Re: [Repeater-Builder] Ramsey COM3010 Service Monitor Opinions
On Sep 1, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Eric Lemmon wrote: Maybe I'm just a crab, but I wonder if you'd be better off buying a good used IFR or H-P service monitor that has more features, for about the same price. Keep in mind that a new service monitor with a few very useful options- the R2600D comes to mind- is in the $15,000 class. You get what you pay for! But, hey, if you have only the basic needs for measurement of power, center frequency, and audio deviation, maybe the Ramsey unit is ideal. Choose wisely. Eric's not a crab, he's right... It took me three years of searching and asking every single person I knew, but I eventually found an IFR 1500 for $2000 from a private seller who even performed a repair on it when he pulled it out of storage and found that it had a video sync problem. I wouldn't spend $4K on the Ramsey box. I was tempted MANY times -- and told not to do it by friends who had already found their dream machines', and they were right. Another friend found an HP 8920B for $500... which really was a deal too good to be true... it's off-frequency. He'll have to have some calibration work done... but if the repairs are done properly and for a reasonably low cost, he'll have an amazing piece of equipment there that'll last him a very long time. (And even with it having problems, I'm jealous.) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] [Fwd: DStar Channel Spacing]
On Sep 1, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Ron Wright wrote: Bob, Part 97.201 reads: (b) An auxiliary station may transmit only on the 1.25 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 219-220 MHz, 222.000-222.150 MHz, 431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. However, this is from Part 97 dated Oct 2006. I know there were some changes in Dec 2007 about 2 meters although I did not think the repeater and aux bands changed. Aux stations are not repeaters and normally used to remote a station or linking items like a split site repeater. Is this what the stations you are speaking of??? With your posting of 145.xxx with -.6 looked more like a repeater. 73, ron, n9ee/r I know that generally Part 97 discussions aren't super-welcome on the list, so I'll just politely say that you need to update your copy of Part 97. For better or for worse, the Report Order that went through this year with the CW changes, etc... also included allowing Auxiliary stations in 2m. (Note: Many areas local bandplans have not kept up, and may never... VHF is busy and cramming in more Auxiliary Stations is retarded when there is plenty of spectrum in 220, UHF and on up. I argued, bellowed, and generally made an ass of myself for years about simplex IRLP nodes (since I'm one of the IRLP server and installation volunteers, I felt I should say something, once in a while anyway), on 2m simplex which were completely illegal unless someone was physically present at the IRLP node and acting as a control operator... this also applied to EchoLink and others... up until this rule change took affect. At the end, before the rule change took effect, approximately 200 nodes were operating illegally in the U.S. -- showing just how little Hams care about clean/proper operation anymore. Even with regular rants to the IRLP lists by myself and others... no one cared. People just wanted to use cheap 2m radios for simplex nodes, no matter the consequences. In my opinion, the impetus to change the rules wasn't really from Amateurs wanting simplex IRLP, EchoLink, etc. It was from the filing Kenwood made asking the FCC to make their SkyCommand system legal, after they had it out on the streets and realized it wasn't... now it is. Call me jaded, but this rush to call D-Star not a repeater and move it into Auxiliary operation spectrum is just a land-grab by those coordination bodies supporting such a move. It's a repeater, and VHF in some areas is full. If it is, the solution is not to expand the space overall that repeaters use in VHF. And the problem's not as pronounced at UHF, and is definitely not an issue in most areas at 1.2 GHz, and Icom makes D-Star for those bands also. The full D-Star stack of VHF, UHF, and 1.2 GHz all at the same physical SITE is a waste of spectrum, and should be avoided also. Nifty technology and a nifty trick, three repeaters and one digital controller and gateway, but ... not smart spectrum management, unless the group really does have three repeaters worth of traffic they're trying to service?! (And if they did, they're probably a large enough organization that it's time to start thinking about pulling an analog system off the air and replacing it with the D-Star... not pushing the local coordinators into playing games with the definition of a repeater just so they can have both.) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was Re: subaudibe tones..)
On Sep 3, 2007, at 10:49 AM, George Henry wrote: I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power to recommend technical parameters, not to control them, and certainly not to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a pair of GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D- Star 1.2 GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?) I'm not going to jump into TASMA's coordination policies... they have enough problems out that a'way as it is with overcrowding... and not just on the ham bands. But... I'll point out that even the Icom VHF/UHF D-Star systems are just mobiles in a box... which anyone who has worked on a properly engineered repeater knows... SUCKS -- on many levels. But it's selling, so I guess people don't care. The quality level of these systems will certainly come back to bite someone in the ass, sooner or later. I keep asking how Icom's planning on allowing for field repairs, and getting nothing from owners. I guess you send the whole thing back to them... No user serviceable parts inside. Other things as negatives include : - No service monitor adding the D-Star protocol or Icom's particular flavor of it natively to their test suite. - Bad behavior when co-channeled with other D-Star or analog systems. - Proprietary/closed CODEC (AMBE) ... all kinda makes me ill to think that it'll probably become a de- factor Ham standard for digital communications. If D-Star is the best hams will ever get, it's kinda sad, really. And I'm certainly not going to gamble club money on all of that. (Trust me, I love digital technology, and want to see hams using it -- I just find the current products from Icom somewhat hard to take seriously. Some would say I'm a P25 fan, but not really that either... the callsign-based Internet routing of D-Star gives it an edge for the Ham market that P25 can't touch. But at least the P25 repeater offerings were designed to be repeaters, and the test gear manufacturers all have products that can actually test their performance in real-world conditions. For commercial operators, MotoTRBO is fascinating too, but again -- lacks ham specific features and test gear...) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Repeater-Builder] More efficient use of spectrum.
The full D-Star stack of VHF, UHF, and 1.2 GHz all at the same physical SITE is a waste of spectrum, and should be avoided also. Nate Duehr There are around 14 DSTAR users in Temple, Texas, and our neighbors in Waco and Austin are moving forward with their own systems as well. The 'full stack' may indeed be a waste of spectrum unless there is a need for more capacity. I am finding the 1253. digital HS data repeater is unique to the system - no voice just 128kb/sec data. Thus far we have not set up a network between stations, just tested the internet connection and it does work at around 80kb/sec. (3 of the 14 have 1.2 capability and the number will grow). Also the coverage at 1296 is not bad (different than 2M or 440, but not bad). There are many times when a user wants a local chat on 2m/440 (not necessarily both) and there are times someone wants to use the gateway to make an out of area contact. Having 1292.1000 digital voice plus either 2M (very crowded most places) or 440 (not as crowded here in the sticks) while not a full stack, does have a place, and 1.2 G is pretty much under utilized most places. Propagation on 1.2 Ghz makes frequency re-use less of a challenge. Add to this an occasional traveler through the area, and with the Belton Hamfest bringing several thousand hams to the Temple/Belton area a couple of times a year, I can see how a single repeater might be less than ideal. Having DSTAR Chat run concurrent 1.2kb/sec low speed keyboard chat with digital voice at the same time on any of the digital voice repeaters is also a nice added feature that better utilizes spectrum. (You cannot have separate voice and data transmissions - low speed data rides with voice whether you use it or not) Add to this the 6.25 Khz bandwidth for still better spectrum utilization. I cannot see using a 20 Khz channel in 2M plus a 20 Khz channel in 440 to duplicate efforts unless there is a real demand, but I can see 23 Cents added to either a 440 or 2M system to offer some unique features. Seems like the 23 cent HS data repeater is a simplex operation that is around 200 Khz wide and could not pratically be used in the lower bands. I believe coordinators should offer incentives to more spectrally efficient technologies such as P25 and DSTAR. This will ultimately open more spectrum over time, and while I agree both P25 and DSTAR are repeaters, rule changes to foster more spectrally efficient technologies may be indeed appropriate, especially when dead repeaters block the use of channels that would otherwise be used. It does seem (while the new hasn't worn off yet) there is a surge of activity on DSTAR repeaters while many other repeaters lay virtually dead. Time and the market will tell. Visit http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/dstar_digital for D-STAR ONLY discussions. 73, Steve NU5D /K5CTX A or B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was Re: subaudibe tones..)
