Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I saw that initially, but is a repeater a station under Telecommand? I guess that might be where it has always been, though. Thanks, Ron. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Has to be 144.5-144.8 and 146-148 on 2 meters. Not sure about the 2.4 G WiFi for now you getting into an area that is more than RF, but strict reading of 97 would not allow it. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:54:38 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Do you guys see a problem running thecontrol link on 144.390 (APRS) or one of the 145.* packet freqs ?? As a packetmode link ?? IâÂÂm sure the 2.4g WiFi control link is fine, just want an opinionabout running control capability piggy-back with the APRS and Winlink radios IâÂÂmgoing to have on board. All the packet, wifi, and repeater controllers aregoing to be hooked to a single computer⦠thought it would make a nice centralizedway to manage the trailer remotely in all its features. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 20078:38 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re:[Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliaryfrequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is nowrequired. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeatercontrol This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc)or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. 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: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Joe, Had to dig to find it again. 97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. It defines the methods that can be used to control a station remotely. Auxiliary freq are allowed for RF control link. One thing that I get confused with...malfunction in the control link. The control link could be working fine, but illegal activity could be on a repeater or it could be going wild spreading RF all over the place, etc. Are we not to shut the repeater down??? There is some additional info on station control in 97.213. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 10:58:00 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control And what rule says this? (this is my original question) Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: One must have control of a repeater or any Ham transmitter and it must be done on the proper control link, most of 2 meters and 222 MHz and above, by wire (phone line, etc) and in person. 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-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Joe, It is in 97.213. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:37:40 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliary frequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is now required. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc) or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. 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-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Has to be 144.5-144.8 and 146-148 on 2 meters. Not sure about the 2.4 G WiFi for now you getting into an area that is more than RF, but strict reading of 97 would not allow it. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:54:38 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Do you guys see a problem running thecontrol link on 144.390 (APRS) or one of the 145.* packet freqs ?? As a packetmode link ?? Iâm sure the 2.4g WiFi control link is fine, just want an opinionabout running control capability piggy-back with the APRS and Winlink radios Iâmgoing to have on board. All the packet, wifi, and repeater controllers aregoing to be hooked to a single computer⦠thought it would make a nice centralizedway to manage the trailer remotely in all its features. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 20078:38 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re:[Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliaryfrequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is nowrequired. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeatercontrol This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc)or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. 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] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Joe, I think this is what we are looking for: Under Definitions: (43) Telecommand/. A one-way transmission to initiate, modify, or terminate functions of a device at a distance. §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. An amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface may be under telecommand where: (a) There is a radio or wireline control link between the control point and the station sufficient for the control operator to perform his/her duties. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. A control link using a fiber optic cable or another telecommunication service is considered wireline. (b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in the control link. (c) The station is protected against making, willfully or negligently, unauthorized transmissions. (d) A photocopy of the station license and a label with the name, address, and telephone number of the station licensee and at least one designated control operator is posted in a conspicuous place at the station location. Also last part of paragraph (a) might cover 2.4 G WiFi. 73, ron, n9ee/r Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliaryfrequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is nowrequired. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeatercontrol This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc)or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I think I just replied to the wrong post. This is the one I intended to reply to a few minutes ago. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Joe, It is in 97.213. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:37:40 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliary frequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is now required. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc) or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. 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] 2 Meter Duplexer Recommendations?
I use 2 of these, try adding an additional pass cavity on the RX side.it improves the performance greatly. Also, check the duplexer with an return loss bridge and a tracking generator. The slightest off-tune of the unit, especially the rejects and you get noise.I assume that you are suing double shielded cables, like rg142, and NO coaxial adaptors in line. Additionally, make sure that your transmission line is NOT the LMR stuff... very bad for duplex situations. Lance - Original Message - From: Tony L. To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:10 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 2 Meter Duplexer Recommendations? My Celwave PD 497-1-1 VHF duplexer just can't seem to provide adequate tx/rx isolation (Micor 100 watt repeater with 0.6 MHz tx/rx separation). Everything else seems to check out okay; jumper cables, connectors, receiver, and hard line. I've heard the PD 497-1-1 isn't the latest in duplexer design and was wondering what other VHF repeater owners might recommend with regard to high performing, closed spaced duplexers for moderate power applications. Thanks.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
John Barrett wrote: a Time Of Day macro to me is an automated function.. how can something that is automatic not be considered automatic control OK - lets define terms here... An automated function is anything the controller does without human input beyond keying up and talking. Nope-your looking at it wrong. We're talking about 'Automatic CONTROL', not automatic functions. A time-of-day macro is causing the transmitter to activate with no input signal, hence the repeater is no longer in repeater mode, but just an ordinary amateur station. At that point it is no different then if you had a 'talking clock' keying the rig in your shack. It needs a control op. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Need preamp card for MSR 2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is going to be a sad day when the Narrow Banding takes place, as it is on a USAF MARS fx., and we fall under the new regs!! I guess I will have to convert to 2m HAM, and re tune the Waccom Duplexers!! 73's DE TIM W7TRH/AFA5TP Vashon Wa. I don't know if MARS is exempt from the same deadlines as the rest of the feds, but VHF should have narrowbanded already. And I swear I remember someone saying that it needed to be P25 compliant as well. Again, I know that's the case with most fed agencies. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Kevin Custer wrote: Oh, BTW the rules discussion is fine for now. Kevin Custer montypython mode Oh, this isn't an argument at all! /montypython mode ;c} -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
At 11/7/2007 11:28, you wrote: But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) 97.213(a). Remote control may only be performed by telecommand, , only auxiliary stations may provide an over-the air control link. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Can anyone clarify if a radio can be used to crossband from 2 meters to say 220 or 440 under these rules? _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:07 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Change that to PRIMARY control. Nothing illegal about control on 144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2 Meter Duplexer Recommendations?
