RE: [Repeater-Builder] DB4055 Duplexer
Nate, Thanks for the info, I have 4 or 5 clean 4076s that won't go below 444/449 and still look good separation wise. I had made a call about 6 months ago and was told the cables were all the same but the loops are slightly longer on ones spec'd in the ham band. (wonder were those notes are hmmm). I would be happy to get the details on your final measurements for cables. 73 Don Kirchner W5DK snip frequency. The slight double-hump/flat-topping at the peaks made it so we could tell it was a bit off... on a spec-an/tracking generator in the HP service monitor... so we fiddled with the center tee cable length to get it having nice sharp peaks, top and bottom. Basically, just getting that 1/2 wave length (including the loops, etc...) right between the output of both sides into the tee. Once we added some length to both sides with experimental connectors and extensions, we made up quality custom cables by eyeball of what we figured the electrical length to be after getting to them experimentally with various L-connectors and N connector extensions to the right length. used prior to them coming for a ham shack visit. But the individual cans themselves are fine down at 442/447 in the two I've now worked with. Others with more experience can pipe up with what they think of them. (Special thanks to Jeff DePolo for his comments when I was first messing with that first 4076!!! That and some local Elmering got me on the right track to use the low-pass and high-pass as advertised on the labels, no matter what the original pair was, or if it was upside-down from what I was using it for. That was a key piece of information because I had tuned it ALL wrong at first, resulting in one of the strangest looking patterns I've ever seen, trying to drag the low/high-passes the wrong way!) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fiberglass Tube Wanted
Hi Howard, I see you've had several responses in addition to mine. If you're still on the hunt, I have a couple of VHF Station Master type antennas available which I'll probably have for sale in the flea market at Dayton. The fiberglass is in great shape on them; you could replace the guts with your antenna. Make an offer.. At 08:36 AM 4/8/2008, you wrote: Hello to all. I am looking for a source for a fiberglass tube for a home brew colinear antenna of the Stationmaster type. Any suggestions appreciated. Howard W2AFD Yahoo! Groups Links Thank you, Robin Midgett K4IDC
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DB4055 Duplexer
At 4/12/2008 01:54, you wrote: By experimenting we found cable lengths for the tee that gave the right picture on the HP service monitor. They ended up being slightly longer than the original cables. The individual halves of the duplexer (two cans, each side, one high- pass, one low-pass) looked great individually, but the tee section was no longer the right length (and thus 50 ohms) at the lower frequency. Actually, the idea is to get an open at the T on the reject frequency so the pass of the other side will go through the T without any impedance bump there. Since you say the T lengths are ~1/2 wavelength, the cavity reject will already look like an open so you're just carrying that open up to the T without transformation, hence a 1/2 wavelength multiple. (Special thanks to Jeff DePolo for his comments when I was first messing with that first 4076!!! That and some local Elmering got me on the right track to use the low-pass and high-pass as advertised on the labels, no matter what the original pair was, or if it was upside-down from what I was using it for. That was a key piece of information because I had tuned it ALL wrong at first, resulting in one of the strangest looking patterns I've ever seen, trying to drag the low/high-passes the wrong way!) The fun duplexers to tune are the ones that are simply marked transmitter receiver. You have to look at the original frequency label ( hope it wasn't removed!) to figure out whether the TX side now becomes the RX side for your application. If they do end up being reversed, I cover up the original labels with the correct designation. Connecting a duplexer backwards on site can be a bad thing :( Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 700 MHz Explained in 10 Steps
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ enjoy, s. Something's wrong here... I read the origional Congressional Law, written by non communications people, where 700 Mhz was to become the overflow to 800 - 950 trunking. This spectrum space to be administered by STATES like the State Interoperability Exeucutive Committes are, and the SIEC's acting like FCC's and doing the frequency and other asssignments and in place of FCC. It was like as if Congress didn't trust FCC!!! However, I first read in MRT Magazine that the 700 Mhz assignments weren't going to go anywhere, then in this last issue, of how the FCC 700 Mhz auctions went!! HUH???!!! Gosh, that sounds like the way FAA treated the Airlines like customers or clients instead of giving the airlines orders to follow, and then administrating the results!!! Then Congress ordered FAA to catch up with safety orders, and now we have cancelled flights nationwide as the airlines catch up on maintenance obligations!! Oh my... Congress makes the Laws, but subordinate Federal Agencies then do as they please out of habit!!! Hahahaahahahaa!!! No wonder Government is so messed up!!! Dick