Nate Duehr wrote: But... I'll point out that even the Icom VHF/UHF D-Star systems are just mobiles in a box... which anyone who has worked on a properly engineered repeater knows... SUCKS -- on many levels. They are $1500 mobiles in a box. Not $6000 M3 or the like. Maybe not a good value. Certainly not top of the line. Lots of hams see a repeater as a used base or mobile that can be converted to repeater operation. Lots of M2 mobiles out there, and Micor hand me down stations. No argument that the Icom DSTAR could easily be 5 times as expensive. No argument that they are a couple of not so hot mobile radios in a box. No argument that they are cheaper than a new Master 3 or Motorola product. I don't think Icom would sell many stations at $6000 to $10,000 a pop. But it's selling, so I guess people don't care. The quality level of these systems will certainly come back to bite someone in the ass, sooner or later. I keep asking how Icom's planning on allowing for field repairs, and getting nothing from owners. I guess you send the whole thing back to them... No user serviceable parts inside. I don't know about you, but when a system module fails on a M3, (over $2000 board) or a systhesizer goes out of lock - I box and ship the module. Let a depot do the repairs. I am too damned old to see much of the SOT stuff and could easily do more damage than good with a soldering iron. Other things as negatives include : - No service monitor adding the D-Star protocol or Icom's particular flavor of it natively to their test suite. - Bad behavior when co-channeled with other D-Star or analog systems. - Proprietary/closed CODEC (AMBE) I can't listen to ProVoice either. I can look at the demodulated transmit waveform, and I can inject a signal into the receiver and look at discriminator output, but I can't take my COM120B and shoot a ProVoice signal into a radio and listen to it thru the speaker. And I'm certainly not going to gamble club money on all of that. Better than a club - I took my own money and bought the stuff. No government grants, no committee taking years to decide how to do things. Benevolent Dictator. (Trust me, I love digital technology, and want to see hams using it -- I just find the current products from Icom somewhat hard to take seriously. Some would say I'm a P25 fan, but not really that either... the callsign-based Internet routing of D-Star gives it an edge for the Ham market that P25 can't touch. But at least the P25 repeater offerings were designed to be repeaters, and the test gear manufacturers all have products that can actually test their performance in real-world conditions. For commercial operators, MotoTRBO is fascinating too, but again -- lacks ham specific features and test gear...) Is MotoTRBO the right tool when you only need one voice path? or does it have to run with 2 time slots ? H(kind of like AlkaSeltzer - plop plop fizzz fizzz,do you really need 2 tablets or is it a marketing ploy)? -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have good and valid points Nate. I am just looking at things a little differently. Not a right or wrong thing. Actually this BP medicine makes me get up in the middle of the night and I had the computer running, and stopped to shut it off when I saw your posts. Back to bed, Best 73, Steve, NU5D
Re: [Repeater-Builder] More efficient use of spectrum.
On Sep 4, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote: The full D-Star stack of VHF, UHF, and 1.2 GHz all at the same physical SITE is a waste of spectrum, and should be avoided also. Nate Duehr There are around 14 DSTAR users in Temple, Texas, and our neighbors in Waco and Austin are moving forward with their own systems as well. The 'full stack' may indeed be a waste of spectrum unless there is a need for more capacity. I am finding the 1253. digital HS data repeater is unique to the system - no voice just 128kb/sec data. Thus far we have not set up a network between stations, just tested the internet connection and it does work at around 80kb/sec. (3 of the 14 have 1.2 capability and the number will grow). Also the coverage at 1296 is not bad (different than 2M or 440, but not bad). Understood. My understanding of the 128Kb/s data repeater is that it's a store-and-forward system similar to Packet, and is not full- duplex. The photos you provided (or someone did?) on the other list seemed to back that understand up in that there's a single mobile rig inside the 1.2 GHz HS repeater box. So... I don't lump that box in with the repeaters that Icom has out for D-Star... it's more like a very high speed proprietary Packet mode, to me anyway. Would you agree? There are many times when a user wants a local chat on 2m/440 (not necessarily both) and there are times someone wants to use the gateway to make an out of area contact. Having 1292.1000 digital voice plus either 2M (very crowded most places) or 440 (not as crowded here in the sticks) while not a full stack, does have a place, and 1.2 G is pretty much under utilized most places. Propagation on 1.2 Ghz makes frequency re-use less of a challenge. Add to this an occasional traveler through the area, and with the Belton Hamfest bringing several thousand hams to the Temple/Belton area a couple of times a year, I can see how a single repeater might be less than ideal. That makes a good case for TWO repeaters, but not the whole stack. :-) I could see a VHF/UHF pair of repeaters, or a VHF/1.2, UHF/1.2 or best, a UHF/1.2 -- but all three at the same site? Three seems a bit overkill strictly from a spectrum-use standpoint. At least where things are today with VHF essentially full in many metropolitan areas. Having DSTAR Chat run concurrent 1.2kb/sec low speed keyboard chat with digital voice at the same time on any of the digital voice repeaters is also a nice added feature that better utilizes spectrum. (You cannot have separate voice and data transmissions - low speed data rides with voice whether you use it or not) Add to this the 6.25 Khz bandwidth for still better spectrum utilization. I cannot see using a 20 Khz channel in 2M plus a 20 Khz channel in 440 to duplicate efforts unless there is a real demand, but I can see 23 Cents added to either a 440 or 2M system to offer some unique features. Seems like the 23 cent HS data repeater is a simplex operation that is around 200 Khz wide and could not pratically be used in the lower bands. Yeah, we basically agree here then. And you confirmed my thoughts about the simplex nature of the 1.2 HS data system. I believe coordinators should offer incentives to more spectrally efficient technologies such as P25 and DSTAR. This will ultimately open more spectrum over time, and while I agree both P25 and DSTAR are repeaters, rule changes to foster more spectrally efficient technologies may be indeed appropriate, especially when dead repeaters block the use of channels that would otherwise be used. There's been some discussion here locally about that incentive part. What exactly is the incentive that would drive someone that has a perfectly working VHF system to dumpster it and put up a VHF D- Star system? I think it's going to be a hard-sell to some organizations. An example might be my club's particular setup. We have three VHF systems spread out over 150+ miles, linked. Then we have one higher standalone VHF system. There's no clamor from the end users for anything D-Star related right now, and most new hams and/or financially challenged hams buy single-band VHF gear. I think if we took a poll today, we'd be surprised how many of our club members ONLY have VHF radios. We also have four UHF systems and the likelihood that one of those might be re-purposed for something digital down the road, is far more likely than reconfiguration of the VHF setup. Right or wrong, but mostly due to the manufacturer's marketing techniques of selling VHF rigs at or below cost, VHF tends to be the lingua franca of repeater afficionados... everyone has a VHF rig. Most (but not all) have UHF, and only a handful in this area have shown any interest at all in D-Star, yet. So with that in mind... how could a coordination body offer us
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..