Hello Tony If we are talking in the 2 meter ham band---read on. The PD 497 series duplexer is a very good duplexer until old age sets in-I have two of them here that have gone noisey---I should say that mine produce wide band noise when transmitter power is appliedlots of desense in spite of looking perfect on the tuneup instruments-and they are not easily fixedand a Tx/Rx reversal didn't help. In my case, space is tight---the 497 is shorter than most and replacement with a standard Telewave catalog unit was impossible at the low end of 2 meters . A little pleading with Telewave resulted in their making a special for me that fit nicely in place of the 497 and very nearly equaled the 497 performance which was more than enough for my application. If you are concidering a new duplexer---I suggest that you call Len Pringle (KH8A) at Telewave (1-800-331-3396) and ask about the 2 meter Ham Special their PN TPRD-14556 that he had built for me. - Original Message - From: Tony L. To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:10 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 2 Meter Duplexer Recommendations? My Celwave PD 497-1-1 VHF duplexer just can't seem to provide adequate tx/rx isolation (Micor 100 watt repeater with 0.6 MHz tx/rx separation). Everything else seems to check out okay; jumper cables, connectors, receiver, and hard line. I've heard the PD 497-1-1 isn't the latest in duplexer design and was wondering what other VHF repeater owners might recommend with regard to high performing, closed spaced duplexers for moderate power applications. Thanks.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Keith, KB7M wrote: This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. Actually I believe the new Kenwood dual-bander added CWID's, but I hear they mute the audio passing through the dual-bander when they occur, so the feature isn't quite done right, but it's a move in the right direction. Most dual-banders don't have this and the direction from repeater - dual-bander - your HT is not ID'd legally. The Kenwood will do it, supposedly -- but I don't have one to test with. So, unless you somehow provide for all of the requirements of automatic control, you MUST provide some other means of control - RF remote, wireline remote, or Direct control. Again, the run of the mill dual band mobile radio doesn't provide any means for remote control. The only option left is a control operator sitting in the car with the radio. This also isn't true even of older Kenwood's -- they would accept DTMF commands while in dual-band mode and it could be turned off, etc. So, to answer your question, unless you provide for the same control capabilities any normal repeater would have as discussed at length in this thread, you can sit in your car and control the radio, but you CANNOT put your mobile radio in crossband mode and walk away from it. Only partially true, depends on the dual-bander. For the record, I'm not defending the practice of using a dual-band rig as a repeater, nor do I like it really -- just saying that the information provided is somewhat inaccurate in light of new developments in the dual-band radio world these days... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Repeater-Builder] GTX COR Signal
Hey guys, I'm wondering if anyone has come up with a way to get a reliable COR or any kind of RX active logic signal out of the Motorola GTX Mobiles. I have two mobile radios I'd like to use for linking but need a COR signal for my controllers. Thanks, Andy KC2GOW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
My comments on this were generalized. Note the use of terms like common dual-band radio and run of the mill dual-band radio. Even the Kenwoods that supposedly support remote control don't do it in a way that is usable (I know. I own one. I tried it. And it is a kludge that would only work under perfect conditions). I also stated that IF you could provide means of ID and control, THEN it would be legal. Everything I said was qualified, knowing that there are exceptions. I stand by my statements. -- Keith McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-224-9460 On 11/8/07, Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Keith, KB7M wrote: This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. Actually I believe the new Kenwood dual-bander added CWID's, but I hear they mute the audio passing through the dual-bander when they occur, so the feature isn't quite done right, but it's a move in the right direction. Most dual-banders don't have this and the direction from repeater - dual-bander - your HT is not ID'd legally. The Kenwood will do it, supposedly -- but I don't have one to test with. So, unless you somehow provide for all of the requirements of automatic control, you MUST provide some other means of control - RF remote, wireline remote, or Direct control. Again, the run of the mill dual band mobile radio doesn't provide any means for remote control. The only option left is a control operator sitting in the car with the radio. This also isn't true even of older Kenwood's -- they would accept DTMF commands while in dual-band mode and it could be turned off, etc. So, to answer your question, unless you provide for the same control capabilities any normal repeater would have as discussed at length in this thread, you can sit in your car and control the radio, but you CANNOT put your mobile radio in crossband mode and walk away from it. Only partially true, depends on the dual-bander. For the record, I'm not defending the practice of using a dual-band rig as a repeater, nor do I like it really -- just saying that the information provided is somewhat inaccurate in light of new developments in the dual-band radio world these days... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] nate%40natetech.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
