Re: [Repeater-Builder] Adding capacitors to lower electric bill
And if the capacitor trick did work, would this not be theft? lh On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.comwrote: Like a bad penny, this urban legend just keeps coming back. -- Eric Lemmon. Yes, I agree. However, the post that I made (and started all of this again) didn't make claim as to whether the capacitor trick worked or didn't work. I feel that it has no impact, unless you are being billed for reactive demand, and most of us are not. I was simply trying to seek out an individual whom I believe posted about this here, some time ago. He insisted that his electric bill at, I believe, three repeater sites as well as his house, dropped considerably when he added a fixed value capacitor across the line. Again, I had serious doubts at the time, but he was adamant about it. Anyway, my recent post was to follow up on this guy. What triggered it was the fact that I just ran into a ham who had purchased one of the commercially available energy savers and was questioning it's performance (he didn't think it worked). I asked him if the utility meter was electronic or whether it was one of the old spinning disk units, to which he said electronic. I had posed the question about altering the PF to an electrical engineer that I know. He gave me all the engineering basis like I'd expected, but then added an interesting comment. He was uncertain if a spinning disk meter would remain accurate if the PF was forced way out of specification - he left that hint of doubt. He then said that he was certain that the newer, electronic meters would record accurately regardless of the PF. Now, the guy that was adamant about beating the system had indicated that in every one of his experiments the meter was the older spinning disk unit. I suspect that the utility company eventually came out and replaced the meters. The guy said that it made a big enough difference that the utility had contacted him about the drop in usage. So, maybe the guy was jerking me (us) around, or maybe the utility installed new meters and the savings went poof, or maybe the guy is sitting in jail, not able to respond. And maybe it was on a different Yahoo group and I'm experiencing brain fade. I certainly didn't intend to create all the hubbub. But I felt the need to jump back in and explain further. Chuck WB2EDV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: question for commercial radio shops
Hey, what's wrong with a roger beep?'beep' On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:56 PM, skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com wrote: If a person whom you knew and is involved in a number of church youth camps activities asked you to program FRS frequencies into a 4w UHF HT type accepted for LMR would you do so ? It would only be for extended range at camp. If the radio power can be reduced, turn it down and program the FRS frequencies in. If the power can't be reduced, put the radios on GMRS Frequencies. Many of the Kenwood Portables I sell allow power level programming per channel so the FRS gets low and the other stuff gets the nominal rated power. FRS Radios are sold cheap at the big box stores... try to find the ones that allow you to turn off the $...@%@*% stupid roger beeps s.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna Experience Needed!
Keep in mind the bandwidth of the antenna. lh On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Sid purvis...@yahoo.com wrote: My choice would be the DB-224 type. Sid WA4VBC --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... wrote: My vote would be for folded dipole arrays. Sinclair, Comprod, Telewave and Andrew make good ones. I have seen far too many failures with fiberglass collinear antennas - lighting and particularly internal failure causing untold noise generation to the repeater itself as well as to every radio service nearby. I've never seen a fiberglass one that stood a direct hit but have seen folded dipoles that did. I'd say at least a 3:1 failure rate, maybe higher. That said, any can fail. Chuck WB2EDV We will be mounting 2 meter, 220, and a 440 repeater antennas. 1: What do you recommend between a choice of either RFS or Telewave Superstation Master Type or DB224E Dipole type for top mounting?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna Experience Needed!
Do you expect to EVER allow other, non-ham users, to multi-couple to this antenna? Plan carefully. If you anticipate to share, then the bandwidth become very important. For example, a Sinclair 210C Series antenna has a 36 mHz, 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth, essentially covering the whole VHF high band. A Sinclair 222/224 Series has a 10 mHz 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth. A Sinclair 229 has a 6 mHz, 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth. UHF follows a similar set of numbers. If you expect to never allow other users on the antenna, then my comments are irrelevant. lh On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com wrote: I'm assuming you mean the section of the particular band that a particular model will cover. 'Most' folded dipole arrays and collinear fiberglass manufacturers have models that cover the entire ham band in question, and then some. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Larry Horlick llhorl...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:17 AM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna Experience Needed! Keep in mind the bandwidth of the antenna. lh On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Sid purvis...@yahoo.com wrote: My choice would be the DB-224 type. Sid WA4VBC --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... wrote: My vote would be for folded dipole arrays. Sinclair, Comprod, Telewave and Andrew make good ones. I have seen far too many failures with fiberglass collinear antennas - lighting and particularly internal failure causing untold noise generation to the repeater itself as well as to every radio service nearby. I've never seen a fiberglass one that stood a direct hit but have seen folded dipoles that did. I'd say at least a 3:1 failure rate, maybe higher. That said, any can fail. Chuck WB2EDV We will be mounting 2 meter, 220, and a 440 repeater antennas. 1: What do you recommend between a choice of either RFS or Telewave Superstation Master Type or DB224E Dipole type for top mounting? -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 02:36:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna Experience Needed!