Nate, Use to be a site owner would require any equipment installed be type accepted and engineered for that site. This usually required commerical gear like Mot or GE for repeaters and not the VHF Eng or other Ham rigs duck taped together. Also circulators were required on all transmitters. Now it seems anything goes. And yes when some get interference when using those DC to light receivers it is always someone elses fault, hi. Then one gets to the TXs with only -60 db spurious emission and one cannot figure out why all the desense, but the rig worked on my home stn and it cost $600. Gotta be someone else. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/09/04 Tue AM 12:17:03 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. What we HAVE seen is site leases that require it... keeping most of the riff-raff junk off the high sites, where it'd be the most problematic. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wal Mart effect makes it to the Communications Hard (feed)-Line industry
Nate, All enviorments have their qurks. We all can find stories of an antenna that got smoked. However, here with the salt air and a number of folded exposed dipoles get eaten up with the salt air. This aint one, but a number of them. Now we get 5 miles from the Gulf don't have the problem although a recently removed DB224 looked pretty sick. I've had 3 of the dual band Diamonds and one Comet last maybe 3 years before lightning completed toasted and blew them apart. They aint much of an antenna when it comes to construction with what looks like getar wire as a coil and cheap caps. 2 were low, 30 ft and 2 at 100 or so ft. All were top mounted. They do work well as antenna and don't cost $600, but would never put one at 1175 ft. I've seen fiber glass antennas, commerical like the super station master, last for 20 years in large substained bitter cold winds with small show of errotion?. This is common for them. All antennas have their pluses and minuses and one has to choice based on their situation like anything. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/09/04 Tue AM 12:11:15 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wal Mart effect makes it to the Communications Hard (feed)-Line industry On Sep 1, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Ron Wright wrote: I've seen good fiberglass antennas last 20 or more years in harsh enviroments and still show much life left. Up here, above 10,000 MSL, the UV rays eat up the fiberglass and they don't last any longer than 10 years, either. :-) That is... if they aren't turned into hundreds of little fiberglass toothpicks by lightning, which usually gets them first. Side-mounted with a top stabilization arm, they last about as long as the folded-dipole arrays. Without a stabilization arm (top-mounted) they tear themselves up pretty quickly in 100 MPH+ winds at the mountain-tops. I think anything metal or antenna elements exposed will have electrical problems due to damage to the connections. Having inside something would at least keep out much of this. The fiberglass radom might deterate some, but the electrical elements would still be intact. Of course if there is leakage then the elements can get inside and do damage. Seen people here de-fuzz old fiberglass antennas by re-glassing them, hand mitts, curing time, big mess. Not sure I'd want to mess with it. I am deffinitly not thinking of one of the Ham ventage antennas for their fiberglass is little more than paper, hi. I have a ham-type Comet up that's been up for about 10 years, last time I touched it, it has a nice layer of fiberglass dust on it and it's probably getting near the end of it's life... or past it. It's not in repeater service, it's one of their tri-band things with the tuning stuff for 6m. Mostly it's just up there on the house as another vertical stick with a little gain for when I need something that's 22' in the air for whatever... not for duplex service. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] CTCSS decoder/encoders
Jesse, The TS64 is microprocessor based. Not sure why a requirement, hi. It uses the old 68705 CPU from Mot of the 70s. New SOIC package. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Jesse Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 09:02:49 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] CTCSS decoder/encoders Hey All, Looking for a microprocessor driven user programmable CTCSS decoder/encoder something very simple and ideally cheap. Single tone, and preferably something with minimal current draw. Any good manufactures/ models that you would recommend? Jesse Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: Re: [Repeater-Build er] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was à  Re: subaudibe tones..)
Speaking of interference. I know MANY WPA repeaters don't run PL and
aren't required to. EPA (arcc-inc.org) has a PL requirement as well as
many other coordination bodies. You should hear WPA repeaters during a
band opening like we had last week!!!
Corey N3FE
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ron Wright wrote:
Joe,
Our Florida coordinator has some recommendations on equipment specs on their
web site, but not part of any coordination.
Wonder what requirments your WPA state.
Just because an interference problem occurs might not be because of the
equipment. I would hope a coordinator would take a scientific approach to
look at a situation, not just look at the equipment. However, been my
experience few coordinators can take a scientific approach, but they do a
good job.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 09:57:01 CDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
Re: subaudibe tones..)
Generally that is true, but in WPA if a case of interference comes
about, and the repeater causing the interference is not meeeing the
Council's recommended specs on equipment, goess who is going to be
solving that interference or losing their coordination? (in which case
it will be their responsibility to solve it under Part 97 as well)
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is running
or going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides most
coordinators don't know much about the equipment being used.
I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co-channel
repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference
problem occurs they might be asked to get involved.
There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but
probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise,
is desired, hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/09/03 Mon AM 11:49:07 CDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
Re: subaudibe tones..)
Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been
about what one AGREES to... Bob made the claim that TASMA has control of
the technical standards for the repeaters it coordinates, and tried to cite
Part 97 to back up his claim:
At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{snip}
Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's technical standards
would be a bit above the mess you describe above. I know we (TASMA)
wouldn't coordinate such a system.
(a repeater built from 2 mobile transceivers and a mobile duplexer)
Bob NO6B
You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when
issuing coordinations?
We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part 97.3
(a)(22).
I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power to
recommend technical parameters, not to control them, and certainly
not
to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as
noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a pair
of
GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D-Star 1.2
GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same
rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?)
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
Ron Wright, C'mon Ron, I asked to get a feel for the references used in your explanation of how coax has a lower freq limit, not a compilation of your library collection. It appears that when you get a specific question you cannot provide an answer to, you go into a rambling dialog about unrelated and useless subjects. How about sticking to the subject at hand without the superfluous, nonessential, redundant, fluff. I get the feeling that when you get a direct question you cannot or are unable to provide an answer to, you meander into an unrelated direction to distract the person asking. Or to get them to go away in disgust. From what I can see about the tough questions you are asked, your answers possibly lack any substance or credibility, and may even border on being defective. How about it now, just provide the books or technical references you have to buttress your comments so I can look in them also to see how you arrived at your conclusions. I too have an extensive library of technical documents and some of the ones you have mentioned and I'm interested in furthering my knowledge, If you cannot or will not provide the references, I will understand. Your credibility in the technical responses provided with reference to coax having a low freq cutoff will have just evaporated. What do you say Ron? Can you support your utterances with references? Or am I and all the others reading this dialog, are to believe you're just puffing? Again. 73 Allan Crites WA9ZZU Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Allan, Well I think most on here do not quote their sources for many got info long time ago and from many sources. If you want a list of some of what I got...well ok: Reference Data for Radio Engineers, ITT (have had about 30 years so probably should update, but still the RF stuff is pretty good...also very good quick reference book). Antenna Analysis by Wolff (need to know Calculus for this one) Electronic Engineers Handbook, Fink (is very popular) Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals, Eshbach (got at garage sell for $2, about 1500 pages) Information Transmission Modulation , and Noise, Schwartz (was my college EE text book on information theory...had great professor. This give real good analyas of modulations such as TDMA, etc. Mostly uses Fourier Transform). Have about 50 others along with many not related to electronics, but Physics and Cheminstry and a bunch of other stuff. Also lots on transistor and ones I really like data books giving all that technical stuff on parts like ICs. I even still have a tube manual and a tube checker. Will not do many sweep tubes so cannot help you with a CB amp. However, I find most of these are good for reference. The real fun is coming up with stuff on ones own and maybe using reference for some of it. Einstin once said one does not have to remember much as long as one knows where to go and get it, hi. Of course with the internet books are kinda loosing out, but still fun to look at well the ones with lots of pictures. I hope you enjoyed this as much as I. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: allan crites [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 04:09:58 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers Ron , Aw c'mon Ron, dig out those equations from your library so we can all see where you're comming from. That way we can get an idea how much reference materials you really have and who and what they are. And just because your name is Wright doen't mean you're right all the time. Jesse also doesn't ever bother to quote the sources for his statements. I'm begining to wonder if you as well as he have any.  73 Allan Crites WA9ZZU Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary, I gave the reason for the statement...measured with HP piece of test equipment. Was quick and to the point. I did not think I had to dig into my libary and dig out the equations. Same with stating an SWR...thought most would take a reading from a meter and not having to give the equations. I did not see you giving your basis for rejecting the statement, but then again I really did not expect it, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Gary Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 08:29:08 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers But it is your statement. 73 Gary K4FMX -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 6:46 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers Gary, I don't know. Why don't you tell us. I don't know why gravity will pull me to the ground real fast if I jump off a bridge, but I have all the faith in the world it will. Einstin tried to explain it,
[Repeater-Builder] Moto Meter
Folks, Thanks for all the help on the battery issue for my S-1063b Moto multimeter. Now, does anyone have a schematic they would scan and send to me... If so, I will give you a direct email so we can do it off list Thanks, Ron
[Repeater-Builder] Syntor UHF 100W PA deck
Can a Syntor UHF 100W PA deck board be used as a repeater amp? Is this possible? Would anyone know how to wire it. Steve
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was ÃÂ Re: subaudibe tones..)