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom 642 (coax connector stories...)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:] Hank sent me a couple of barrel connectors made by PD that I've never seen before or since. They are UHF on one end of the barrel and Type N on the other end and Hank insisted that the connector produced no VSWR bumps up to 500-Mhz. ... and they're still around. I stock them... they're expensive now at about $4.95 each in bulk, $6.45 each in singles... but they're still around. They easily do 500-MHz and higher. I always enjoy watching the seasoned seen it all radio guy first look at the barrel when I put one on the bench. It's a what the heck? moment. Oh yes I remember Hank well, when Phelps Dodge had a warehouse in So. California. Really a great guy. Wonder what ever became of Hank with the company changes? Retired after doing a few different things. Lost track of him in the early 90's but was happy and healthy at last word. cheers, skipp skipp025 at yahoo.com www.radiowrench.com
[Repeater-Builder] Re: RG-214 Cable
Another cute low cost coax trick is the center insulation material. If you have a choice... I would tell you go out of your way to ensure the center material is not the soft foam type insulator ... which has also been another nightmare generator for me. cheers, s. Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Genuine, MIL-C-17 RG-214/U coaxial cable has double silver-plated copper shields. Several companies manufacture an RG-214 TYPE cable that is very similar, but without the silver plating. As you would expect, it's a lot cheaper than the genuine RG-214/U stuff. Such cable may also have less braid coverage than the genuine cable. Be very cautious about buying any coaxial cable that has the word TYPE on it, even if the maker claims that is military specification cable. That one word can allow the maker to market an inferior product to unsuspecting buyers. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:20 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom 642 (duplexer war stories...) In a message dated 4/11/2008 8:13:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've actually had plain copper-braided RG-214 coax on the antenna port of a UHF duplexer cause desense; had to replace it with silver-plated RG-214 Can you clarify this? I thought that any RG-214 cable has a spec for silver plated shielding.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom 642 (coax connector stories...)
The adapter you describe is the military UG-83B/U, which RF Industries makes as RFN-1036-1. Actually, the RFN-1036-1 is better than the military part, because it is silver-plated with a gold-plated center contact and Teflon dielectric. It is available from RF Parts, Tessco, Talley, and Hutton for about $6 a copy. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of skipp025 Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:44 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom 642 (coax connector stories...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:] Hank sent me a couple of barrel connectors made by PD that I've never seen before or since. They are UHF on one end of the barrel and Type N on the other end and Hank insisted that the connector produced no VSWR bumps up to 500-Mhz. ... and they're still around. snip
[Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer
The discussion of RG-214/U coaxial cable prompted me to take a look at the current military specifications, and I was surprised to note that a new version of RG-214/U cable has arrived. This new version has a one-mil thick polyester tape with an aluminum coating that wraps around the outer shield, with the aluminum side in contact with the silver-plated shield. I have just created a folder in the Files section of this list, entitled Coaxial Cable Specifications. The Military Specification for RG-214/U cable is MIL-C-17/75F. There is also a copy of Amendment 1 to that specification, which makes it inactive for new design and shows RG-214 to be replaced by M17/190-1. I included a copy of that spec, as well. One might wonder if the new and improved cable is more prone to PIM from dissimilar metals than the original. I intend to upload several other specs soon, including RG-58, RG-213, RG-142, RG-400, etc. Stay tuned... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom 642 - Nate