Understood Chuck. Depends on the circumstances. I know of a couple of ham groups that have traded antenna space for tower space. The tower owner gave them free space provided he could multi-couple to that antenna. The new systems at the site would be responsible for filtering. It was a win-win and the ham guys paid nothing for a PRIME location. If you own the tower and never plan to expand then it's not an issue. My only reason for bring it up was to encourage everyone to consider all the options and ensure that they will not regret the model chosen. As I am sure you are aware, attaching a big antenna to a high tower is tons of work and not something that any of us would want to repeat unless necessary. lh On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.comwrote: Larry is correct. My own personal hope and desire is that there will NOT be other users. Call me greedy, I suppose, but the less RF at the site, the better. However, the guy that posted the original question certainly needs to consider the possibilities. (Sorry, don't remember his name - short memory.) Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Larry Horlick llhorl...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:00 AM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna Experience Needed! Do you expect to EVER allow other, non-ham users, to multi-couple to this antenna? Plan carefully. If you anticipate to share, then the bandwidth become very important. For example, a Sinclair 210C Series antenna has a 36 mHz, 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth, essentially covering the whole VHF high band. A Sinclair 222/224 Series has a 10 mHz 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth. A Sinclair 229 has a 6 mHz, 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth. UHF follows a similar set of numbers. If you expect to never allow other users on the antenna, then my comments are irrelevant. lh On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.comwrote: I'm assuming you mean the section of the particular band that a particular model will cover. 'Most' folded dipole arrays and collinear fiberglass manufacturers have models that cover the entire ham band in question, and then some. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Larry Horlick llhorl...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:17 AM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna Experience Needed! Keep in mind the bandwidth of the antenna. lh On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Sid purvis...@yahoo.com wrote: My choice would be the DB-224 type. Sid WA4VBC --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... wrote: My vote would be for folded dipole arrays. Sinclair, Comprod, Telewave and Andrew make good ones. I have seen far too many failures with fiberglass collinear antennas - lighting and particularly internal failure causing untold noise generation to the repeater itself as well as to every radio service nearby. I've never seen a fiberglass one that stood a direct hit but have seen folded dipoles that did. I'd say at least a 3:1 failure rate, maybe higher. That said, any can fail. Chuck WB2EDV We will be mounting 2 meter, 220, and a 440 repeater antennas. 1: What do you recommend between a choice of either RFS or Telewave Superstation Master Type or DB224E Dipole type for top mounting? -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 02:36:00 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 02:36:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola radios and Zetron 37 controller
Is the Zetron that's locking up? I had a similar problem with a Zetron 45B. lh On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Joel ag...@cyberbest.com wrote: We have 2 repeaters that are more or less the same. One is on 2 meters and the other is on 440. They both exhibit the same problem, they lockup after a while and then need to be power cycled. They ran for years without issue. We have the Instruction manual for the Zentron controller, but nothing on the radios. The 440 radios are Motorola M44GM29C3AA's back to back. That's the only model number on the radios. Does anyone have any information on them? A Google search shows 2 Chinese sites having them for sale on e-bay, that's it. Seems strange. Any information would be greatly appriciated, Joe Loucka -- AG4QC
Re: [Repeater-Builder] White Noise on Micor TX
Would the same apply to an MSF2000 base station converted to a repeater? lh On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Has it been established whether the Micor station was originally built as a repeater, or is it a base station that has been converted into a repeater? A repeater station comes with a great deal of filter components added to the two interconnect boards, as well as extra shielding over the unified chassis shelves. A lot of strange things can happen if the shield plates are left off, or are not fastened with all screws. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 9:55 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] White Noise on Micor TX Tom, I believe he said that with the controller disconnected, and using local PTT, it still does it. That should take the receiver completely out of the equation, leaving only the exciter as the likely culprit. I'd suggested adding a resistor from ground to audio high on the exciter to see if that helps. It did for me on one Mastr II that I had. Might be something similar on his Micor. Certainly a very simple thing to try. Bob already asked about the PL board as that's another possible candidate, but was informed that there is a PL board installed already. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Thomas Oliver tsoli...@tir.com tsoliver%40tir.com mailto: tsoliver%40tir.com tsoliver%2540tir.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] White Noise on Micor TX Has the noise been there all along? It may be just the nature of the beast. There is an article on the RB web site about modifying a mobile audio squelch board to work in a base/repeater station, one of the benifits to doing so is the better muting of audio from the receiver, this is because there are two shunt switches in the squelch chip and the mobile configuration uses both to mute the audio, in the repeater/base station configuration one of the shunt switches is used for station control like cos and not as affective at totally muting the audio. As designed the repeaters with their internal controller never had much hang time so it wasn't as noticeable. tom On 5/23/2010 12:10 AM, Tim - WD6AWP wrote: I have a small amount white noise on the TX of a Micor repeater. It is most noticeable in the hang time but it's not coming from the controller. It's still there with the controller completely removed and pressing PTT on the station control card. It's more noticeable on some radios, perhaps radios with higher audio frequency response. Anyone ever run into this before? Tim WD6AWP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] White Noise on Micor TX