That would be correct, we do not care or ask what equipment is being utilized unless it is provided to us by the applicant to assist them in completing their application. Officially we only need the technical data (antenna HAAT, transmitter output, ERP, etc.). In Florida we are actually a pretty bright bunch that are aware of the different configurations and equipment types, but we do not use this information to weigh one coordination request against another or the ability to be granted a coordination. Mark KS4VT FRC District 2 Director --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is running or going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides most coordinators don't know much about the equipment being used. I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co- channel repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference problem occurs they might be asked to get involved. There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise, is desired, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r
Re: [Repeater-Builder] best service monitor
Don't worry I knew what you meant by 10 MHz. Also as far as I know these generators will go from DC and up. On 8/21/07, Jesse Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well it kinda depends on features and if you need to lug it around with you. I use a 1200 Super S (1200 with tracking generator) at work, does everything you describe, and its no too heavy, which is so nice at repeater sites. Also we have a IFR COM 120B, I like it, makes tuning duplexers so easy, and it does POCSAG. The only thing with the 120 is it's heavy, and not nice to lug to a site. I have also used an IFR 1500, it has a few more features than the 1200, like an attenuator switch on the antenna input, but the size and weight doesn't offset the extra features in my opinion. com 120 - http://www.alcomtest.com/pictures/mvc-131x.jpg IFR 1200 - http://www.aeroexpress.com/FMAM-1200S.jpg IFR 1500 - http://www.rfimage.com/P1140068.JPG Jesse On 8/21/07, Kruser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I am a little off topic but I need a better service monitor than what I now have. It must have a spectrum analyzer and tracking generator. Would like it to cover all the amatuer bands, at least from 10 mhz up to at least 1 Gig. I am looking at IFRs at present. Not really interested in cell bands, but if its there and still covers what I need, no problem. Any comments on these would be helpful. IFR 1500 IFR 1900 CSA not the -5 IFR 2947 Thanks, and I apologize for riding the fence on this topic, but I know I can get the best feedback here. Randy
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexers
Adding or removing cable lengths between the transmitter and duplexer also does not change the VSWR as seen by the transmitter (minimal cable loss effects notwithstanding). --- Jeff True but only if everything (tx out, cable and duplexer) is matched Z. If duplexer in and tx output are not exactly the same then adding or subtracting cable lengths can change the vswr the tx sees. I have seen this in real life, I do not have a network anylizer so I can not be sure what was happening but to make the tx happy some cable was added until the reflected power was minimized and the desense went away like magic. I think the manual that came with my Wacom duplexer talks about this phenomena. tom
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexers
IIRC the Bird manual had a chart in the back for making up 1/2 wavelength coax lines (Bird + coax = 1/2 wl). If this combination is inserted on the input side of the duplexer then the measurement should be fairly correct. Other lengths could give other readings. My guess would be a cable problem. Milt N3LTQ - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexers My statement regarding tuning did not explicitly refer to the actual tuning of the duplexer, but to the matching of the TX and duplexer in combination. This can be proven if two Birds are used, one between the TX and the duplexer input and the other between the duplexer output and the antenna. In the majority of cases I have witnessed, adding a Bird between the TX and the duplexer will cause the forward power shown on the other Bird to change significantly. To avoid the misunderstanding, perhaps I should have used the term impedance match. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff DePolo Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 9:30 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexers When you put the Bird between the TX and the duplexer, you have changed the length of the jumper cable, which upset the tuning. Adding a wattmeter or any other length of cable between the transmitter and the duplexer Tx input port has no effect on the tuning of the duplexer. It may change the load Z the transmitter sees, which may make the transmitter happier (or sadder) depending on the resulting Z, but in no way does it alter the tuning of the duplexer itself. Adding or removing cable lengths between the transmitter and duplexer also does not change the VSWR as seen by the transmitter (minimal cable loss effects notwithstanding). --- Jeff Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wal Mart effect makes it to theCommunications Hard (feed)-Line industry
The problem with many of the fiberglass antennas is not their durability to the elements in some locations, but their mechanical durability. Of the antennas made within the last 15 or so years, I have not seen one that lasted more than a year or two before developing duplex noise issues due to either lightning or even the simple strong wind breaking the conntactions between the elements. This only applies to the VHF models. The UHF models still seem to last for eons. Maybe someone should try coating a DB224 with Rhino Liner or something if those models have exposure issues. Joe M. Nate, Yep 10 years is long time and mother nature really does whatever she wants. I've seen good fiberglass antennas last 20 or more years in harsh enviroments and still show much life left. I think anything metal or antenna elements exposed will have electrical problems due to damage to the connections. Having inside something would at least keep out much of this. The fiberglass radom might deterate some, but the electrical elements would still be intact. Of course if there is leakage then the elements can get inside and do damage. I am deffinitly not thinking of one of the Ham ventage antennas for their fiberglass is little more than paper, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/09/01 Sat PM 01:19:52 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wal Mart effect makes it to the Communications Hard (feed)-Line industry Ron Wright wrote: When I replace my DB224 I am going to a SuperStation Master fiber glass pole. It is obvious the exposed dipoles have a survival problem in this salt air. Have you looked at the heavy-duty Sinclair folded-dipoles? They seem better built than the DB's. 10 years is starting to push it with just about any antenna we've used, though -- some make it longer, but the elements are mean to everything. Nate WY0X Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DB224 Survival in Florida
hi anyone have a picture of this fiberglass antenna?? 73/s Gervais ve2ckn - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:44 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] DB224 Survival in Florida Paul, Eleven years in a salt-air and lightning-prone environment is pretty darn good! I daresay the Super Stationmaster would not last that long. Fiberglass vertical antennas can be permanently damaged when struck by lightning, whereas the aluminum dipoles might shrug off such abuse. At least, that's been the experience at nearby Vandenberg AFB. It is not clear from your post if you have established beyond any doubt that it is the antenna causing your SWR problem. Have you determined that the feedline is not cracked or dented due to flexing, not worn through at some point, no water in the line, center pin(s) haven't pulled out due to elongation, no bullet holes, etc., etc.? 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 7:12 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Wal Mart effect makes it to the Communications Hard (feed)-Line industry Paul, I have a DB224 at 1175 ft above ground 1/2 mile from the Gulf of Mexico here in FL. Put up in 1996 and it is having serious problems, 2:1 SWR on the ground. Think it is the salt air. The connections, on antenna and connectors, were coated and sealed before install. Other services with exposed dipoles have had the same problem here. We have same antennas about 5 miles from the Gulf that last for years although none past 20 years. Have seen about 5 of these replaced recently, most VHF. When I replace my DB224 I am going to a SuperStation Master fiber glass pole. It is obvious the exposed dipoles have a survival problem in this salt air. I know what you mean about the fiber poles and lightning due to the soldering connections. If top mounted would be reluctant, but have seen these last over 20 years and still had plenty of life in them in some harsh enviorments. I like the DB224 with it squeeing of the pattern, but exposed dipoles can have problems. Same with towers up north with ice falling off a tower. 73, ron, n9ee/r unrelated text deleted
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Tubes...?
