Re: [Repeater-Builder] Update, Sinclair Q-202G (Frankenstein series)
Hi Eric The harness is as close to exactly the right lenght as I could possibly make the lenghts. I replaced the RG-142/U jumpers (which were probably the right lengths as well) with RG-214/u . I was told to make them so that there was 14 between centers of the T's. I then started with an Anritsu sitemaster on the high pass cans and set the pass adjustment useing the return loss sweep. I then used my Areoflex to set the notches. Everything went smooth as silk. I then swithed over to the low pass side. The pass tuned, no problem. When I went to tune the notches, I found that one of the caps was almost as far up as it would go and the the other one would not quite get the notch to where I wanted it. I then started playing with turning the coupling loops. Of course, that didn't do any good. I then decided to pull the loops for a look. When I did, I discovered that there was a 12pf silver mica soldered in paralell with the Johanson tuning cap on both the loops. Also, one of the loops was made of sliver plated copper and looked factory and the other was copper and did not look factory. The way the copper one was shaped and bent made it appear homemade. I took the 12pf caps off of the tuning caps and tried to set the notches again, this time I had to go all the way down, and the notch was still not quite right. I then took the loops back out and soldered a 5pf cap accross the tuning caps. This worked great on the factory loop, but the other one wouldn't tune at all. What happed? I took the loop back out and I decided to reshape and bend the loop to look like the silver plated factory looking loop. That didn't help. Still no tune... H... What gives here? I took the loop back out again and quickly discoverd that I had somehow overheated the tuning cap and destroyed it. To make the long story short, I ended up taking a tuning cap from an EC vhf ICOM I had lying around and putting a 12pf cap accross it to get the adjustment range I wanted. It appears to be working well for now, but I have not pulled either of the high pass loops to see what is different about them. I have a set of Q-202GR duplexers with the sliding rods that I just replaced all the RG-213/u with RG-214/u with corrected lenghts for 2m that I am going to swap out temporaraly so I can try to get the right cap installed in that on can and to find out what is different about thos high pass cans. The repeater is 23.5 miles from my house and just don't get to go out there as often as I would like. By the way Eric, I have a set of sinclair duplexers that I cannot identify. Can I send you a photo or two to your e-mail? Thanks es 73. De N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon Aug 10 20:55:26 2009 Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Update, Sinclair Q-202G (Frankenstein series) Norm, I'm glad that you're getting that duplexer working. But, I am curious about those parallel capacitors. None of the factory-tuned Sinclair Q-202G duplexers I've seen had any capacitor in parallel with the Johanson tuning capacitors- even those made for the 2m band. The loop assemblies for the high-pass and low-pass cans are identical. Perhaps the previous owner added capacitors because the tuning caps were damaged. Or maybe the loop assemblies for a combiner were used in place of the correct BpBr loops. Are the interconnecting cables the correct length? 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of NORM KNAPP Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 6:35 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Update, Sinclair Q-202G (Frankenstein series) I talked to the guy that obtained the duplxers for our club and he confirmed my belief. Those 4 cans began life as 4 separate BpBr filters used on some offshore communications, possibly mobile telephone or phone patch. He was not certain. Anyway the high pass side worked great out of the box so to speak, but the lo pass was a booger. I had to change the parralell cap values on the tuning caps for the notches. I still don't have quite as good a notch as I have on the high pass pair, but it works well anyway. 73 de N5NPO Norm
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Notch Cavities + 600KHz Repeater = Work?