-Original Message- From: Keith, KB7M [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 8, 2007 11:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. [snip] The other big issue is ID... very few dual-band rigs provide any means for ID'ing the transmissions on either band. Yes, if it's yours and you're the ONLY user, your ID'ing also covers the cross-band repeater's ID in one direction, but there is no provision for ID'ing the transmissions in the other direction. I had a very heated argument once with a high-altitude balloon group that was flying a cross-banding HT, and finally had to forward an e-mail from Riley confirming that it would be illegal (I hadn't mentioned to him that they were already doing it... just posed a hypothetical question), both because of lack of control and lack of ID. George, KA3HSW
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Could we say this same for a repeater IDing the final ID. The repeater did not have an input for the repeater to come up. Of course the control is responding to a previous input, but the control decided when to key and send the ID. 97.111 Authorized transmissions: (b)(6) transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins. Any Ham station can do this and the method of control is not mentioned. This gets confusing sometimes, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/08 Thu AM 11:07:12 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control John Barrett wrote: a Time Of Day macro to me is an automated function.. how can something that is automatic not be considered automatic control OK - lets define terms here... An automated function is anything the controller does without human input beyond keying up and talking. Nope-your looking at it wrong. We're talking about 'Automatic CONTROL', not automatic functions. A time-of-day macro is causing the transmitter to activate with no input signal, hence the repeater is no longer in repeater mode, but just an ordinary amateur station. At that point it is no different then if you had a 'talking clock' keying the rig in your shack. It needs a control op. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
[Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Guys, with all due respect, any time this topic comes up it gets beat to death without resolution. I completely understand the routine ban on Part 97 arguments here. You might as well debate abortion or global warming. No matter how definitive the FCC might get, there will be hypothetical scenarios which make the rules appear vague. At one point 20 years ago or so, I recall an FCC rep coming out and stating that they want the rules imprecise enough not to stifle our legitimate activities in the public interest. In my experience, a careful reading of Part 97 will answer these questions far better than what-iffing them to death. Most gray areas are manufactured by people unwilling to live within rules that really are pretty clear. You have to be in control of your transmitter, period. You have to ID your transmissions, period. You have to be able to quickly disable the transmitter if it's captured by a scofflaw, held on by intermod, your next-door neighbor's worn-out doorbell transformer lands a signal on your input, or a mouse craps on the COR logic wire, both legally and as a matter of common sense and spectral citizenship. Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. I have occasionally used my Alinco as an aux station by locking out the ABX (automatic band exchange) to make it unidirectional, only able to repeat UHF transmissions on VHF. I can work difficult 2M repeaters by setting my handheld to listen to the repeater output on on VHF directly, but transmit on UHF to be repeated by the mobile on VHF. As long as I identify my own transmissions on UHF, they'll be identified on VHF as well, and the FCC no longer requires a unique /A for aux or /R for repeaters, so that's all legal. I stay near enough to my vehicle to run back and turn it off if needed, so I consider myself to be under direct control. I run the handheld at its lowest power setting, on an obscure but legal 70cm frequency, minimizing the discovery of my aux input frequency by others. If this mode of operation ever causes a problem for myself or others, I'll just stop doing it. I believe I'm (a) aware of what the FCC's intent is with Part 97 to preserve the nature of the amateur service, and (b) operating within the letter of the law. I believe that's what the FCC wants us all to do. A dual-band handheld in bi-directional repeat mode turned loose on a balloon is, IMHO, a willful, flagrant violation of Part 97. It's not even a close call. A quick read through the regs comes up with several obvious issues. But, you know what? It might be just fine in a remote area somewhere. I really don't care as long as it doesn't cause a problem for other users of the bands. Don't get me wrong. If the only way to get emergency traffic out of a remote valley after an earthquake or hurricane was to park my car on a ridge, set up for full, bidirectional, crossband repeat, and hike down into a black hole with my handheld, I'd probably decide to serve the public now, and ask the FCC's forgiveness later. But I wouldn't expect the FCC to cut me any slack if I configured my system like that for routine use, especially if it was publicized as being open to a community of users. 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: Ron Wright To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Jim, I agree. One could perform control functions on a say 10 meter repeater input in my option. A primary control method must be available and in place, but control can still be by other means. I would think someone calling a non-licensed Ham at the repeater site and allowing them to unplug the repeater to turn it off would be acceptable, but not to turn it on. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/08 Thu AM 11:07:26 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Change that to PRIMARY control. Nothing illegal about control on 144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 8, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 7, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Nate, You'd have fewer thermal cycles, but a wider range of extremes between hot and cold, since continuous duty for four hours would get the joint to a higher peak temp. Am I missing something? 73, Paul AE4KR Well, the maximum temperature is going to be relatively the same, either way -- once it's finally been on for a while. The big question is... in the temperature change breaks the connection theory -- is the thing rate-of-change dependent more than it is number-of-changes dependent. Since rate-of-change is affected by the ambient temperature in the room... it's harder to control. Rate-of-change is something we can fiddle with... or at least smooth out... it comes on, it stays keyed for a long time, and it goes off... in the longer tail setup. ^^^ Oops. Make that number-of-changes for that paragraph above. Ultimately since it can take two or more years to see the results of these tests we'll have to put different systems into different configurations and keep one system as a control for a really scientific test, and the other variables will screw this all up, anyway... but it's something to try... if we stumble into something that works... sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, eh? (In the scientific world you're allowed to bumble into surprise discoveries as long as you're documenting everything along the way, right? GRIN...) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
Nate, The telephone industry standard definition for the term duplex means able to listen and talk simultaneously; the ability to have a channel in both directions at the same time, without the need for push-to-talk. In essence, if you can interrupt the other party without waiting for him to finish, you're in full duplex. Any dual-bander which can receive on one band while it transmits on the other is capable of full duplex. At one time, this was the difference between a duplexer and a diplexer. A duplexer was intended to allow simultaneous transmit and receive, as with an in-band repeater; the diplexer allowed two transceivers on different bands to function simultaneously into a common feedline and/or antenna. Both these terms have been mangled pretty badly over the years. The Scom controllers offer a duplex mode in their autopatches, but it would only be useful on a crossband repeater. Mobiles could listen on 2M to the caller while simultaneously transmitting on UHF, and the mobile station and landline party could interrupt each other at any time, just like a normal phone call. In practice, this would drive licensees and control ops nuts, because the mobile station's audio would not appear on the repeater output, and anyone monitoring the repeater would only hear the landline party, without the mobile station's side of the call. 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
At 06:02 PM 11/8/2007, you wrote: In practice, this would drive licensees and control ops nuts, because the mobile station's audio would not appear on the repeater output, and anyone monitoring the repeater would only hear the landline party, without the mobile station's side of the call. ---Not true. At one time in ham repeater history, running full IN-BAND duplex was fairly common (how I remember my days with a modified Western Telephone Princess phone attached to my full-duplexed Motrac!). A full duplex AP was quite nice to use! To this day, I frequently run in-band full duplex. Just sort of an old habit :-) Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
Ohh there should be SOME crosstalk - listen closely to your landline phone - you can hear yourself in the earpiece - this is called side tone and is pretty hard to get rid of without echo cancelling hardware. side tone happens because of the way that the coupling transformer extracts receive audio and impresses transmit audio on the DC carrier provided by the telephone company central office. besides the fact that a person using a repeater is still bound to the 10 minute ID rule, so some of the input must be mixed to the output or the user would never be heard to ID on the output while the patch was in operation. Even an in band repeater with patch normally allows the radio user to interrupt. by giving the repeater input priority over the telco input. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Plack Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:02 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex Nate, The telephone industry standard definition for the term duplex means able to listen and talk simultaneously; the ability to have a channel in both directions at the same time, without the need for push-to-talk. In essence, if you can interrupt the other party without waiting for him to finish, you're in full duplex. Any dual-bander which can receive on one band while it transmits on the other is capable of full duplex. At one time, this was the difference between a duplexer and a diplexer. A duplexer was intended to allow simultaneous transmit and receive, as with an in-band repeater; the diplexer allowed two transceivers on different bands to function simultaneously into a common feedline and/or antenna. Both these terms have been mangled pretty badly over the years. The Scom controllers offer a duplex mode in their autopatches, but it would only be useful on a crossband repeater. Mobiles could listen on 2M to the caller while simultaneously transmitting on UHF, and the mobile station and landline party could interrupt each other at any time, just like a normal phone call. In practice, this would drive licensees and control ops nuts, because the mobile station's audio would not appear on the repeater output, and anyone monitoring the repeater would only hear the landline party, without the mobile station's side of the call. 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com com
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 2 Meter Duplexer Recommendations?
