Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: Simplex patches - (nf)
Message-ID: <3512@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 15:49:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3512
Posted: Mon Jul 23 15:49:48 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jul-84 07:11:03 EDT
References: <13200006@smu.UUCP>, <103@mouton.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 17

For those of us who are bewildered...

Would someone post an explanation of what a "simplex autopatch" is and
why it is different from the autopatch tie-ins to telco lines commonly
found on repeaters (is this latter what you mean by "duplex autopatch")?

I thought that "simplex" meant "using only one frequency", and that
"duplex" meant "using two frequencies -- one for transmitting and
one for receiving". I fail to see how this distinction could make
the basis for a "religious war" about the propriety of autopatching.
What difference does the technical detail of the implementation method
make? If autopatching is good, use whatever it takes to do it. If it
is bad, it doesn't matter how it is done, does it?

Confused,

Will