Probably someone who is dumb enough to pay $300 for a pair of tubes isn't going to notice that minor discrepancy. Sheeseh. Richard http://www.n7tgb.net/ www.n7tgb.net _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John J. Riddell Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 4:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Tubes...? I wonder why the seller claims to have Phillips tubes when the picture clearly shows Rogers tubes ? Rogers made tubes in Toronto for over 50 years. Ted Rogers Sr invented the batteryless radio when he developed tubes that would work with an AC filament. His Ham call was 9RB and his radio station later became CFRB...on the air to-day ...still...1010 Khz The RB part stands for Rogers Batteryless For the full story see the Hammond Museum of radio web site. www.hammondmuseumofradio.org 73 John VE3AMZ - Original Message - From: Jesse Lloyd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:14 PM Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Oxygen Free and stranded audio cables. Yes, unlike cheap imitations which give cubic audio quality, hahah. On 9/3/07, Laryn Lohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] com wrote: If you really need a good chuckle (unless you threw out your tube stock recently) go to ebay and search for a 12ax7. For example http://cgi.ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/Matched-New-Pair-of-Rare-Philips-mC-12AX7-Tubes_W0QQite mZ330162061283QQihZ014QQcategoryZ50598QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem com/Matched-New-Pair-of-Rare-Philips-mC-12AX7-Tubes_W0QQitemZ330162061283QQi hZ014QQcategoryZ50598QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem I sure hope he packs them well! 73's Skip WB6YMH Well Skip I was surprised that you didn't snap them up at the -Buy It Now- price, if only for their spherical audio quality. heheheheheh Laryn K8TVZ
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] duplexer design
Dear Sir, I have to design the on my own, please suggest if there is any website related to designing of mobile duplexers. I t will be helpfull for me. Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vikash, The typical design is use of coax or hard constructed coax...using large 6 or so pipes with interconductor. Normally we call these duplexers. They often have 1/4 wave length lengths being open at one end so they will look like short at source end producing a notch. But an open at the pass freq. The reason for large pipe type construction is to reduce the R so the Q will be high and allow the pass and notch freqs to be close together. There are many designs and sources for what you are talking about. They go back over 50 years and are still being built today. If you go to www.tessco.com you can see products from a number of manufactures with the specs. One has to look at what one wants...freq spacing and the amount of notch/filtering and pass attenuation. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: sms mms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/08/26 Sun AM 09:00:13 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] duplexer design I require the value of insertion loss on both frequencies. I have to design band reject type duplexer,please suggest the design. I will be grateful. vikash Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds as if you are designing a duplexer with coils and caps. It is often this approach will not have a high enough Q to have a notch at one freq and at the same time pass freq with low enough insertion loss. Normally duplexers use cavities which are made from coax made from heavy metal tubes, inter and outer conductors. Not your typical coax, but follow the same format. You may have the notch on both frequencies, but what is the insertion loss at the desired pass freq. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: sms mms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/08/24 Fri PM 12:11:46 CDT To: repeater repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] duplexer design Dear all, I am Vikash Gupta from India. I am designing a duplexer having low frequency:230 MHz, High gfreuqency: 234 MHz. I am usingà coil with 8 no. of turnsà and 22 PF capacitor. I have to get Insertion loss 1.2 on both low and high sides. But I have a problem in getting this. I have got Rejection of more than 80 dB and Return loss of better than 20 dB on both sides. Please give me suggestion what I have to do? thanks in advance. Vikash à 5, 50, 500, 5000 - Store N number of mails in your inbox. Click here. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Try the revolutionary next-gen Yahoo! Mail. Click here. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. - Try the revolutionary next-gen Yahoo! Mail. Click here.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT- Weather Radio Recall
I know that most don't want to listen to all pages but some of us that are ARES RACES might. I severe weather spot for Skywarn and like to know about all pages in the area. From weather to flooding we get updates all the time from NWS that way. Was just a thought for a few that might want it. Peter Dakota Summerhawk -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:27 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT- Weather Radio Recall Peter Dakota Summerhawk wrote: On that topic I found that a pager works just as well: http://www.iinc.com/ggcomm/pager.html Been using one for quite a while now with good results. Dakota Summerhawk Only problem-those don't do the SAME code, just the generic tone. You'll get everything that transmitter sends out, which I know in my case would be a LOT more then I would want to hear about. Probably only 1 out of every 7-8 pages would be of interest. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexers
Adding or removing cable lengths between the transmitter and duplexer also does not change the VSWR as seen by the transmitter (minimal cable loss effects notwithstanding). --- Jeff True but only if everything (tx out, cable and duplexer) is matched Z. No, NOT true. The VSWR always remains the same, only the impedance at the transmitter end of the interconnect cable going to the duplexer changes. If duplexer in and tx output are not exactly the same then adding or subtracting cable lengths can change the vswr the tx sees. No, it will not. I have seen this in real life, I do not have a network anylizer so I can not be sure what was happening but to make the tx happy some cable was added until the reflected power was minimized and the desense went away like magic. Yes, you were changing the Z the transmitter sees. You were NOT changing the VSWR. The two are not the same. Re-read follow up posts from the last week or so for further clarification. --- Jeff
[Repeater-Builder] GE Receiver/Power Supply Combo.
I still have two GE VHF FM receiver/power supply combinations to give away. These are all solid state units, single channel (crystal controlled) in the 138-174 MHz. range with 19 rack mounting. Just pay shipping. Weight is 10lbs and box size is 20L x 7 H x 12D. You can use these measurements to calculate the shipping to your house from V8G 0B9 in Canada. If there's no interest, they're headed for the land fill. Doug VE7DRF
[Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..
It seems Ron, N9EE, is quite proud of the fact that his repeater doesn't use tone squelch. Ron, you are most fortunate to be able to do that. For the rest of us lets get real. From my modest station I can normally hear five or six repeaters on 146.76. Using tone I can work any one of them should I choose to do so as they all use different tones. Think of the chaos that would result if they all were carrier access. Our friends in commercial two way radio figured out about FIFTY years ago that they could get ten time the channel loading using tone squelch. So why are hams so resistant to implementing it? To me it make a lot of sense to use tone squelch. About six years ago at the meetings of the Illinois Repeater Association (general membership, not just the board members) the idea of mandatory tone squelch (CTCSS or DPL) on all repeaters was suggested. After much discussion, a couple of years later the general membership voted, almost unanimously, to proceed with this plan. As of the end of 2005, all Illinois repeaters (29 mhz on up) were required to have available some kind of access other than carrier squelch. Although there are some hold-outs, most think it is a resounding success. Basically, what it means is that any repeater using carrier squelch will get no protection from interference from users of coordinated repeaters, as far as the IRA is concerned. So what about mobiles or other transients? The ARRL and others publish directories that are reasonably up to date. Info is available on line. Most repeaters repeat during their hangtime for emergencies. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who pi** and moan about their HR2-B not having tone capabilities. Retire it. If you can afford to spend $75 to fill your gas tank maybe you can afford to buy a rig less than thirty years old. Or pick up a tone board off of ebay for $20 if you are really in love with your old rig. (Actually, I have a working G-Strip Motorola base that can use the local repeater because it has the right reeds in it. It's probably 45 years old and still useful. And it came that way, with TONE SQUELCH!) Friends don't let friends use carrier squelch (on repeaters). 73, Al, K9SI
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was �? Re: subaudibe tones..)
That is true. I was only talking about cases where the equipment IS the problem - spurs, adjacent channel rejection, frequency stability, Etc. Here are the recommendations: http://www.wprc.us/wprctechguidelines.html Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Just because an interference problem occurs might not be because of the equipment. I would hope a coordinator would take a scientific approach to look at a situation, not just look at the equipment. However, been my experience few coordinators can take a scientific approach, but they do a good job. 73, ron, n9ee/r
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordi nator authority (was �? Re: subaudibe tones..)
Every repeater in WPA (Minus ATV) has a CTCSS on their coordination.