Scott, Please elaborate on the old age problem. Are we talking about the wear and erosion that results from endless pumping of the center tuning element which, however slight, moves during cycles from cold when idle to warm after long transmissions? That's about the only cause of a poor contact I am aware of. Whenever I found this problem, reversing the TX/RX tuning fixed it. When you found that reversal did not help, what was your diagnosis? 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Overstreet Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:54 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Cc: Scott Overstreet Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2 Meter Duplexer Recommendations? Hello Tony If we are talking in the 2 meter ham band---read on. The PD 497 series duplexer is a very good duplexer until old age sets in-I have two of them here that have gone noisy---I should say that mine produce wide band noise when transmitter power is appliedlots of desense in spite of looking perfect on the tuneup instruments-and they are not easily fixedand a Tx/Rx reversal didn't help. In my case, space is tight---the 497 is shorter than most and replacement with a standard Telewave catalog unit was impossible at the low end of 2 meters . A little pleading with Telewave resulted in their making a special for me that fit nicely in place of the 497 and very nearly equaled the 497 performance which was more than enough for my application. If you are concidering a new duplexer---I suggest that you call Len Pringle (KH8A) at Telewave (1-800-331-3396) and ask about the 2 meter Ham Special their PN TPRD-14556 that he had built for me. - Original Message - From: Tony L. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:10 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 2 Meter Duplexer Recommendations? My Celwave PD 497-1-1 VHF duplexer just can't seem to provide adequate tx/rx isolation (Micor 100 watt repeater with 0.6 MHz tx/rx separation). Everything else seems to check out okay; jumper cables, connectors, receiver, and hard line. I've heard the PD 497-1-1 isn't the latest in duplexer design and was wondering what other VHF repeater owners might recommend with regard to high performing, closed spaced duplexers for moderate power applications. Thanks.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
At 11/8/2007 18:13, you wrote: At 06:02 PM 11/8/2007, you wrote: In practice, this would drive licensees and control ops nuts, because the mobile station's audio would not appear on the repeater output, and anyone monitoring the repeater would only hear the landline party, without the mobile station's side of the call. ---Not true. At one time in ham repeater history, running full IN-BAND duplex was fairly common (how I remember my days with a modified Western Telephone Princess phone attached to my full-duplexed Motrac!). A full duplex AP was quite nice to use! To this day, I frequently run in-band full duplex. Just sort of an old habit :-) I assume your repeater doesn't have ADMs. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Ron, please clarify why you think that Part 97 would not allow using 2.4 gc. WiFi for a control link... Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Has to be 144.5-144.8 and 146-148 on 2 meters. Not sure about the 2.4 G WiFi for now you getting into an area that is more than RF, but strict reading of 97 would not allow it. 73, ron, n9ee/r
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
John, On a full duplex autopatch, there would be no provision for the mobile to interrupt the landline...the mobile is keyed continuously for the entire duration of the call. The ham in the mobile is legal if he IDs every 10 minutes, regardless of whether his call is heard on the repeater output. That's not his problem...it's the responsibility of the repeater licensee to make sure the repeater's callsign is heard, nothing more. As a practical matter, the user's ID would still be heard if he ID'd when bringing up the patch, and again after dropping it, and most autopatches have timers limiting calls to less than 10 minutes. 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: John Barrett To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 6:39 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex Ohh there should be SOME crosstalk - listen closely to your landline phone - you can hear yourself in the earpiece - this is called side tone and is pretty hard to get rid of without echo cancelling hardware. side tone happens because of the way that the coupling transformer extracts receive audio and impresses transmit audio on the DC carrier provided by the telephone company central office. besides the fact that a person using a repeater is still bound to the 10 minute ID rule, so some of the input must be mixed to the output or the user would never be heard to ID on the output while the patch was in operation. Even an in band repeater with patch normally allows the radio user to interrupt. by giving the repeater input priority over the telco input. -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Plack Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:02 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex Nate, The telephone industry standard definition for the term duplex means able to listen and talk simultaneously; the ability to have a channel in both directions at the same time, without the need for push-to-talk. In essence, if you can interrupt the other party without waiting for him to finish, you're in full duplex. Any dual-bander which can receive on one band while it transmits on the other is capable of full duplex. At one time, this was the difference between a duplexer and a diplexer. A duplexer was intended to allow simultaneous transmit and receive, as with an in-band repeater; the diplexer allowed two transceivers on different bands to function simultaneously into a common feedline and/or antenna. Both these terms have been mangled pretty badly over the years. The Scom controllers offer a duplex mode in their autopatches, but it would only be useful on a crossband repeater. Mobiles could listen on 2M to the caller while simultaneously transmitting on UHF, and the mobile station and landline party could interrupt each other at any time, just like a normal phone call. In practice, this would drive licensees and control ops nuts, because the mobile station's audio would not appear on the repeater output, and anyone monitoring the repeater would only hear the landline party, without the mobile station's side of the call. 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