Well said Nate! I rarely respond to these type of things but couldn't control the urge this time. As anyone who monitors this list knows Eric provides a wealth of information and in a very professional manner. I for one read almost every reply that Eric sends as I have found his information very informative. He is one of the few who never sends a reply without useful information being included. He is not one who replies in a Smart Ass mode however what appeared to be a little intended humor (poked at the obvious) in this case might have been mistaken as such. Sad as his reply did point to a source for the answer being sought. Apparently that part was was overlooked. Larry - N7FM -Original Message- From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom 642 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:30:17 -0600 On Apr 11, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Dail Terry wrote: Eric, You may have lost track of the fact that this is a site to ask questions and people knowledgeable in the subject answer. (Note the answer Bruce gave to the question) The answer you gave makes me wonder if it isn't time for you to step back and re-evaluate your position on this board. There are some very talented people very willing to share their experience and knowledge. With an answer as you gave, it appears as though you are NOT one of them. Next time I ask a question, please don't bother to answer. Dail N6DGT Dail, (Little bit of a long response, but I type fast -- don't take it as angry -- many people make that mistake when it comes to e-mail, it's even been proven by real scientists.) The answer was a very good one, since the manufacturer that bought them is still more than happy to answer questions about dead product... something rarely seen in business these days. Many of our used products we use in Amateur Radio are MORE than adequately supported by manufacturers who won't make a DIME on giving out information on old acquired company products... especially when the question comes from a ham who'll never buy anything from them brand new, ever. The reality is -- when a company goes out of their way to support old products from previous company names -- we here all appreciate that VERY much. Eric's answer was 100% accurate and correct -- you have a product that *is* still supported by a manufacturer who is VERY helpful to even us piddly little ham radio customers. Contacting them will both get you the most correct and accurate answer to your question, as well as getting the answer in the most timely fashion possible. All Eric was saying was something like... You: I need some information on my Ford. Eric: Ford was bought by Chevy. Have you talked to them? They are supporting Fords still! You misunderstood and took his have you called them? wrong. The joys of e-mail. There's no accounting for taste, but given an 800 number direct to the people that made and still support a product line, and an Internet mailing list -- I know which one I'd want my answers from! I try to look at it this way on online forums -- did Eric answer HARM you in any way? No. Was the snippy response more HARMFUL than his comment? Yeah... maybe. When it becomes personal it almost always is just someone venting... and you attacked his experience level and indirectly claimed he had no knowledge. That's often counter- productive to having an online community. Hopefully my response here isn't HARMFUL to you. Just trying to explain why you got the answer that you did. Thanks to Eric for his continued support of the group and useful contributions. I too, appreciate his contribution to this online community. Check back in the list archives if you question his abilities or his sincerity in offering you what he saw as the BEST solution to your question. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 700 MHz Explained in 10 Steps
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, skipp025 wrote: http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ I still prefer Albert Einstien's explaination of wireless. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly
Re: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer
Eric, Thanks for doing that research I see a cable spec MIL-C-17/75G in my latest suppliers catalogue. Is this the new cable to which you refer? Also have you seen any information on connectors for this new cable. Specifically, do you remove the foil before crimping the braid ? Ian G8PWE - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:49 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer The discussion of RG-214/U coaxial cable prompted me to take a look at the current military specifications, and I was surprised to note that a new version of RG-214/U cable has arrived. This new version has a one-mil thick polyester tape with an aluminum coating that wraps around the outer shield, with the aluminum side in contact with the silver-plated shield. I have just created a folder in the Files section of this list, entitled Coaxial Cable Specifications. The Military Specification for RG-214/U cable is MIL-C-17/75F. There is also a copy of Amendment 1 to that specification, which makes it inactive for new design and shows RG-214 to be replaced by M17/190-1. I included a copy of that spec, as well. One might wonder if the new and improved cable is more prone to PIM from dissimilar metals than the original. I intend to upload several other specs soon, including RG-58, RG-213, RG-142, RG-400, etc. Stay tuned... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