At 8/10/2009 20:59, you wrote: I guess I'm still looking for an answer to the original question. Do the notch cavities work @600khz spacing? The specs I gave for the DB-4050 were at 300 kHz spacing. At 600 kHz, the loss goes down to 1.5 dB. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
I posted a note on this a while back, but will recap here. I mounted four dipoles from a DB-224 on one leg of two sections of Rhon 25 and mounted the tower on an antenna range turntable. The pattern was a perfect circle, using DB Power readings around the 360 degrees. I thought I remembered the offset being 3 dB, but I must have been mistaken since it was pointed out that could not be the gain off the back of the antenna mounted this way. All four dipoles were stacked vertically on one leg of the tower and oriented directly away from the tower. The gain was measured as 9 dBd in the favored direction, coming down to 6 dBd at 90/270 degrees, and I thought I remembered the gain as 3 dBd off the back side of the tower, but it must have been a lower number. In any case, looking at the plot it appeared to be a perfect circle with an offset center. The center offset must not have been 3 dB. I was surprised that the tower did not cause a null off the backside, just caused a reduction in gain in that direction. This plot was submitted to the FCC to get repeater license WR5ADU and WR5ADV back in the '70s when antenna patterns for a repeater had to be submitted. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Sun, 8/9/09, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: From: MCH m...@nb.net Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 6:33 PM Lots of comments on the unidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 8/9/2009 05:47, you wrote: As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. I once modeled this arrangement in NEC-Win: the resulting pattern looked like a warped pancake. On-horizon gain was all over the place. Bob NO6B - - -- Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
Jim Brown wrote: This plot was submitted to the FCC to get repeater license WR5ADU and WR5ADV back in the '70s when antenna patterns for a repeater had to be submitted. Wow Jim, your an old geezer! Me too. I remember plotting the antenna pattern for a ground plane back in the early 70's for a repeater application. Silly, but it had to be done to meet the requirements. We got the call WR1ABR. 73, Joe, K1ike
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 2M Vertical Dipoles
Hi Joe, Guess we are all telling our age. I had WR1AIK in 1975/76. Remember it took a note to my congressman to get the license assigned - seemed to take forever! I was in the AF in Northern Maine at the time. cu Tim W5FN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Joe k1ike_m...@... wrote: Jim Brown wrote: This plot was submitted to the FCC to get repeater license WR5ADU and WR5ADV back in the '70s when antenna patterns for a repeater had to be submitted. Wow Jim, your an old geezer! Me too. I remember plotting the antenna pattern for a ground plane back in the early 70's for a repeater application. Silly, but it had to be done to meet the requirements. We got the call WR1ABR. 73, Joe, K1ike
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Hi Paul, One has to deal with reality... while you might consider a soft talking person not properly trained, more than a fair number of users don't have a booming voice. In a larger number of cases a little bit of added audio compression/limiting helps resolve the low (higher/soft pitch) perceived volume level difference. The brain is pretty good about picking a voice from background audio so just being able to hear the receive audio better is going to help. I've got racks and racks of many brands of audio processing gear available for testing... but you don't need that when a little more/higher audio drive level to the repeater transmitter section will hit the limiter/compressor harder. Doesn't take much and things can quickly get out of hand (excessive compression/limiting) if you get greedy. So don't get greedy... I like about 6dB of audio compression... some of my broadcast audio friends who are also Hams can hear and tell me when the audio crunches approaching 10dB (which amazes me their ears are that good) so it's my opinion 10dB audio compression is too much in most situations. The ease of monitoring a local repeater during club activities is very much improved with a small amount of main transmitter limiting/compression. The disparity in perceived loudness is greatly reduced when you don't have to reach for the volume control (knob) so often. cheers, s. Paul Plack pl...@... wrote: Skipp, I generally agree, but it's not the fault of the user's voice. It's a lack of training in mic technique, sometimes combined with audio circuits that aren't easily user-accessible. Compression on the repeater eliminate's the user's need to get things right at the source, and one day, he's going to need to operate simplex. I've worked with broadcast compressors for many years, and agree they could play a useful role in repeater audio chains. But I always wanted to design one that was a little different, and digital control of an analog signal path seems like a good candidate. Specifically, I'd like to have something like a compressor with very fast attack and infinitely long release, immediately dropping gain as needed to accommodate voice peaks, but not releasing until COS dropped. This would essentially set the audio gain individually for each user at the start of a transmission, without any ongoing compression to create the obnoxious pumping artifact we all know and hate. The downsides would be additional background noise before the first syllable, and difficulty in distinguishing users with low audio from users with inadequate signal strength. Both would feature increased background noise as a symptom. Then again, IRLP users hand out S-meter reports from a thousand miles away, so maybe it doesn't matter...(sigh) Just running the audio gain 6-10 dB hotter into a fast limiter still allows great disparity in perceived loudness, but at least the guys with low audio can be heard. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: skipp025 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:07 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression ...a number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio...Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system... .