Eric, I'm usually dyslexic on Yundas! It's a MSR2000. About 12 years ago I converted a base station variant to a repeater. As I recall I had some difficulty configuring it; i.e. there were some jumpers to add and remove, but thus puppy has been trucking along at a very busy site and nary a problem, 5 mHz split on VHF. Because it has been working so well I was wondering if some the older mega-kg Motos were produced with equal filtering in all variants. I was just luck, I guess. lh On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Larry, I know about MSR2000 and MSF5000 stations, but I've never heard of an MSF2000. Most stations that are built for simplex (base) operation lack the filtering that is standard in duplex (repeater) operation. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 1:35 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] White Noise on Micor TX Would the same apply to an MSF2000 base station converted to a repeater? lh On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.netwb6fly%40verizon.net mailto:wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net wrote: Has it been established whether the Micor station was originally built as a repeater, or is it a base station that has been converted into a repeater? A repeater station comes with a great deal of filter components added to the two interconnect boards, as well as extra shielding over the unified chassis shelves. A lot of strange things can happen if the shield plates are left off, or are not fastened with all screws. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 9:55 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] White Noise on Micor TX Tom, I believe he said that with the controller disconnected, and using local PTT, it still does it. That should take the receiver completely out of the equation, leaving only the exciter as the likely culprit. I'd suggested adding a resistor from ground to audio high on the exciter to see if that helps. It did for me on one Mastr II that I had. Might be something similar on his Micor. Certainly a very simple thing to try. Bob already asked about the PL board as that's another possible candidate, but was informed that there is a PL board installed already. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Thomas Oliver tsoli...@tir.com tsoliver%40tir.com mailto: tsoliver%40tir.com tsoliver%2540tir.com mailto:tsoliver%40tir.com tsoliver%2540tir.com mailto: tsoliver%2540tir.com tsoliver%252540tir.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%252540yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] White Noise on Micor TX Has the noise been there all along? It may be just the nature of the beast. There is an article on the RB web site about modifying a mobile audio squelch board to work in a base/repeater station, one of the benifits to doing so is the better muting of audio from the receiver, this is because there are two shunt switches in the squelch chip and the mobile configuration uses both to mute the audio, in the repeater/base station configuration one of the shunt switches is used for station control like cos and not as affective at totally muting the audio. As designed the repeaters with their internal controller never had much hang time so it wasn't as noticeable. tom On 5/23/2010 12:10 AM, Tim - WD6AWP wrote: I have a small amount white noise on the TX of a Micor repeater. It is most noticeable in the hang time but it's not coming from the controller. It's still there with the controller completely removed and pressing PTT on the station control card. It's more noticeable on some radios, perhaps radios with higher audio frequency response. Anyone ever run into this before? Tim WD6AWP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexer notch blurred - why?
-62 does seem a tad high. Describe the duplexer... On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Atlantis atlant...@gmx.ch wrote: Hi In the attached picture you see the notch of the 70cm duplexer I built according to W4NFR's description in QEX, those who can't receive attachments find it here: http://conturafm.mine.nu/_fh/438.95_notch.bmp The measurement has been made with both cavities of one branch connected with a true quarter wavelength jumper of RG58 because I had no double-shielded cable available. Can anybody tell me why the notch is this blurred and what can be done about it? The isolation would be a bit better if the notch was a clear sharp line, isn't it? Regards Martin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexer notch blurred - why?
Did you terminate the open port in 50 ohms? I've seen a similar trace where the port is left open. lh On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Walter H walter.howard...@gmail.comwrote: The duplexor referenced is shown at: http://www.lu3hba.com.ar/ARTICULOS%2010/duplexor%20440%20mhz.pdf The author's spec a screen shots only show 60-65 dB of notch. And he doesn't make critical length cables. WalterH --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: -62 does seem a tad high. Describe the duplexer... SNIP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair dipole phasing harness