Whether they choose to use it (full time, part time, or at all) is the
decision of the trustee. So if you don't care for what you heard,
contact the repeater trustee, as it was their decision to pass the
traffic and not enable CTCSS.
Joe M.
Corey Dean N3FE wrote:
Speaking of interference. I know MANY WPA repeaters don't run PL and
aren't required to. EPA (arcc-inc.org) has a PL requirement as well as
many other coordination bodies. You should hear WPA repeaters during a
band opening like we had last week!!!
Corey N3FE
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ron Wright wrote:
Joe,
Our Florida coordinator has some recommendations on equipment specs on
their web site, but not part of any coordination.
Wonder what requirments your WPA state.
Just because an interference problem occurs might not be because of the
equipment. I would hope a coordinator would take a scientific approach to
look at a situation, not just look at the equipment. However, been my
experience few coordinators can take a scientific approach, but they do a
good job.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 09:57:01 CDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
ÃÂÃÂ Re: subaudibe tones..)
Generally that is true, but in WPA if a case of interference comes
about, and the repeater causing the interference is not meeeing the
Council's recommended specs on equipment, goess who is going to be
solving that interference or losing their coordination? (in which case
it will be their responsibility to solve it under Part 97 as well)
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is
running or going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides
most coordinators don't know much about the equipment being used.
I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co-channel
repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference
problem occurs they might be asked to get involved.
There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but
probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise,
is desired, hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/09/03 Mon AM 11:49:07 CDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
Re: subaudibe tones..)
Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been
about what one AGREES to... Bob made the claim that TASMA has control
of
the technical standards for the repeaters it coordinates, and tried to
cite
Part 97 to back up his claim:
At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{snip}
Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's technical
standards
would be a bit above the mess you describe above. I know we (TASMA)
wouldn't coordinate such a system.
(a repeater built from 2 mobile transceivers and a mobile duplexer)
Bob NO6B
You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when
issuing coordinations?
We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part 97.3
(a)(22).
I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power
to
recommend technical parameters, not to control them, and certainly
not
to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as
noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a
pair of
GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D-Star
1.2
GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same
rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?)
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequenc y coordi nator authority (was � Re: subaudibe tones..)
Yea, some control ops will run carrier squelch but have a code set up to turn on/off the PL requirement in case of ducting, jamming etc.. MCH wrote: Every repeater in WPA (Minus ATV) has a CTCSS on their coordination. Whether they choose to use it (full time, part time, or at all) is the decision of the trustee. So if you don't care for what you heard, contact the repeater trustee, as it was their decision to pass the traffic and not enable CTCSS. Joe M. -- Jay Urish W5GM ex. KB5VPS ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5 146.92 PL-110.9
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..
Al, Has nothing to do with pride, just sound sense that we don't need tone. Tone has its uses, but not a solve all problems approach. In my case solves no problem and in fact does create one...vacationers have trouble finding the tone freq. Most directories are not always up to date and to have a computer on vacation to look it up is not what many can or want to do. Most mobiles still require a tone decoder as an add on, HTs usually have it built in. One can do the set and try approach, but not exactly something one wants to do while driving. However, there are uses for tones, not just one so some applications use transmitting different tones for different modes. We have a few repeaters here that do not have tone with no problems. Go tone and bring your repeater into the 21st century. This is junk. Tone is old stuff. If you need it fine and it can help with some problems. I have no problem with some putting on tone, but to think this is bringing anything into the 21st century not much of an imagination. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Al Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/08/29 Wed PM 08:22:50 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. It seems Ron, N9EE, is quite proud of the fact that his repeater doesn't use tone squelch. Ron, you are most fortunate to be able to do that. For the rest of us lets get real. From my modest station I can normally hear five or six repeaters on 146.76. Using tone I can work any one of them should I choose to do so as they all use different tones. Think of the chaos that would result if they all were carrier access. Our friends in commercial two way radio figured out about FIFTY years ago that they could get ten time the channel loading using tone squelch. So why are hams so resistant to implementing it? To me it make a lot of sense to use tone squelch. About six years ago at the meetings of the Illinois Repeater Association (general membership, not just the board members) the idea of mandatory tone squelch (CTCSS or DPL) on all repeaters was suggested. After much discussion, a couple of years later the general membership voted, almost unanimously, to proceed with this plan. As of the end of 2005, all Illinois repeaters (29 mhz on up) were required to have available some kind of access other than carrier squelch. Although there are some hold-outs, most think it is a resounding success. Basically, what it means is that any repeater using carrier squelch will get no protection from interference from users of coordinated repeaters, as far as the IRA is concerned. So what about mobiles or other transients? The ARRL and others publish directories that are reasonably up to date. Info is available on line. Most repeaters repeat during their hangtime for emergencies. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who pi** and moan about their HR2-B not having tone capabilities. Retire it. If you can afford to spend $75 to fill your gas tank maybe you can afford to buy a rig less than thirty years old. Or pick up a tone board off of ebay for $20 if you are really in love with your old rig. (Actually, I have a working G-Strip Motorola base that can use the local repeater because it has the right reeds in it. It's probably 45 years old and still useful. And it came that way, with TONE SQUELCH!) Friends don't let friends use carrier squelch (on repeaters). 73, Al, K9SI Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT- Weather Radio Recall
Peter Dakota Summerhawk wrote: I know that most don't want to listen to all pages but some of us that are ARES RACES might. I severe weather spot for Skywarn and like to know about all pages in the area. From weather to flooding we get updates all the time from NWS that way. Fine-but knowing about a warning 50-60 miles to the south, or east, meaning weather that has gone by, is of no concern to any of us at least. But you're right in that it's better then nothing! -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordi nator authority (was ????Re: subaudi be tones..)
Oh yes, I do agree with you. Let's just say I can hear repeaters in EPA
that require a PL, but I can't work them because the WPA repeater has no
PL. I would be causing interference to a repeater in WPA when trying to use
the one that is PL'd. ARCC did a good thing requiring PL!!!
ok, I am going to let this go. Won't do any good anyway...
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, MCH wrote:
Every repeater in WPA (Minus ATV) has a CTCSS on their coordination.
Whether they choose to use it (full time, part time, or at all) is the
decision of the trustee. So if you don't care for what you heard,
contact the repeater trustee, as it was their decision to pass the
traffic and not enable CTCSS.
Joe M.
Corey Dean N3FE wrote:
Speaking of interference. I know MANY WPA repeaters don't run PL and
aren't required to. EPA (arcc-inc.org) has a PL requirement as well as
many other coordination bodies. You should hear WPA repeaters during a
band opening like we had last week!!!
Corey N3FE
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ron Wright wrote:
Joe,
Our Florida coordinator has some recommendations on equipment specs on
their web site, but not part of any coordination.
Wonder what requirments your WPA state.
Just because an interference problem occurs might not be because of the
equipment. I would hope a coordinator would take a scientific approach to
look at a situation, not just look at the equipment. However, been my
experience few coordinators can take a scientific approach, but they do a
good job.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 09:57:01 CDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
??? Re: subaudibe tones..)
Generally that is true, but in WPA if a case of interference comes
about, and the repeater causing the interference is not meeeing the
Council's recommended specs on equipment, goess who is going to be
solving that interference or losing their coordination? (in which case
it will be their responsibility to solve it under Part 97 as well)
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is
running or going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides
most coordinators don't know much about the equipment being used.
I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co-channel
repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference
problem occurs they might be asked to get involved.
There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but
probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise,
is desired, hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/09/03 Mon AM 11:49:07 CDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
Re: subaudibe tones..)
Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been
about what one AGREES to... Bob made the claim that TASMA has control
of
the technical standards for the repeaters it coordinates, and tried to
cite
Part 97 to back up his claim:
At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{snip}
Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's technical
standards
would be a bit above the mess you describe above. I know we (TASMA)
wouldn't coordinate such a system.