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Hi Nate, re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Nate Duehr n...@... wrote: You're a brave man to say it, Skipp. Here's my problem with it. Let's just say there's a very large linked repeater system that decided MANY years ago that they could fix the incoming audio from their IRLP link from BADLY CONFIGURED IRLP NODES by adding a commercial compressor-limiter in-line. Depends on what's coming out of the IRLP source... it's not the job of a limiter/compressor to improve already over crunched bad audio. My advocate for a little audio compression statement is meant to deal with helping soft talking, non booming (higher pitch) voice types. The specific case I referenced was a simple repeater with one half-duplex link radio. If non professional hams with bad ears and opinions are going to hose up their audio with excessive compression/limiting... there's probably not a lot you can say or do about it if they're not willing to listen, learn and apply the knowledge. I won't say who or where, since I like the folks running it and have ZERO beefs with them. I just need to use them as an example of where compression/limiting is BAD NEWS. However, let's also just say that I've called them from MULTIPLE IRLP nodes I've set up PERFECTLY with a service monitor and swept for audio response, and they ALWAYS complain about whatever it is they're hearing on their end -- after their compressor-limiter. Hey guess what folks. The audio left here JUST FINE... someone on that end decided to muck around with it. Not much I can do about that. If you were close to them... you could offer to have a look at the levels and crank the controls back down to a more realistic value. But when things progress to this level... you very often have to deal with some type of control freak who's going to crank the knob back up after you and Elvis have left the building. What does this phenomenon actually lead to? I don't know. In many cases... people turning the radios volume knob off or the frequency selector to another location. Possibly switching from Pepsi to Coke or another bad thing? Maybe an idea below... I know my nodes are done right, and I know they have a LOT of other nodes connected to them that sound like ass so they tried to fix it. (sound like a$$... a Southpark reference...) But, instead of asking those folks to fix their nodes, they tried a fix on their end, and broke things for those of us sending proper levels and audio. It's more likely a Repeater Owner Operator error... If they'd put in a way to TURN IT OFF, they'd hear what a properly set up IRLP node is supposed to sound like. Only takes a decent tape or mp3 audio file recorder playback to provide the proof. But it can take time to retell the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes Do I care? Not really. But the experience of that problem over the years, has just entrenched me further in the what comes in is what goes out camp. One or a few bad examples spoils your entire apple cart... Do I realize that the vast majority of folks setting up IRLP nodes don't bother setting levels CORRECTLY to a network standard? Oh heck, yes. I rant about that at least once a year on the IRLP list... to mostly deaf ears. A lot of Amateurs lack the resources of a decent Communications Service Monitor, some experience or a knowledgeable friend offering to help. The human ear is not a linear device so most cases of setting levels by perceived audio value are not good. So I say, sure... compress away on a local repeater only. But please keep the compressed audio the hell away from outbound links to others... and away from the incoming link audio too. And always provide a way for the USERS to turn it off, just to see if it's having a bad effect. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Yes and no... each case is different and how each system operates is different. How many places your audio is going with how many times it's man-handled by people with/or hardware and equipment. I think that's a fair opinion to all. Compress the snot out of local traffic if you want... but please send the rest of us something that sounds like what your users put in out any links, especially IP-based ones. Again, how I would and do set up IP-Based Systems vary in each case and compressing the snot out of any audio is not good news. When you have or use a Non-Dynamic AGC-Based Hard Limiter it seems much easier to stay out of the over compressed crappy audio zone. Otherwise you run the risk of really bugging those of us who DID set levels and test audio, by creating a new problem the users on the far end think is OUR problem. What do you think Skipp? Is that a fair point to make? Links to other people's systems shouldn't include compression. I think you're focused on the wrong issue... I run Multi-Hub