RE: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer
Ian, That information is a surprise, because the current listing shows MIL-C-17/75F, here: www.dscc.dla.mil/Programs/MilSpec/listdocs.asp?BasicDoc=MIL-DTL-17 No, the MIL-C-17/75F (or 75G, if it indeed exists) are RG-214/U designs. The new cable with the foil-backed polyester layer is identified as M17/190-1. The old RG designations are becoming obsolete, which complicates identification. Since the cable OD has not changed, the same connectors will continue to be used. Although I have no official instruction to follow, my personal feeling is to crimp the foil layer with the shields to ensure intimate contact at each end. I'd sure like to know whose idea it was to add an aluminum layer to a fine cable like RG-214/U! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IM Ashford Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:19 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer Eric, Thanks for doing that research I see a cable spec MIL-C-17/75G in my latest suppliers catalogue. Is this the new cable to which you refer? Also have you seen any information on connectors for this new cable. Specifically, do you remove the foil before crimping the braid ? Ian G8PWE - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:49 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer The discussion of RG-214/U coaxial cable prompted me to take a look at the current military specifications, and I was surprised to note that a new version of RG-214/U cable has arrived. This new version has a one-mil thick polyester tape with an aluminum coating that wraps around the outer shield, with the aluminum side in contact with the silver-plated shield. I have just created a folder in the Files section of this list, entitled Coaxial Cable Specifications. The Military Specification for RG-214/U cable is MIL-C-17/75F. There is also a copy of Amendment 1 to that specification, which makes it inactive for new design and shows RG-214 to be replaced by M17/190-1. I included a copy of that spec, as well. One might wonder if the new and improved cable is more prone to PIM from dissimilar metals than the original. I intend to upload several other specs soon, including RG-58, RG-213, RG-142, RG-400, etc. Stay tuned... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
RE: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer
I wonder if the folks at Times Wire had something to do with it? Aren't they the ones that make LMR* cable that's so good for outdoor repeater runs? I bet their stuff couldn't hack it under the old spec the way true RG214 could. Bob M. == --- Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian, That information is a surprise, because the current listing shows MIL-C-17/75F, here: www.dscc.dla.mil/Programs/MilSpec/listdocs.asp?BasicDoc=MIL-DTL-17 No, the MIL-C-17/75F (or 75G, if it indeed exists) are RG-214/U designs. The new cable with the foil-backed polyester layer is identified as M17/190-1. The old RG designations are becoming obsolete, which complicates identification. Since the cable OD has not changed, the same connectors will continue to be used. Although I have no official instruction to follow, my personal feeling is to crimp the foil layer with the shields to ensure intimate contact at each end. I'd sure like to know whose idea it was to add an aluminum layer to a fine cable like RG-214/U! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IM Ashford Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:19 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer Eric, Thanks for doing that research I see a cable spec MIL-C-17/75G in my latest suppliers catalogue. Is this the new cable to which you refer? Also have you seen any information on connectors for this new cable. Specifically, do you remove the foil before crimping the braid ? Ian G8PWE - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:49 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer The discussion of RG-214/U coaxial cable prompted me to take a look at the current military specifications, and I was surprised to note that a new version of RG-214/U cable has arrived. This new version has a one-mil thick polyester tape with an aluminum coating that wraps around the outer shield, with the aluminum side in contact with the silver-plated shield. I have just created a folder in the Files section of this list, entitled Coaxial Cable Specifications. The Military Specification for RG-214/U cable is MIL-C-17/75F. There is also a copy of Amendment 1 to that specification, which makes it inactive for new design and shows RG-214 to be replaced by M17/190-1. I included a copy of that spec, as well. One might wonder if the new and improved cable is more prone to PIM from dissimilar metals than the original. I intend to upload several other specs soon, including RG-58, RG-213, RG-142, RG-400, etc. Stay tuned... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[Repeater-Builder] WP 642