(a repeater built from 2 mobile transceivers and a mobile duplexer)
Bob NO6B
You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when
issuing coordinations?
We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part 97.3
(a)(22).
I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power
to
recommend technical parameters, not to control them, and certainly
not
to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as
noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a
pair of
GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D-Star
1.2
GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same
rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?)
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..
Ron is right. Tone is a band-aide, not a cure all. The way it ‘solves’ many problems is through masking the interference. The interference is still present, and when the interference is present at the same time as a valid signal, the interference again appears on the repeater output. Yes, tones allow more close spacing of repeaters on the same channel/frequency, and generally these repeaters are far enough apart that capture effect voids the problem of having 2 stations transmitting on the same frequency at the same time, thus the tone does the job for which it was intended. But… if you get a good band opening, then the likelihood of having to listen to some pretty ugly mixing on the repeater output(s) greatly increases… tone or not. I agree with Ron’s logic… if you need it, use it. If not, why bother? It’s a hassle for the users… especially those who just happen to be passing through and might need directions or just want to chat. Our repeater here in Middle Georgia is just a few miles off I-75, and we get a great number of folks passing through who use our repeater for a variety of things. Our membership STRONGLY opposes the idea of putting a tone on the machine, and I’m glad of that. We do have a decoder installed, and I have the ability to DTMF the tone on at any time, although in the past 4 years I‘ve never had the need to do so. We also transmit a tone, which allows those of us who work in or near high-RF environments to set our receivers on decode and not have to listen to all the other junk that’s around. It also keeps the various squeaks and squawks off of our Echolink node. Just my 2-cents worth. Mike WM4B WA4ORT/R (146.25/85) From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:40 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. Al, Has nothing to do with pride, just sound sense that we don't need tone. Tone has its uses, but not a solve all problems approach. In my case solves no problem and in fact does create one...vacationers have trouble finding the tone freq. Most directories are not always up to date and to have a computer on vacation to look it up is not what many can or want to do. Most mobiles still require a tone decoder as an add on, HTs usually have it built in. One can do the set and try approach, but not exactly something one wants to do while driving. However, there are uses for tones, not just one so some applications use transmitting different tones for different modes. We have a few repeaters here that do not have tone with no problems. Go tone and bring your repeater into the 21st century. This is junk. Tone is old stuff. If you need it fine and it can help with some problems. I have no problem with some putting on tone, but to think this is bringing anything into the 21st century not much of an imagination. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Al Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:k9si%40arrl.net Date: 2007/08/29 Wed PM 08:22:50 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. It seems Ron, N9EE, is quite proud of the fact that his repeater doesn't use tone squelch. Ron, you are most fortunate to be able to do that. For the rest of us lets get real. From my modest station I can normally hear five or six repeaters on 146.76. Using tone I can work any one of them should I choose to do so as they all use different tones. Think of the chaos that would result if they all were carrier access. Our friends in commercial two way radio figured out about FIFTY years ago that they could get ten time the channel loading using tone squelch. So why are hams so resistant to implementing it? To me it make a lot of sense to use tone squelch. About six years ago at the meetings of the Illinois Repeater Association (general membership, not just the board members) the idea of mandatory tone squelch (CTCSS or DPL) on all repeaters was suggested. After much discussion, a couple of years later the general membership voted, almost unanimously, to proceed with this plan. As of the end of 2005, all Illinois repeaters (29 mhz on up) were required to have available some kind of access other than carrier squelch. Although there are some hold-outs, most think it is a resounding success. Basically, what it means is that any repeater using carrier squelch will get no protection from interference from users of coordinated repeaters, as far as the IRA is concerned. So what about mobiles or other transients? The ARRL and others publish directories that are reasonably up to date. Info is available on line. Most repeaters repeat during their hangtime for emergencies. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who pi** and moan about their HR2-B not having tone capabilities. Retire it. If you can afford to spend $75 to fill
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..
Something I don't understand why everyone trouts TONE access as a cure all for interference. The interference is still there and for weak signals they cannot access the repeater because of the interference. Sure the repeater is quiet but it limits the coverage. I maintain an ARMY MARS repeater and was getting interference. I was told to fix the problem was to put CTCSS on the MARS repeater. Come on, the interference is still there causing the repeater to not have the coverage it should have. Problem was solved by finding the offending station and sending then an E-Mail. I do agree that if you have a number of repeaters on the same frequency then tone is the best way to go. Problem with that is if you are working a repeater 75 miles away on one tone and there is another one 25 miles from your location you are still going to interfer with the 25 mile repeater even though you are not heard. Got to be a better way. David = From: Al Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/08/29 Wed PM 08:22:50 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. It seems Ron, N9EE, is quite proud of the fact that his repeater doesn't use tone squelch. Ron, you are most fortunate to be able to do that. For the rest of us lets get real. From my modest station I can normally hear five or six repeaters on 146.76. Using tone I can work any one of them should I choose to do so as they all use different tones. Think of the chaos that would result if they all were carrier access. Our friends in commercial two way radio figured out about FIFTY years ago that they could get ten time the channel loading using tone squelch. So why are hams so resistant to implementing it? To me it make a lot of sense to use tone squelch. About six years ago at the meetings of the Illinois Repeater Association (general membership, not just the board members) the idea of mandatory tone squelch (CTCSS or DPL) on all repeaters was suggested. After much discussion, a couple of years later the general membership voted, almost unanimously, to proceed with this plan. As of the end of 2005, all Illinois repeaters (29 mhz on up) were required to have available some kind of access other than carrier squelch. Although there are some hold-outs, most think it is a resounding success. Basically, what it means is that any repeater using carrier squelch will get no protection from interference from users of coordinated repeaters, as far as the IRA is concerned. So what about mobiles or other transients? The ARRL and others publish directories that are reasonably up to date. Info is available on line. Most repeaters repeat during their hangtime for emergencies. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who pi** and moan about their HR2-B not having tone capabilities. Retire it. If you can afford to spend $75 to fill your gas tank maybe you can afford to buy a rig less than thirty years old. Or pick up a tone board off of ebay for $20 if you are really in love with your old rig. (Actually, I have a working G-Strip Motorola base that can use the local repeater because it has the right reeds in it. It's probably 45 years old and still useful. And it came that way, with TONE SQUELCH!) Friends don't let friends use carrier squelch (on repeaters). 73, Al, K9SI
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..
I do Not Use a Tone to keep users out, Just to help Eliminate the garbage coming in, Not People, I see a lot of Comments on PL Receive, But none on Transmitting a PL, I have a Few users that use you know the other Ham Equipment not Motorola , Ge Etc. That lives in the Chicago area and cannot just set and tighten up the Sq enough to block out the Pagers and noise Etc. So I put the PL on the Transmit too so They could Monitor the Repeater, I have actually heard some Say Oh Don’t do that someone will find your secret PL Yea Right. And Here is a Dumb Tech Question , If You had a PL And had the receiver SQ All the open would Not the Receive Be hotter then with No Pl and the SQ Closed enough to keep from keying up / Happy Repeater Building Don KA9QJG
[Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Something I don't understand why everyone trouts TONE access as a cure all for interference. The interference is still there and for weak signals they cannot access the repeater because of the interference. Sure the repeater is quiet but it limits the coverage. David, just trying to fully understand--what is limiting the coverage--the interference or the tone?? Laryn K8TVZ
[Repeater-Builder] Want for Kenwood KPT20 KPT-20 Programmer
Want for Kenwood KPT20 KPT-20 Programmer Pretty much says it all... I'm looking for a Kenwood KPT-20 Programmer. If you have one you'd like to consider selling... I'd like to buy it for most any fair price. Please Email me direct thank you skipp skipp025 at yahoo.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cleaning House
Northwest Florida. Niceville 32578 -Original Message- From: Richard W Bazell Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cleaning House Where are you located Will? Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordi nator auth ority (was � Re: subaudibe tones..)