[Repeater-Builder] TLD-1694E Micor PA
Hi our club received a few month ago a defective TLD-1694E PA By looking at the web site repeater builder I was able to find out that to make this PA work on 2 meter we would need to replace a lot of stuff, but before doing so we need to fix it.. so we need the part diagram and part list , since we wont be playing with anything else then the PA our club cant afford to buy the whole service manual for the micor repeater line.. anyone can help?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Maxon sm4450sc
At 02:16 PM 08/10/09, you wrote: Hi guys .thanks for the replys .The fault was I had too much length between the radio and the ctcss decoder card .I have altered most of my repeaters to allow the maxons to decode the signal by itself and then it controls the transmitter by the maxon approved design with a bs170 fet .I have now developed a interface circuit that has no relays for switching audio .and the new design uses a 4066 audio IC to switch audio paths .It has reduced transmitting delays very well .Now the repeaters seem to work almost as soon as a signal comes in .One repeater decodes even if the signal is just below the mute .I need to find out how that one works.All in all very happy I have found the problem .Now I have repeaters with no ctcss breakup. Thank You, Ian Wells, Kerinvale Comaudio, 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715 Phone 0749922574 or 0409159932 http://www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au/www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au If you have not cast your design into concrete yet you might want to make one parts change. Use the 4053 (3 SPDT switches in one package) instead of the 4066 (4 SPST switches). Use the SPDT switches to feed either audio or audio ground to the next circuit downstream. With SPST you can only open and close the audio path leaving the downstream input floating when the switch is open. This can lead to hum, or at a site with high RF levels, other grunge. Rarely do common interface circuits need 4 switches, and the cost of the chip is pretty much the same. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Maxon sm4450sc
Thanks mike good suggestion Thank You, Ian Wells, Kerinvale Comaudio, 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715 Phone 0749922574 or 0409159932 www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au ---Original Message--- From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ Date: 12/08/2009 07:53:27 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Maxon sm4450sc At 02:16 PM 08/10/09, you wrote: Hi guys .thanks for the replys .The fault was I had too much length between the radio and the ctcss decoder card .I have altered most of my repeaters to allow the maxons to decode the signal by itself and then it controls the transmitter by the maxon approved design with a bs170 fet .I have now developed a interface circuit that has no relays for switching audio .and the new design uses a 4066 audio IC to switch audio paths .It has reduced transmitting delays very well .Now the repeaters seem to work almost as soon as a signal comes in .One repeater decodes even if the signal is just below the mute .I need to find out how that one works.All in all very happy I have found the problem .Now I have repeaters with no ctcss breakup. Thank You, Ian Wells, Kerinvale Comaudio, 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715 Phone 0749922574 or 0409159932 www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au If you have not cast your design into concrete yet you might want to make one parts change. Use the 4053 (3 SPDT switches in one package) instead of the 4066 (4 SPST switches). Use the SPDT switches to feed either audio or audio ground to the next circuit downstream. With SPST you can only open and close the audio path leaving the downstream input floating when the switch is open. This can lead to hum, or at a site with high RF levels, other grunge. Rarely do common interface circuits need 4 switches, and the cost of the chip is pretty much the same. Mike WA6ILQ
[Repeater-Builder] unsubscribe
Re: [Repeater-Builder] unsubscribe
Why not try to follow the instructions at the bottom of the page? - Original Message - From: b To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] unsubscribe -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.50/2296 - Release Date: 08/11/09 06:10:00
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Notch Cavities + 600KHz Repeater = Work?