Here is an interesting item for the WP 642 duplexers. The existing coax between the cans I was asking about is marked WACOM PRODUCTS RG 213U DOUBLE SHIELD. 213 not a typo. Dail N6DGT
[Repeater-Builder] Zetron model 30 interconnect
HELP! Does anyone have access to the manual for this beast? Our club has acquired one without a manual. 73 .. Bill VE5FN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer
Eric, Again thanks for your splendid research. Looking through the old and new RG214 spec it looks like the Aluminium foil was inserted to improve vertical flame performance. The foil is in the RF cold area behind the 2 shields, however Im sure there are instances where this foil will corrode and introduce increasing intermodulation with age. This is a shame..looks like RG400 is the only way to go with new installs. Regards Ian G8PWE - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer Ian, That information is a surprise, because the current listing shows MIL-C-17/75F, here: www.dscc.dla.mil/Programs/MilSpec/listdocs.asp?BasicDoc=MIL-DTL-17 No, the MIL-C-17/75F (or 75G, if it indeed exists) are RG-214/U designs. The new cable with the foil-backed polyester layer is identified as M17/190-1. The old RG designations are becoming obsolete, which complicates identification. Since the cable OD has not changed, the same connectors will continue to be used. Although I have no official instruction to follow, my personal feeling is to crimp the foil layer with the shields to ensure intimate contact at each end. I'd sure like to know whose idea it was to add an aluminum layer to a fine cable like RG-214/U! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IM Ashford Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:19 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer Eric, Thanks for doing that research I see a cable spec MIL-C-17/75G in my latest suppliers catalogue. Is this the new cable to which you refer? Also have you seen any information on connectors for this new cable. Specifically, do you remove the foil before crimping the braid ? Ian G8PWE - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:49 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer The discussion of RG-214/U coaxial cable prompted me to take a look at the current military specifications, and I was surprised to note that a new version of RG-214/U cable has arrived. This new version has a one-mil thick polyester tape with an aluminum coating that wraps around the outer shield, with the aluminum side in contact with the silver-plated shield. I have just created a folder in the Files section of this list, entitled Coaxial Cable Specifications. The Military Specification for RG-214/U cable is MIL-C-17/75F. There is also a copy of Amendment 1 to that specification, which makes it inactive for new design and shows RG-214 to be replaced by M17/190-1. I included a copy of that spec, as well. One might wonder if the new and improved cable is more prone to PIM from dissimilar metals than the original. I intend to upload several other specs soon, including RG-58, RG-213, RG-142, RG-400, etc. Stay tuned... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
Re: [Repeater-Builder] WP 642
I guess they used different suppliers at different times. The cables I got with the 641s 642s I got from Wacom all say: WACOM PRODUCTS MODIFIED RG-214 DOUBLE SHIELDED. As I mentioned previously, Lloyd Alcorn felt that silver plated shields involved a cost increment without any discernible improvement in isolation or intermod products. I agree with him but there are certainly anecdotal reports on this forum to the contrary. In a message dated 4/12/2008 12:21:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an interesting item for the WP 642 duplexers. The existing coax between the cans I was asking about is marked WACOM PRODUCTS RG 213U DOUBLE SHIELD. 213 not a typo. Dail N6DGT **It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp0030002850)
[Repeater-Builder] IFR-1200S for SALE
I am going to sell my bench service monitor. It is in excellent shape and has the factory bag with it. I am going to place it on Ebay if anyone here on the list is not interested. Please contact me off the list regarding the monitor. Thanks, Mike Mullarkey (K7PFJ)