I concur with Joe. WPRC has done a good job at putting a CTCSS grid in their coordination area. Corey-- a note . . . In my case I maintain 4 repeaters in Fayette County, PA with 3 of them being mounted at 2600-2800 AMSL and a HAAT greater than 1000'. On the eastern side of the mountain ridge HAAT could be said to be 200' on average with the western side of the ridge, there ain't nothing higher than us going west for a long way. i.e. till you hit Colorado. Of those 4 repeaters, 1 is currently full time PL (443.750+ 131.8 W3PIE), 2 of the VHF's are in fulltime TX PL with the ability to turn the RX PL on via DTMF control. (147.045 + 131.8 W3PIE, 145.170 - 131.8 WB3JNP) Our remaining repeater is in the process of going to the same setup and should be resolved over the next few months (147.255 + W3PIE) A minor band opening has us routinely picking up mobiles 200-400 miles away on VHF and same or greater on UHF. A major band opening will have stations from Canada talking to stations in Georgia via our repeaters As a note, when the repeaters are in Full PL and the band is wide open you may not realize it as the repeater isn't retransmitting the skip. On the flip side of that issue, you may not be able to use your repeater system because the non pl'ed signal is stronger into the receiver than you with the PL. Routinely happens with a backup Public Safety Repeater here on 453.525/458.525 118.8 when the skip is wide open. Traffic from Kentucky state comes in stronger than the mobiles 15 miles from the repeater. Getting people to use the PL'ed repeater is another story. I have been trying to get people to understand that they can transmit a PL of 131.8 on the repeater input full time to make the transition to PL repeater easier. The response I get frequently is :: But the repeater isn't in PL, it won't work if I transmit the PL. . . . Enough from me for now. 73, Tony, KA3VOR -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MCH Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:36 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordi nator authority (was Ã? Re: subaudibe tones..) Every repeater in WPA (Minus ATV) has a CTCSS on their coordination. Whether they choose to use it (full time, part time, or at all) is the decision of the trustee. So if you don't care for what you heard, contact the repeater trustee, as it was their decision to pass the traffic and not enable CTCSS. Joe M. Corey Dean N3FE wrote: Speaking of interference. I know MANY WPA repeaters don't run PL and aren't required to. EPA (arcc-inc.org) has a PL requirement as well as many other coordination bodies. You should hear WPA repeaters during a band opening like we had last week!!! Corey N3FE On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ron Wright wrote: Joe, Our Florida coordinator has some recommendations on equipment specs on their web site, but not part of any coordination. Wonder what requirments your WPA state. Just because an interference problem occurs might not be because of the equipment. I would hope a coordinator would take a scientific approach to look at a situation, not just look at the equipment. However, been my experience few coordinators can take a scientific approach, but they do a good job. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 09:57:01 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was ÃÂàRe: subaudibe tones..) Generally that is true, but in WPA if a case of interference comes about, and the repeater causing the interference is not meeeing the Council's recommended specs on equipment, goess who is going to be solving that interference or losing their coordination? (in which case it will be their responsibility to solve it under Part 97 as well) Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is running or going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides most coordinators don't know much about the equipment being used. I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co-channel repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference problem occurs they might be asked to get involved. There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise, is desired, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/09/03 Mon AM 11:49:07 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was Re: subaudibe tones..) Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been about what one
[Repeater-Builder] D-Star systems as auxiliary stations?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] [Fwd: DStar Channel Spacing] [snip] Which is good for us here in SoCal because TASMA just voted to create 4 auxiliary link pairs for very narrow band digital systems at 145.585, 145.595, 145.605 145.615 outputs (inputs all -600 kHz). With the 10 kHz spacing, currently only DStar systems are compatible so they're essentially DStar pairs. The point-to-point communications within a D-Star system take place over a LAN, WAN, or the internet, not over-the-air. Therefore, I doubt very much that the claim that D-star systems are auxiliary stations will pass FCC scrutiny. Yes, I know that there already is a D-Star system in the San Francisco area operating in that sub-band, but most likely, no one has ever challenged its presence. If someone does, I'm betting it gets shut down.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones..
Understood, and agree. Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, David Murman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interference. Once corrected have great coverage. The tone access was only a Band-Aid to not hear the interference. David - Original Message - From: Laryn Lohman To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:26 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: subaudibe tones.. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, dmurman@ wrote: Something I don't understand why everyone trouts TONE access as a cure all for interference. The interference is still there and for weak signals they cannot access the repeater because of the interference. Sure the repeater is quiet but it limits the coverage. David, just trying to fully understand--what is limiting the coverage--the interference or the tone?? Laryn K8TVZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GE Receiver/Power Supply Combo.
Hi Doug Sorry for the slow response I just got back from vacation today. Do you take paypal or should I send a check? Ralph - Original Message - From: Davies, Doug A FOR:EXmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Buildermailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:38 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] GE Receiver/Power Supply Combo. I still have two GE VHF FM receiver/power supply combinations to give away. These are all solid state units, single channel (crystal controlled) in the 138-174 MHz. range with 19 rack mounting. Just pay shipping. Weight is 10lbs and box size is 20L x 7 H x 12D. You can use these measurements to calculate the shipping to your house from V8G 0B9 in Canada. If there's no interest, they're headed for the land fill. Doug VE7DRF
[Repeater-Builder] An interesting observation.....
From an email I received Yup, 105.4 F heat and line voltage of 104.1 VAC. And, on the next day, they made an 'adjustment' in the power and I had 102.3 VAC with my outdoor temp of 104.3. It is not good when your thermometer reads more than the AC voltmeter.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An interesting observation.....
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From an email I received Yup, 105.4 F heat and line voltage of 104.1 VAC. And, on the next day, they made an 'adjustment' in the power and I had 102.3 VAC with my outdoor temp of 104.3. It is not good when your thermometer reads more than the AC voltmeter. Not good--electric motors HATE low voltage like that. Far worse, many repeaters put out less power... G Laryn K8TVZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] An interesting observation.....
I went up to a radio site Sunday, and found the AC Voltage Averaging in the 90's, peaking as high as 103, and dipping down as low as 83 volts. My customers equipment was going into convulsion. By the way, it was only about 100 degrees outside. I thought it strange when I walked into the next room, and heard the frequency at which the cooling fans spin stepping up and down. Paul Metzger K6EH On Sep 4, 2007, at 20:00, Mike Morris wrote: From an email I received Yup, 105.4 F heat and line voltage of 104.1 VAC. And, on the next day, they made an 'adjustment' in the power and I had 102.3 VAC with my outdoor temp of 104.3. It is not good when your thermometer reads more than the AC voltmeter.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] An interesting observation.....
This sounds like a classic case of voltage sag, made much worse by a lagging power factor. Although not an absolute cure-all, the first thing I would do is put a couple of kVAR of capacitive reactance in place. The chances are good that the power factor is well below power-industry standards at that site. Ideally, the steady-state power factor should be above 0.9 and the target is above 0.95. Adding some capacitors across the line will improve both the voltage regulation and the power factor. Ask the utility to have a power-quality engineer evaluate this site. The national standard is 120 VAC +/- 6 VAC. Anything outside this range should be reported to the utility as unacceptable. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Metzger Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:05 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] An interesting observation. I went up to a radio site Sunday, and found the AC Voltage Averaging in the 90's, peaking as high as 103, and dipping down as low as 83 volts. My customers equipment was going into convulsion. By the way, it was only about 100 degrees outside. I thought it strange when I walked into the next room, and heard the frequency at which the cooling fans spin stepping up and down. Paul Metzger K6EH On Sep 4, 2007, at 20:00, Mike Morris wrote: From an email I received Yup, 105.4 F heat and line voltage of 104.1 VAC. And, on the next day, they made an 'adjustment' in the power and I had 102.3 VAC with my outdoor temp of 104.3. It is not good when your thermometer reads more than the AC voltmeter.