- Hi DCflux, Tried the bandpass + notches didn't change much. On changing to the BpBr, any idea how much capacitance is needed? I have a fistfull of those Johanson caps. Also, a buddy of mine has a Sinclair Q202G that I'm thinking about also. Will pick it up tomorrow see if it is any better. Thanks, Tim W5FN If that doesn't work you might try converting them to BpBr. This would be done by adding a very high quality piston trimmer such as a johansen cap to the coupling loop, in series with the grounded end. Or a BNC jack going to a piece of coax that can be trimmed to form a gimmic capacitor. I like to salvage the capacitor from surplus Mastr 2 ICOMs that are EC. But those have to be soldered in and I'm not sure what material DB cans use on the rotatable whosis. The inner cavity jumpers should be 1/4 wavelength electrically, so you have to calculate velocity factor of your cables.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Notch Cavities + 600KHz Repeater = Work?
I'm thinking the 2-10 or 2-14pF ones. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:01 PM, tahrens301tahr...@swtexas.net wrote: - Hi DCflux, Tried the bandpass + notches didn't change much. On changing to the BpBr, any idea how much capacitance is needed? I have a fistfull of those Johanson caps. Also, a buddy of mine has a Sinclair Q202G that I'm thinking about also. Will pick it up tomorrow see if it is any better. Thanks, Tim W5FN If that doesn't work you might try converting them to BpBr. This would be done by adding a very high quality piston trimmer such as a johansen cap to the coupling loop, in series with the grounded end. Or a BNC jack going to a piece of coax that can be trimmed to form a gimmic capacitor. I like to salvage the capacitor from surplus Mastr 2 ICOMs that are EC. But those have to be soldered in and I'm not sure what material DB cans use on the rotatable whosis. The inner cavity jumpers should be 1/4 wavelength electrically, so you have to calculate velocity factor of your cables. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] unsubscribe
At 03:00 PM 08/11/09, you wrote: Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJldG40YmlnBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDc3RuZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTI1MDAzMDExMg--Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: mailto:repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email Delivery: DigestSwitch delivery to Daily Digest | mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change Delivery Format: Fully FeaturedSwitch to Fully Featured http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder;_ylc=X3oDMTJjMm5rZzAyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDaHBmBHN0aW1lAzEyNTAwMzAxMTI-Visit Your Group | http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | mailto:repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribeUnsubscribe Every message, even yours, has an UNSUBSCRIBE link at the very end. Click on it. Your mailer will open, with the To: address already filled in. Just send it. You will get an Are you sure type of email in return. Follow the directions.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Notch Cavities + 600KHz Repeater = Work?
The Sinclair Q-202G's are excellent duplexers. If you get them tuned properly (not difficult with proper equipment) you will get great service from them. 73 de N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue Aug 11 18:01:13 2009 Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Notch Cavities + 600KHz Repeater = Work? - Hi DCflux, Tried the bandpass + notches didn't change much. On changing to the BpBr, any idea how much capacitance is needed? I have a fistfull of those Johanson caps. Also, a buddy of mine has a Sinclair Q202G that I'm thinking about also. Will pick it up tomorrow see if it is any better. Thanks, Tim W5FN If that doesn't work you might try converting them to BpBr. This would be done by adding a very high quality piston trimmer such as a johansen cap to the coupling loop, in series with the grounded end. Or a BNC jack going to a piece of coax that can be trimmed to form a gimmic capacitor. I like to salvage the capacitor from surplus Mastr 2 ICOMs that are EC. But those have to be soldered in and I'm not sure what material DB cans use on the rotatable whosis. The inner cavity jumpers should be 1/4 wavelength electrically, so you have to calculate velocity factor of your cables.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Update, Sinclair Q-202G (Frankenstein series)