[Repeater-Builder] PLL and PIC programming (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Greetings, I'm sure by now I've made enough noise that most of you know I'm working on a the analog cell phone to Amateur 33cm. Well now it has reached the point where one can choose the way he does things, and I'm going to tackle both. The first one, performing most RF tasks by old and busted manual control with pots and all that, and the new fangled way of using microcontrollers and the mess that goes along with it. I personally like the idea of using the microcontroller because there is so much more functionality that can be done, and reduces the amount of time breathing in solder smoke and actually using the creation once the damn thing has blown up in my face enough and the bugs worked out. I hate the fact that I'm announcing this, but I'm looking for some assistance with PIC, STAMP, whatever programming and learning how to read what some one else already put on an IC. At a club meeting a few years ago, the pres at the time did a presentation about PIC microcontrollers and gave a demo. He showed us that it either was 64 lines or pages of code to turn a little LED on and off with a momentary push button and I thought was a waste of time to put that much effort into perform such a simple task Open mount, insert foot. (how many lines of code do you think the ASIMO programmers have to write to make it the damn thing turn it's head one degree?) My idea is to create a microcontroller to control parts of the cell phone to change the freq, memory functions, shift functions, volume, squelch, and whatever else is the limit of a given system setup. I also want to incorporate a LCD either from the phone if compatible, or use the slew I have or that can be found out there. Once all this is done, I'm going to be able to have something the size of a mobile radio and pretty much function as one. Now to begin at step one. I've asked the master of Radio Alchemy from GBPPR and he's telling me what he knows and he's says it's little. So, we both on a learning curve and I'm looking for more for info about microcontroller programming and use. Once I get my grasp, I will happily return the favor. ~Benjamin, KB9LFZ Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
Re: [Repeater-Builder] New RG-214 Cable has an aluminum tape layer
At 4/12/2008 14:03, you wrote: Eric, Again thanks for your splendid research. Looking through the old and new RG214 spec it looks like the Aluminium foil was inserted to improve vertical flame performance. The foil is in the RF cold area behind the 2 shields, however Im sure there are instances where this foil will corrode and introduce increasing intermodulation with age. When you think about it, in theory there should be no RF current flow on the braid shield portion of LMR-400 either. In practice, you get it at the antenna. For this reason I suspect the new RG-214 coax will have the same problems w.r.t. duplex service as LMR-400 Belden 9913. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Zetron model 30 interconnect
I do. Contact direct K.Paul Boggs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mountain Emergency Communications - Original Message - From: ve5fn To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: 4/12/2008 1:50:23 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Zetron model 30 interconnect HELP! Does anyone have access to the manual for this beast? Our club has acquired one without a manual. 73 .. Bill VE5FN
[Repeater-Builder] DB-224 problem
After a day of work putting together and putting up a DB224E in the 138-150 range I found the thing to be resonate at 150 MHZ center. After a few colorful metaphors, I find I turned one of the elements upside down with the feed at the bottom. Would this be enough to throw the antenna off balance or should I look for problems somewhere else also? I get a 2.0 SWR at 146.000. I don’t mind a second trip up the tower to turn the element around (it’s the lower element), but that third trip would do me in! Randy B. W4CPT No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12 - Release Date: 4/10/2008 12:00 AM
RE: [Repeater-Builder] DB-224 problem
Randy, I have been down that road myself, so I feel your pain! Unless you are willing to let this one incident haunt you for the rest of your life, you should fix the problem now. And yes, one element fed out-of-phase will screw up the pattern. Look at the bright side: Fresh air, good exercise, proper antenna pattern. You can't ask for more! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. K. Brumback Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] DB-224 problem After a day of work putting together and putting up a DB224E in the 138-150 range I found the thing to be resonant at 150 MHZ center. After a few colorful metaphors, I find I turned one of the elements upside down with the feed at the bottom. Would this be enough to throw the antenna off balance or should I look for problems somewhere else also? I get a 2.0 SWR at 146.000. I don't mind a second trip up the tower to turn the element around (it's the lower element), but that third trip would do me in! Randy B. W4CPT
[Repeater-Builder] PLL and PIC programming