I have a drawing from Sinclair that shows 4 stacked folded dipoles (it does not indicate an antenna model) using all 50 ohm cable. So using the 210C4 harness picture from the link below as a template, this is how it's done: Feedlines from dipole A, B, C, and D are any length, but identical. A and B go to a tee, C and D go to another tee. The feedlines from the output (if I am allowed to use that rather crude term!) of these tees are any odd 1/4 wavelength (but do not have to be the same) and go to a 3rd tee. The output of this tee is 50 ohms. I suspect that the harness does not affect the pattern, but rather it is the dipole to mast spacing. lh On 5/18/10, N1BUG p...@n1bug.com wrote: Hi Burt, Did I hear my name mentioned??? Maybe just ESP:-) Yes you did, Great Sinclair dipole guru! :-) I got the dipole drawing from your new web site. Thanks! That part I'm clear on, but still a bit confused on the phasing harness. I would suggest that you don't even consider putting the harnass inside the mast (unless Harold can tell us how Sinclair does it). Put the harness on the outside of the mast like the SRL210A4. Uh, yeah, I hear that. I like the idea of the internal harness, but I just spent 3 hours getting the old harness *out* of the mast. I can't imagine how it was put *in* there. To combine the impedances on a 4 bay Sinclair array is simple. Divide the dipoles into pairs and parallel them. This gives 25 ohms. Then add an electrical quarter wave of 50 ohm coax (RG-213/U) to transform it to 100 ohms. Combine the matching coax from each pair in parallel to give 50 ohms. Then you can connect your feedline at any length from this latter 50 ohm connection. Here is a crude drawing of what I think you are saying: http://www.n1bug.com/dipoleharness1.jpg Points X and Y are the 100 ohm points created by adding an electrical quarter wave of RG-213 coming out of the 25 ohm point where two dipoles are connected in parallel. But points X and Y are physically several feet apart. That being said, I think the coax that joins those points at the final parallel junction (to connect to the feedline) would have to be a multiple of an electrical half wavelength in order to repeat the 100 ohms at the other end (thus ending up with 50 ohms when you parallel them)? If so, I'm still confused on how they did this for both cardioid and bidirectional versions of this antenna with the harness inside the mast. Required physical lengths would be different due to the different dipole spacing from the mast. One can only work with physical lengths that fit inside the mast (I guess?) but this seems to clash with the electrical length required for impedance matching. It's a non-issue since I have no way of getting a new harness inside the mast. With an external harness I can just coil up or loop any extra length required for matching reasons. But I'd still like to understand how they did it. :-) In any case, the phasing harness on my 210C4 was done differently. It uses a combination of RG-213/U and RG-63B/U in the harness itself. Here is a sketch of it: http://www.n1bug.com/210C4harness.jpg Here, if we assume points X and Y are 100 ohms, point Z (where the feedline attaches) would fall somewhere between 50 ohms and 78 ohms, depending on the electrical length of the RG-63B/U coax connecting them. I'm trying to look up the velocity factor of RG-63B/U (part PE, part air dielectric), but having no luck so far. All of which seems completely different from the picture at http://forum.radioamateur.ca/index.php?topic=2245.0 where there appears to be just a quarter wave section of coax off each side of point Z to the T for each pair of dipoles. I don't know how that was physically possible given the dipole spacing. I think we can safely assume I'm missing something here. :-) Paul N1BUG Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair dipole phasing harness
You're right, Joe. They are both labeled the same, so they are the same length but can be any odd 1/4 wavelength. lh On 5/18/10, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: The ones going to the third 'T' should be the same length to avoid out-of-phase issues. Joe M. Larry Horlick wrote: I have a drawing from Sinclair that shows 4 stacked folded dipoles (it does not indicate an antenna model) using all 50 ohm cable. So using the 210C4 harness picture from the link below as a template, this is how it's done: Feedlines from dipole A, B, C, and D are any length, but identical. A and B go to a tee, C and D go to another tee. The feedlines from the output (if I am allowed to use that rather crude term!) of these tees are any odd 1/4 wavelength (but do not have to be the same) and go to a 3rd tee. The output of this tee is 50 ohms. I suspect that the harness does not affect the pattern, but rather it is the dipole to mast spacing. lh On 5/18/10, *N1BUG* p...@n1bug.com paul%40n1bug.com mailto: p...@n1bug.com paul%40n1bug.com wrote: Hi Burt, Did I hear my name mentioned??? Maybe just ESP:-) Yes you did, Great Sinclair dipole guru! :-) I got the dipole drawing from your new web site. Thanks! That part I'm clear on, but still a bit confused on the phasing harness. I would suggest that you don't even consider putting the harnass inside the mast (unless Harold can tell us how Sinclair does it). Put the harness on the outside of the mast like the SRL210A4. Uh, yeah, I hear that. I like the idea of the internal harness, but I just spent 3 hours getting the old harness *out* of the mast. I can't imagine how it was put *in* there. To combine the impedances on a 4 bay Sinclair array is simple. Divide the dipoles into pairs and parallel them. This gives 25 ohms. Then add an electrical quarter wave of 50 ohm coax (RG-213/U) to transform it to 100 ohms. Combine the matching coax from each pair in parallel to give 50 ohms. Then you can connect your feedline at any length from this latter 50 ohm connection. Here is a crude drawing of what I think you are saying: http://www.n1bug.com/dipoleharness1.jpg Points X and Y are the 100 ohm points created by adding an electrical quarter wave of RG-213 coming out of the 25 ohm point where two dipoles are connected in parallel. But points X and Y are physically several feet apart. That being said, I think the coax that joins those points at the final parallel junction (to connect to the feedline) would have to be a multiple of an electrical half wavelength in order to repeat the 100 ohms at the other end (thus ending up with 50 ohms when you parallel them)? If so, I'm still confused on how they did this for both cardioid and bidirectional versions of this antenna with the harness inside the mast. Required physical lengths would be different due to the different dipole spacing from the mast. One can only work with physical lengths that fit inside the mast (I guess?) but this seems to clash with the electrical length required for impedance matching. It's a non-issue since I have no way of getting a new harness inside the mast. With