Bob, I remember it well. I knew some guys in Buffalo NY back in the day who had converted IMTS rigs (pre-cellular mobile phones) with full-sized 2M duplexers in their trunks! In Buffalo, the first big repeater group was BARRA, led by W2EUP, Gil Boelke (sp?) and some fellow repeater enthusiasts who splintered off from the local old-fogey HF club in the late 1960s. (Gil also started a company called GLB Electronics, which manufactured early, aftermarket synthesizers for rockbound 2M radios.) BARRA had an autopatch before there was touch-tone. Users fed a 400 Hz steady tone fed through a rotary dial, and the number was pulse-dialed at the repeater site by a relay. One of my elmers had an Olds 98, and had replaced the large, round clock on the dash with a nicely machined backing plate that matched the look of the speedometer to its left. He used the blank plate to mount an actual Western Electric rotary dial. I still remember the double-takes when passers-by saw his dashboard. Thanks for bringing those memories back! 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex At 11/8/2007 18:13, you wrote: At 06:02 PM 11/8/2007, you wrote: In practice, this would drive licensees and control ops nuts, because the mobile station's audio would not appear on the repeater output, and anyone monitoring the repeater would only hear the landline party, without the mobile station's side of the call. ---Not true. At one time in ham repeater history, running full IN-BAND duplex was fairly common (how I remember my days with a modified Western Telephone Princess phone attached to my full-duplexed Motrac!). A full duplex AP was quite nice to use! To this day, I frequently run in-band full duplex. Just sort of an old habit :-) I assume your repeater doesn't have ADMs. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] VHF Engineering Tx Help Needed
Doug, The Repeater-Builder site has good info on VHF Engineering equipment. Here is the PA manual: www.repeater-builder.com/vhfe/vhfe-pa-144-220-450.pdf 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dadavies3 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:24 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] VHF Engineering Tx Help Needed I have an old VHF Engineering 144 MHz. repeater transmitter that has very low output. I would like to find someone that has experience with one of these that can help me trouble shoot it. Any help is appreciated. Doug VE7DRF
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:28 PM, MCH wrote: Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Hmmm... erg. Right. So his terminology for a dual-band mobile that can repeat is correct, it's both full-duplex from one band to the other, and can be user configured to be uni-directional or bi- directional. Okay... so what I'm looking for is a way to describe a system that both can do full-duplex while also listening for commands on the user input which is something a dual-bander can't do... but a real repeater fed with the right kinds of links, can do... Is there a word for that? Maybe not. The example I'm thinking of is a hub repeater or link connected to a user repeater which are tied together in such a way such that either receiver can pass DTMF to either controller (or port on a multiport controller) so control can still be maintained, even with something transmitting to you... hmmm. I guess that's really just putting two bi-directional full-duplex devices back to back, which creates a system that's controllable even when the link is actively transmitting a signal toward the user on the user repeater. I definitely stand corrected, now I'm just trying to think of a way to describe the difference between your typical dual-bander used as a repeater and a properly built linking system... hmm. Thinking... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
A repeater is NOT full duplex.. it is not simultaneously processing completely separate audio streams in and out.. it is processing the SAME audio in and out. There is only ONE audio path - full duplex requires TWO. Telephones accomplish this by modulating both audio signals on a common carrier (the DC power provided by the telco), modems do it by using different tone frequencies for send and receive.. essentially half duplex, but coerced into being full duplex by the behavior of the telephone line. The modems accomplish this by negotiating which modem will use which frequencies (hence all the V## protocols.. they define how the modems negotiate) A repeater is NOT bidirectional - audio streams flow in only one direction, from sender to reciever From this point of view the repeater is a filter in a half duplex link. The only reason a repeater uses 2 frequencies is because you cannot transmit on the same frequency as you receive.. Full duplex direct (non-repeater) RF links require 2 frequencies.. one transmit for user A, and one transmit for user B.. this is a true example of full duplex.. both streams are completely independent, and have no influence on the other except through processing at the end points, human, computer, or otherwise. You could accomplish an apparent full duplex repeater link in RF using 3 frequencies. 2 for input, one for output, and mix the inputs. The only problem is the 2 users have to agree which input they will use ( shades of modem negotiation here !!). a Party Line, or Conference Call would require one input per user.. In each of these cases, all users listen to the same output. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