Greetings, Im sure by now Ive made enough noise that most of you know Im working on a the analog cell phone to Amateur 33cm. Well now it has reached the point where one can choose the way he does things, and Im going to tackle both. The first one, performing most RF tasks by old and busted manual control with pots and all that, and the new fangled way of using microcontrollers and the mess that goes along with it. I personally like the idea of using the microcontroller because there is so much more functionality that can be done, and reduces the amount of time breathing in solder smoke and actually using the creation once the damn thing has blown up in my face enough and the bugs worked out. I hate the fact that Im announcing this, but Im looking for some assistance with PIC, STAMP, whatever programming and learning how to read what some one else already put on an IC. At a club meeting a few years ago, the pres at the time did a presentation about PIC microcontrollers and gave a demo. He showed us that it either was 64 lines or pages of code to turn a little LED on and off with a momentary push button and I thought was a waste of time to put that much effort into perform such a simple task . Open mount, insert foot. (how many lines of code do you think the ASIMO programmers have to write to make it the damn thing turn its head one degree?) My idea is to create a microcontroller to control parts of the cell phone to change the freq, memory functions, shift functions, volume, squelch, and whatever else is the limit of a given system setup. I also want to incorporate a LCD either from the phone if compatible, or use the slew I have or that can be found out there. Once all this is done, Im going to be able to have something the size of a mobile radio and pretty much function as one. Now to begin at step one. Ive asked the master of Radio Alchemy from GBPPR and hes telling me what he knows and hes says its little. So, we both on a learning curve and Im looking for more for info about microcontroller programming and use. Once I get my grasp, I will happily return the favor. ~Benjamin, KB9LFZ KEEP AMATEUR RADIO ALIVE! Use it Daily! Get away from the damn TV and do something useful! Get on the AIR, build something! Let us USE what we HAVE!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DB-224 problem
To me, I wouldn't have expected it to have thrown things that far out of whack - except for what it's doing to the pattern. But these things can fool you. Is it top mounted or side mounted? Configuration - omni or other? Any guy wires near it? In any event, report back with results after you correct the upside-down element.. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: R. K. Brumback To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:05 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] DB-224 problem After a day of work putting together and putting up a DB224E in the 138-150 range I found the thing to be resonate at 150 MHZ center. After a few colorful metaphors, I find I turned one of the elements upside down with the feed at the bottom. Would this be enough to throw the antenna off balance or should I look for problems somewhere else also? I get a 2.0 SWR at 146.000. I don’t mind a second trip up the tower to turn the element around (it’s the lower element), but that third trip would do me in! Randy B. W4CPT
[Repeater-Builder] GE Key Needed
I am looking for a GE Mastr ll Repeater cabinet key. Have one extra you can get rid of? Contact me off list. Thank you. Rod kc7vqr
[Repeater-Builder] GE Suitcase Repeater
Has anyone ever seen one of these. I aquired one, it has what looks like a rangr UHF radio with a sinclair duplexer on the same case a powere supply (120v and 12v) a 990 control head and one missing component. I dont know what is missing and havent had any luck finding info on it. It was a RCMP piece and was sold as surplus but someone took something out before getting rid of it.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DB-224 problem
I thought all the elements were fed in phase... Joe M. Eric Lemmon wrote: And yes, one element fed out-of-phase will screw up the pattern.
[Repeater-Builder] manual search motorola r2210b
gentlemen: I am looking for a copy of the operation and / or servie manual for the 2210b service monitor. finally got it back from repair and not having the book is kinda frustrating. it has alo tof stuph i can't work out by simply playing with the thing. if someone has a manual I will pay to copy it or copy it myowndamnself and ship the thing back. I have some trade material in the way of manuals also. stuff i couldn't toss when we closed the warehouse last nov 06. so, please... a helping hand here huh?? thanks mdm ted btw i have searched the web with no success. Ted Bleiman K9MDM MDM Radio If its in stock...we've got it! P O Box 31353 Chicago, IL 60631-0353 773.631.5130 fax 773.775.8096 web http://www.mdmradio.com - email - [EMAIL PROTECTED] DIRECT ALL EMAIL __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