Norm, Good catch on the tuning caps- they're not indestructible. You lucked out on finding a suitable replacement tuning cap in an ICOM. As for the photos, perhaps you could post them in the Group Photos section for all to see. I want to see the photos, but my experience with Sinclair products is somewhat limited. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of NORM KNAPP Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:16 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Update, Sinclair Q-202G (Frankenstein series) Hi Eric The harness is as close to exactly the right lenght as I could possibly make the lenghts. I replaced the RG-142/U jumpers (which were probably the right lengths as well) with RG-214/u . I was told to make them so that there was 14 between centers of the T's. I then started with an Anritsu sitemaster on the high pass cans and set the pass adjustment useing the return loss sweep. I then used my Areoflex to set the notches. Everything went smooth as silk. I then swithed over to the low pass side. The pass tuned, no problem. When I went to tune the notches, I found that one of the caps was almost as far up as it would go and the the other one would not quite get the notch to where I wanted it. I then started playing with turning the coupling loops. Of course, that didn't do any good. I then decided to pull the loops for a look. When I did, I discovered that there was a 12pf silver mica soldered in paralell with the Johanson tuning cap on both the loops. Also, one of the loops was made of sliver plated copper and looked factory and the other was copper and did not look factory. The way the copper one was shaped and bent made it appear homemade. I took the 12pf caps off of the tuning caps and tried to set the notches again, this time I had to go all the way down, and the notch was still not quite right. I then took the loops back out and soldered a 5pf cap accross the tuning caps. This worked great on the factory loop, but the other one wouldn't tune at all. What happed? I took the loop back out and I decided to reshape and bend the loop to look like the silver plated factory looking loop. That didn't help. Still no tune... H... What gives here? I took the loop back out again and quickly discoverd that I had somehow overheated the tuning cap and destroyed it. To make the long story short, I ended up taking a tuning cap from an EC vhf ICOM I had lying around and putting a 12pf cap accross it to get the adjustment range I wanted. It appears to be working well for now, but I have not pulled either of the high pass loops to see what is different about them. I have a set of Q-202GR duplexers with the sliding rods that I just replaced all the RG-213/u with RG-214/u with corrected lenghts for 2m that I am going to swap out temporaraly so I can try to get the right cap installed in that on can and to find out what is different about thos high pass cans. The repeater is 23.5 miles from my house and just don't get to go out there as often as I would like. By the way Eric, I have a set of sinclair duplexers that I cannot identify. Can I send you a photo or two to your e-mail? Thanks es 73. De N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon Aug 10 20:55:26 2009 Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Update, Sinclair Q-202G (Frankenstein series) Norm, I'm glad that you're getting that duplexer working. But, I am curious about those parallel capacitors. None of the factory-tuned Sinclair Q-202G duplexers I've seen had any capacitor in parallel with the Johanson tuning capacitors- even those made for the 2m band. The loop assemblies for the high-pass and low-pass cans are identical. Perhaps the previous owner added capacitors because the tuning caps were damaged. Or maybe the loop assemblies for a combiner were used in place of the correct BpBr loops. Are the interconnecting cables the correct length? 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of NORM KNAPP Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 6:35 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Update, Sinclair Q-202G (Frankenstein series) I talked to the guy that obtained the duplxers for our club and he confirmed my belief. Those 4 cans
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Replacement Caps. for Motorola Micor Pwr supplies
Last time I needed them, I bought them from Motorola themselves. still available, but certainly not cheap! _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of kh6...@netscape.net Does anyone have a source for these capacitors, Which are used in Motorola Micor power supplies? TPN1106A C1006-C1009 2000 mfd, 100V @10% C1012, C1013 17,500 mfd 20V @10% TPN1110A C1 6 mfd @ 660v C2-9 17,500 mfd 20v @ 10% TPN1151A C1-2 8000 mfd 35v @ 10% 73's,Jim Kh6jkg. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.51/2297 - Release Date: 08/11/09 18:27:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
At 8/11/2009 08:28, you wrote: Hi Paul, One has to deal with reality... while you might consider a soft talking person not properly trained, more than a fair number of users don't have a booming voice. In a larger number of cases a little bit of added audio compression/limiting helps resolve the low (higher/soft pitch) perceived volume level difference. The brain is pretty good about picking a voice from background audio so just being able to hear the receive audio better is going to help. Yes, but increasing the user's deviation to the proper level would help a lot more. A simple VOX ANDed with the COS would take care of that. Bob NO6B