On Nov 8, 2007, at 8:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To this day, I frequently run in-band full duplex. Just sort of an old habit :-) I assume your repeater doesn't have ADMs. Or VoIP links with lossy/compressed CODEC's. :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:35 PM, John Barrett wrote: A repeater is NOT full duplex.. it is not simultaneously processing completely separate audio streams in and out.. it is processing the SAME audio in and out. There is only ONE audio path – full duplex requires TWO. Telephones accomplish this by modulating both audio signals on a common “carrier” (the DC power provided by the telco), modems do it by using different tone frequencies for send and receive.. essentially half duplex, but coerced into being full duplex by the behavior of the telephone line. The modems accomplish this by negotiating which modem will use which frequencies (hence all the V## protocols.. they define how the modems negotiate) A repeater is NOT bidirectional – audio streams flow in only one direction, from sender to reciever From this point of view the repeater is a filter in a half duplex link. The only reason a repeater uses 2 frequencies is because you cannot transmit on the same frequency as you receive.. Full duplex direct (non-repeater) RF links require 2 frequencies.. one transmit for user A, and one transmit for user B.. this is a true example of full duplex.. both streams are completely independent, and have no influence on the other except through “processing” at the end points, human, computer, or otherwise. You could accomplish an apparent full duplex repeater link in RF using 3 frequencies… 2 for input, one for output, and mix the inputs. The only problem is the 2 users have to agree which input they will use ( shades of modem negotiation here !!)… a Party Line, or Conference Call would require one input per user.. In each of these cases, all users listen to the same output. John, you've hit on what I was struggling to describe... Coming from the datacomm world I see full-duplex as both senders of information can send separate information at the same time... without interrupting each other. But Joe's dictionary definition of full-duplex is also technically correct, just applied differently. (We need better terminology to really describe these differences concisely.) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
On Nov 8, 2007, at 7:39 PM, John Barrett wrote: besides the fact that a person using a repeater is still bound to the 10 minute ID rule, so some of the input must be mixed to the output or the user would never be heard to ID on the output while the patch was in operation. Another fun debate topic: I'm required to ID my transmitter. I'm NOT required to be heard through the repeater's output, however. Just from a legal point of view. :-) Example: If a repeater requires CTCSS access, and I unkey every 10 minutes, turn off my CTCSS encoder and ID, and then turn it back on and start talking again... no one listening to the output will think I ever ID'ed properly -- but it's 100% legal. (In fact many repeater linking systems take advantage of this particular example to suppress having multiple ID's showing up on all the linked repeater outputs.) Of course, if such a practice by a user were to trouble a repeater owner/operator, the FCC almost always sides on the side of the repeater trustee if a trustee has published additional rules for using their system and asked any Amateur not complying with those rules, not to use the system. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Full Duplex
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ken Arck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:02 PM 11/8/2007, you wrote: In practice, this would drive licensees and control ops nuts, because the mobile station's audio would not appear on the repeater output, and anyone monitoring the repeater would only hear the landline party, without the mobile station's side of the call. ---Not true. At one time in ham repeater history, running full IN-BAND duplex was fairly common (how I remember my days with a modified Western Telephone Princess phone attached to my full-duplexed Motrac!). A full duplex AP was quite nice to use! To this day, I frequently run in-band full duplex. Just sort of an old habit :-) Ken And full duplex wasn't limited to autopatches back in the day. I had several full duplex conversations with *two* other RF users that were full duplex. One person transmitted on 440, another on 2 meters and the third was on 6 meters. All three receivers were mixed onto our 440 talkback that were we all listening to. We were lids, but boy was it fun. 73's Skip WB6YMH (Funny now no one in my passenger seat ever wanted to talk on my radio ... the rubber guard on my noise canceling mic basically had to be touching your upper lip for anyone to hear you). I could turn the volume on my Micor up to the point of pain without feedback if I held the mic right.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Full Duplex
John, a couple of comments... Duplex is the ability to talk and listen, send and receive, simultaneously, nothing more. In telephones, the technical challenge was to amplify baseband audio in both directions over long circuits without creating feedback, which required keeping the two audio paths separate using hybrid transformers and other techniques in the network. In RF repeaters, the transmitter and receiver have inherently separate audio paths; the challenge here was operating them both at the same time without RF interference. Early systems used separate sites, separate antennas, and eventually cavity tuned circuits configured as duplexers. At the risk of confusing this further, a repeater, which is duplex in the RF realm, also absolutely has two independent audio paths. When it IDs, that audio is only on the output. When it times out, the user is suddenly only on the input. The controller is normally programmed to feed input audio, mixed with audio from the controller and other sources, to the output, but the hardware has the capability to transmit audio content completely different from what's on the input. In fact, if the controller runs an audio delay, the incoming and outgoing audio streams are never the same. Many repeaters have a local mic which can be used by a technician at the site. It feeds only the transmitter, independent of the receive audio path. I used the term bidirectional to refer to the crossband mobile's function of being able to repeat from either band to the other. (The equivalent on a 2M machine would be one which could use either of its frequencies as an input, and output on the other. There are some link scenarios where this could have application, but it has lots of drawbacks.) I intentionally defeat this capability to remain legal, since I have no way to put my callsign on any transmissions coming from the car back to me on UHF. 