposite" of repeaterized.

3. A simplex channel can be either analog or digital. A repeaterized channel can be either analog or digital.

4. Problems caused by 'background noise' are different then problems caused by 'low signal levels'. (I suppose they might be directly related in some situations - but to save everyone from getting a headache - lets consider them to be 2 separate issues.)

Peter sz

(PS - I wont go into any differences between "direct" "talkaround" "simplex" - its not really useful here)
(PPS - I wont go into 'analog' vs 'digital' either - I 'll leave that to the EEs with PhDs.)
 

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,735
Location
AOA
This "research" paper is lacking a lot of research on the truth...
 

Kevin_N

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
231
Location
Littleton, CO
Wow. What cracks me up is that they went back to mostly analog because of all the problems they said they had with digital. Now at least some think that the problems they have are because they stopped using digital?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top