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: John Barrett To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:35 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control A repeater is NOT full duplex.. it is not simultaneously processing completely separate audio streams in and out.. it is processing the SAME audio in and out. There is only ONE audio path - full duplex requires TWO. Telephones accomplish this by modulating both audio signals on a common carrier (the DC power provided by the telco), modems do it by using different tone frequencies for send and receive.. essentially half duplex, but coerced into being full duplex by the behavior of the telephone line. The modems accomplish this by negotiating which modem will use which frequencies (hence all the V## protocols.. they define how the modems negotiate) A repeater is NOT bidirectional - audio streams flow in only one direction, from sender to reciever From this point of view the repeater is a filter in a half duplex link. The only reason a repeater uses 2 frequencies is because you cannot transmit on the same frequency as you receive.. Full duplex direct (non-repeater) RF links require 2 frequencies.. one transmit for user A, and one transmit for user B.. this is a true example of full duplex.. both streams are completely independent, and have no influence on the other except through processing at the end points, human, computer, or otherwise. You could accomplish an apparent full duplex repeater link in RF using 3 frequencies. 2 for input, one for output, and mix the inputs. The only problem is the 2 users have to agree which input they will use ( shades of modem negotiation here !!). a Party Line, or Conference Call would require one input per user.. In each of these cases, all users listen to the same output. -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Thanks for the clarification! Craig _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith, KB7M Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:00 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. So, unless you somehow provide for all of the requirements of automatic control, you MUST provide some other means of control - RF remote, wireline remote, or Direct control. Again, the run of the mill dual band mobile radio doesn't provide any means for remote control. The only option left is a control operator sitting in the car with the radio. So, to answer your question, unless you provide for the same control capabilities any normal repeater would have as discussed at length in this thread, you can sit in your car and control the radio, but you CANNOT put your mobile radio in crossband mode and walk away from it. -- Keith McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-224-9460 On 11/8/07, Craig Clark craigclarknh@ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] comcast.net wrote: Can anyone clarify if a radio can be used to crossband from 2 meters to say 220 or 440 under these rules? _ From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:07 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Change that to PRIMARY control. Nothing illegal about control on 144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
One more question on this, if say you had a crossband at home, and you were out. Your wife is home to shutoff radio with a phone call, does that cover it or must it be a licensed operator? _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith, KB7M Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:00 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. So, unless you somehow provide for all of the requirements of automatic control, you MUST provide some other means of control - RF remote, wireline remote, or Direct control. Again, the run of the mill dual band mobile radio doesn't provide any means for remote control. The only option left is a control operator sitting in the car with the radio. So, to answer your question, unless you provide for the same control capabilities any normal repeater would have as discussed at length in this thread, you can sit in your car and control the radio, but you CANNOT put your mobile radio in crossband mode and walk away from it. -- Keith McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-224-9460 On 11/8/07, Craig Clark craigclarknh@ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] comcast.net wrote: Can anyone clarify if a radio can be used to crossband from 2 meters to say 220 or 440 under these rules? _ From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:07 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Change that to PRIMARY control. Nothing illegal about control on 144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in the control link. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Otherwise, what would provide an indication to the repeater that the 3 minute time interval should start? The link going away? OR does it magically divine that it is no longer under the control of a control operator? If the link truly has to be active to be in control then, a dialup connection would not seem to fit the requirements nor would an RF link that is not transmitting at all times. The only thing that seems to fit the bill would be a pair of wires, telco or otherwise that directly connect to the repeater at ALL times!
RE: [Repeater-Builder] fx5000
Either look at the rocks and run a sweep gen across the input or guess and sweep it then To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 02:14:08 + Subject: [Repeater-Builder] fx5000 i have a philips fx5000 repeater which is on 86.1625mhz transmit. how can i find the rx freq,not sure on uk offset but have had no luck so far , it came from uk. want to make sure receive is okay before i have it reprogrammed. also looking for service manual regards gary _ Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%3Fs%5Fcid%3D595810_t=766724125_r=Hotmail_Email_Tagline_MyCareer_Oct07_m=EXT