an external harness I can just coil up or loop any extra length required for matching reasons. But I'd still like to understand how they did it. :-) In any case, the phasing harness on my 210C4 was done differently. It uses a combination of RG-213/U and RG-63B/U in the harness itself. Here is a sketch of it: http://www.n1bug.com/210C4harness.jpg Here, if we assume points X and Y are 100 ohms, point Z (where the feedline attaches) would fall somewhere between 50 ohms and 78 ohms, depending on the electrical length of the RG-63B/U coax connecting them. I'm trying to look up the velocity factor of RG-63B/U (part PE, part air dielectric), but having no luck so far. All of which seems completely different from the picture at http://forum.radioamateur.ca/index.php?topic=2245.0 where there appears to be just a quarter wave section of coax off each side of point Z to the T for each pair of dipoles. I don't know how that was physically possible given the dipole spacing. I think we can safely assume I'm missing something here. :-) Paul N1BUG Yahoo! Groups Links repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair dipole phasing harness
On the drawing it does not show any 125 ohm cable, but I think what you are saying is that from the feedpoint of the folded dipole, inside the tubing there is a 1/4 wavelength piece of 125 ohm cable (about 13.5 inches at 2m) that is joined to 50 ohm cable. What we see exiting the tube (opposite the feedpoint) is the 50 ohm stuff. If this is correct it fully explains a drawing on the previous page showing a cross section of a single element folder dipole. \ lh On 5/18/10, N1BUG p...@n1bug.com wrote: Thanks. That makes sense and should work out quite well for a harness external to the mast. Of course the quarter wave of 125 ohm coax will still be required inside each dipole, but the use of all 50 ohm coax beyond that point simplifies construction. Apparently Sinclair had different ways of doing it, perhaps depending on the exact model. Or maybe they changed the harness design at some point. Paul N1BUG Larry Horlick wrote: I have a drawing from Sinclair that shows 4 stacked folded dipoles (it does not indicate an antenna model) using all 50 ohm cable. So using the 210C4 harness picture from the link below as a template, this is how it's done: Feedlines from dipole A, B, C, and D are any length, but identical. A and B go to a tee, C and D go to another tee. The feedlines from the output (if I am allowed to use that rather crude term!) of these tees are any odd 1/4 wavelength (but do not have to be the same) and go to a 3rd tee. The output of this tee is 50 ohms. I suspect that the harness does not affect the pattern, but rather it is the dipole to mast spacing. lh
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair dipole phasing harness
Indeed. Most of it is hand written, and come from Sinclair training material. These are copies, not originals and for the life of me I cannot remember where I got. I'm thinking it was given to me by one the Sinclair gurus in Aurora when I dropped in one day to pick up some invar rods for a Q202 duplexer that I was given. Anyway this guy came out of the shop and we had a short discussion about various Sinclair products. He took out to the plant floor and after went back to his office. He was a production manager and hand drew in front of me several curves for different filters. It turned into a 3 hour training session for me. He covered so much material that I retained only a fraction. He was very knowedgeable and extremely passionate about his work and the product. I ultimately walked away with 4 rods, gratis, and he followed up with a phone call a couple of weeks later to see if I was successful in refirbishing the duplexer. This was Feb of 1990 and the list price of the rods, then, were $18.50 ea. lh On 5/18/10, N1BUG p...@n1bug.com wrote: That's correct. The folded dipole impedance is 300 ohms. The 1/4 wavelength of 125 ohm coax transforms that down close to 50 ohms. This 1/4 wavelength matching section is completely inside the dipole itself. The transition to 50 ohm cable occurs somewhere near the top of the folded dipole, so we see the 50 ohm cable exiting the dipole. In my dipoles the 125 ohm cable is RG-63B/U which, owing to its partly air dielectric, no doubt has a higher velocity factor than solid dielectric coax. So the section is somewhat longer than 13.5 inches. I'm still trying to find a reference to the exact velocity factor of RG-63B/U. It sounds like you have some very interesting (and rare) Sinclair documentation there! Paul N1BUG Larry Horlick wrote: On the drawing it does not show any 125 ohm cable, but I think what you are saying is that from the feedpoint of the folded dipole, inside the tubing there is a 1/4 wavelength piece of 125 ohm cable (about 13.5 inches at 2m) that is joined to 50 ohm cable. What we see exiting the tube (opposite the feedpoint) is the 50 ohm stuff. If this is correct it fully explains a drawing on the previous page showing a cross section of a single element folder dipole. \ lh On 5/18/10, *N1BUG* p...@n1bug.com mailto:p...@n1bug.com wrote: Thanks. That makes sense and should work out quite well for a harness external to the mast. Of course the quarter wave of 125 ohm coax will still be required inside each dipole, but the use of all 50 ohm coax beyond that point simplifies construction. Apparently Sinclair had different ways of doing it, perhaps depending on the exact model. Or maybe they changed the harness design at some point. Paul N1BUG Larry Horlick wrote: I have a drawing from Sinclair that shows 4 stacked folded dipoles (it does not indicate an antenna model) using all 50 ohm cable. So using the 210C4 harness picture from the link below as a template, this is how it's done: Feedlines from dipole A, B, C, and D are any length, but identical. A and B go to a tee, C and D go to another tee. The feedlines from the output (if I am allowed to use that rather crude term!) of these tees are any odd 1/4 wavelength (but do not have to be the same) and go to a 3rd tee. The output of this tee is 50 ohms. I suspect that the harness does not affect the pattern, but rather it is the dipole to mast spacing. lh Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices
What is the Moto part no. of the ps to which you refer? lh On 5/3/10, Milt men...@pa.net wrote: Eric, The power supply on the RKR and GR series repeaters has a switch which controls the action of the fan. It can either be thermally controlled or run constantly. Milt N3LTQ - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:04 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices Larry, That's odd; both the GR1225 and RKR1225 repeaters I am familiar with, which use the R1225 transceiver, have a small thermal switch that is wedged between two of the heat-sink fins. In both repeaters, the fan runs only when the radio gets hot. I am surprised that you have a repeater using the R1225 in which the fan runs continuously. Perhaps this installation is a prime candidate for a thermal switch! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 7:13 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices This is excellent Eric. I have an R1225 repeater in a GR500 case. There is a fan but it runs continuously. The duty cycle is low but because of the nature of the service there are times when it may be very high for extended periods of time. So most of the time the fan is not needed, but I want it there for those rare occasions. I don't recognize the part no. on the fan it looks remarkably similar to the one stock in GR500. This will work very well for me. Thanks. lh On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.netwb6fly%40verizon.net mailto:wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net wrote: Larry, My first use of this thermal switch was on a solar-powered Motorola R1225 UHF repeater at a commercial site. I simply drilled and tapped two 4-40 holes on a flat portion of the outside fin, and mounted the thermal switch after applying some heat-conductive paste. I used a three-inch low-EMI Panasonic fan blowing right on the fins. This is a 45-watt repeater set for about 30 watts output. It went into service early in 2003, and has been trouble-free ever since. I have attached a picture of what it looks like. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:56 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices Eric, This is good info. I have an immediate use for this. How have you actually attached this 'stat to the fin? Larry On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.netwb6fly%40verizon.net mailto:wb6fly%40verizon.net wb6fly%2540verizon.net mailto:wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net mailto: wb6fly%40verizon.net wb6fly%2540verizon.net wrote: Scott, I must agree that the CK1614 is an extremely versatile timer, with many potential uses. However, using it for fan control is not only expensive, but unnecessary. A fan blowing on a transmitter heat sink does absolutely nothing immediately after the transmitter is keyed, since the heat sink is likely at ambient temperature. It takes a period of time for the heat sink to warm up, so operating the fan prematurely is a waste of energy- which may be an issue for a solar-powered repeater. IMHO, the most efficient means of fan control is also the cheapest: A thermal switch. My first choice is a Cantherm #R2005015 normally-open thermostat that closes at 50 degrees Celsius, about 122 degrees Fahrenheit. When attached to a heat-sink fin, it turns the fan on when necessary, and keeps it on until the heat sink cools below about 100 degrees F- around body temperature. This particular switch is available from Digi-Key for about $9, as Catalog Number 317-1094-ND. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices
Eric, I too have seen that but for some reason these do not have it. I'm, not certain, but I think these systems were assembled piecemeal and not ordered as a system. If that is the case the thermal switch was omitted. Anyway your solution is very simple and inexpensive. lh On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Larry, That's odd; both the GR1225 and RKR1225 repeaters I am familiar with, which use the R1225 transceiver, have a small thermal switch that is wedged between two of the heat-sink fins. In both repeaters, the fan runs only when the radio gets hot. I am surprised that you have a repeater using the R1225 in which the fan runs continuously. Perhaps this installation is a prime candidate for a thermal switch! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 7:13 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices This is excellent Eric. I have an R1225 repeater in a GR500 case. There is a fan but it runs continuously. The duty cycle is low but because of the nature of the service there are times when it may be very high for extended periods of time. So most of the time the fan is not needed, but I want it there for those rare occasions. I don't recognize the part no. on the fan it looks remarkably similar to the one stock in GR500. This will work very well for me. Thanks. lh On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.netwb6fly%40verizon.net mailto:wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net wrote: Larry, My first use of this thermal switch was on a solar-powered Motorola R1225 UHF repeater at a commercial site. I simply drilled and tapped two 4-40 holes on a flat portion of the outside fin, and mounted the thermal switch after applying some heat-conductive paste. I used a three-inch low-EMI Panasonic fan blowing right on the fins. This is a 45-watt repeater set for about 30 watts output. It went into service early in 2003, and has been trouble-free ever since. I have attached a picture of what it looks like. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:56 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices Eric, This is good info. I have an immediate use for this. How have you actually attached this 'stat to the fin? Larry On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.netwb6fly%40verizon.net mailto:wb6fly%40verizon.net wb6fly%2540verizon.net mailto:wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net mailto: wb6fly%40verizon.net wb6fly%2540verizon.net wrote: Scott, I must agree that the CK1614 is an extremely versatile timer, with many potential uses. However, using it for fan control is not only expensive, but unnecessary. A fan blowing on a transmitter heat sink does absolutely nothing immediately after the transmitter is keyed, since the heat sink is likely at ambient temperature. It takes a period of time for the heat sink to warm up, so operating the fan prematurely is a waste of energy- which may be an issue for a solar-powered repeater. IMHO, the most efficient means of fan control is also the cheapest: A thermal switch. My first choice is a Cantherm #R2005015 normally-open thermostat that closes at 50 degrees Celsius, about 122 degrees Fahrenheit. When attached to a heat-sink fin, it turns the fan on when necessary, and keeps it on until the heat sink cools below about 100 degrees F- around body temperature. This particular switch is available from Digi-Key for about $9, as Catalog Number 317-1094-ND. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%252540yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices
Eric, This is good info. I have an immediate use for this. How have you actually attached this 'stat to the fin? Larry On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Scott, I must agree that the CK1614 is an extremely versatile timer, with many potential uses. However, using it for fan control is not only expensive, but unnecessary. A fan blowing on a transmitter heat sink does absolutely nothing immediately after the transmitter is keyed, since the heat sink is likely at ambient temperature. It takes a period of time for the heat sink to warm up, so operating the fan prematurely is a waste of energy- which may be an issue for a solar-powered repeater. IMHO, the most efficient means of fan control is also the cheapest: A thermal switch. My first choice is a Cantherm #R2005015 normally-open thermostat that closes at 50 degrees Celsius, about 122 degrees Fahrenheit. When attached to a heat-sink fin, it turns the fan on when necessary, and keeps it on until the heat sink cools below about 100 degrees F- around body temperature. This particular switch is available from Digi-Key for about $9, as Catalog Number 317-1094-ND. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of na4it Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 9:38 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices I have started using this little kit (http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/elec/ck1614.htm http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/elec/ck1614.htm ) for fan control on repeaters. I can also be used as a PTT and Time Out circuit, along with a lot of other uses. Download the pdf on that site and check it out. Scott NA4IT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices
This is excellent Eric. I have an R1225 repeater in a GR500 case. There is a fan but it runs continuously. The duty cycle is low but because of the nature of the service there are times when it may be very high for extended periods of time. So most of the time the fan is not needed, but I want it there for those rare occasions. I don't recognize the part no. on the fan it looks remarkably similar to the one stock in GR500. This will work very well for me. Thanks. lh On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Larry, My first use of this thermal switch was on a solar-powered Motorola R1225 UHF repeater at a commercial site. I simply drilled and tapped two 4-40 holes on a flat portion of the outside fin, and mounted the thermal switch after applying some heat-conductive paste. I used a three-inch low-EMI Panasonic fan blowing right on the fins. This is a 45-watt repeater set for about 30 watts output. It went into service early in 2003, and has been trouble-free ever since. I have attached a picture of what it looks like. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:56 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices Eric, This is good info. I have an immediate use for this. How have you actually attached this 'stat to the fin? Larry On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.netwb6fly%40verizon.net mailto:wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net wrote: Scott, I must agree that the CK1614 is an extremely versatile timer, with many potential uses. However, using it for fan control is not only expensive, but unnecessary. A fan blowing on a transmitter heat sink does absolutely nothing immediately after the transmitter is keyed, since the heat sink is likely at ambient temperature. It takes a period of time for the heat sink to warm up, so operating the fan prematurely is a waste of energy- which may be an issue for a solar-powered repeater. IMHO, the most efficient means of fan control is also the cheapest: A thermal switch. My first choice is a Cantherm #R2005015 normally-open thermostat that closes at 50 degrees Celsius, about 122 degrees Fahrenheit. When attached to a heat-sink fin, it turns the fan on when necessary, and keeps it on until the heat sink cools below about 100 degrees F- around body temperature. This particular switch is available from Digi-Key for about $9, as Catalog Number 317-1094-ND. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of na4it Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 9:38 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Neat kit for switching repeater devices I have started using this little kit (http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/elec/ck1614.htm http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/elec/ck1614.htm http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/elec/ck1614.htm http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/elec/ck1614.htm ) for fan control on repeaters. I can also be used as a PTT and Time Out circuit, along with a lot of other uses. Download the pdf on that site and check it out. Scott NA4IT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Take a look at the link; it shows only 2 possible coupling cables, labeled as part no. 4 in Diagram 1. The range 138-148 requires a 22 cable and 148 to 174 requires a 19 cable. http://www.repeater-builder.com/sinclair/ci-1122-C-Series-Parts.pdf lh On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: No, I am absolutely positive that to get 0.9dB IL per Sinclair VHF bandpass cavity, the notch depth tuning of the loop is between 11 and 11.5dB. I have done it probably more than 100 times. The T goes on one loop and the other loop is left unterminated. 18 sounds too short. It should be 22 to 23 according to my memory. When the cable is perfect, no fine tuning of the cavity frequency is required. But nothing is perfect so a small tweek may be required to get the system tuned perfectly but not by much. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: Harold, I think 24 is for the lower part of the band. I've cut these 18.5. I used your procedure today and it went well although the dips for .9 IL were 4.3 dB instead of your 9.0 dB. I connected everything together and ended up with 3.3 dB total after tweaking each pass rod slightly. lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:46 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: I don't know if it was published.. Set your cans for 0.9dB IL each and your end result will be 3.2dB. The notch cavity should be set to maximum depth unless you have a very close frequency down the chain (0.5MHz away).The notch is tuned to the pass frequency. The 3 pass cans will produce 3 return loss dips - remember to use a load on the unterminated ports of the filter when using the RTB. I can't locate the length of the cable between the pass cans but I think my memory is saying 23 inches tip to tip. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: Harold, I used 2 cans in my initial post for simplicity. What I'm working on is a 2037, 3 pass and one notch and I need 3 dB, so 1 dB per can. I'm not moving them very far from the original setup, but I want to verify the IL. Is there a published chart for these settings? Indeed, still in VY0 land... lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:54 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: Just looked up the settings in my files. 9dB notch at 160MHz produces 1.4dB. 11 to 11.5 will produce your desired 0.9dB Insertion Loss. 14 to 15 dB produces the 0.40dB IL. The cable adds 0.2dB. The settings of 2 cans from Sinclair are typically 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0dB. Larry, are you still up in Iqaluit? Harold, VA3HF
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
That is the question isn't it. But, still, if the length is critical, it's hard to believe that one cable could cover the entire range from 148 to 174... On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:00 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: I think that you have to add the connector lengths to those numbers so the length would be 20.25 tip to tip if that 19 was the length of the cut coax. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: Take a look at the link; it shows only 2 possible coupling cables, labeled as part no. 4 in Diagram 1. The range 138-148 requires a 22 cable and 148 to 174 requires a 19 cable. http://www.repeater-builder.com/sinclair/ci-1122-C-Series-Parts.pdf lh On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: No, I am absolutely positive that to get 0.9dB IL per Sinclair VHF bandpass cavity, the notch depth tuning of the loop is between 11 and 11.5dB. I have done it probably more than 100 times. The T goes on one loop and the other loop is left unterminated. 18 sounds too short. It should be 22 to 23 according to my memory. When the cable is perfect, no fine tuning of the cavity frequency is required. But nothing is perfect so a small tweek may be required to get the system tuned perfectly but not by much. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: Harold, I think 24 is for the lower part of the band. I've cut these 18.5. I used your procedure today and it went well although the dips for .9 IL were 4.3 dB instead of your 9.0 dB. I connected everything together and ended up with 3.3 dB total after tweaking each pass rod slightly. lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:46 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: I don't know if it was published.. Set your cans for 0.9dB IL each and your end result will be 3.2dB. The notch cavity should be set to maximum depth unless you have a very close frequency down the chain (0.5MHz away).The notch is tuned to the pass frequency. The 3 pass cans will produce 3 return loss dips - remember to use a load on the unterminated ports of the filter when using the RTB. I can't locate the length of the cable between the pass cans but I think my memory is saying 23 inches tip to tip. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: Harold, I used 2 cans in my initial post for simplicity. What I'm working on is a 2037, 3 pass and one notch and I need 3 dB, so 1 dB per can. I'm not moving them very far from the original setup, but I want to verify the IL. Is there a published chart for these settings? Indeed, still in VY0 land... lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:54 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: Just looked up the settings in my files. 9dB notch at 160MHz produces 1.4dB. 11 to 11.5 will produce your desired 0.9dB Insertion Loss. 14 to 15 dB produces the 0.40dB IL. The cable adds 0.2dB. The settings of 2 cans from Sinclair are typically 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0dB. Larry, are you still up in Iqaluit? Harold, VA3HF
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Harold, I think 24 is for the lower part of the band. I've cut these 18.5. I used your procedure today and it went well although the dips for .9 IL were 4.3 dB instead of your 9.0 dB. I connected everything together and ended up with 3.3 dB total after tweaking each pass rod slightly. lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:46 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: I don't know if it was published.. Set your cans for 0.9dB IL each and your end result will be 3.2dB. The notch cavity should be set to maximum depth unless you have a very close frequency down the chain (0.5MHz away).The notch is tuned to the pass frequency. The 3 pass cans will produce 3 return loss dips - remember to use a load on the unterminated ports of the filter when using the RTB. I can't locate the length of the cable between the pass cans but I think my memory is saying 23 inches tip to tip. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: Harold, I used 2 cans in my initial post for simplicity. What I'm working on is a 2037, 3 pass and one notch and I need 3 dB, so 1 dB per can. I'm not moving them very far from the original setup, but I want to verify the IL. Is there a published chart for these settings? Indeed, still in VY0 land... lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:54 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: Just looked up the settings in my files. 9dB notch at 160MHz produces 1.4dB. 11 to 11.5 will produce your desired 0.9dB Insertion Loss. 14 to 15 dB produces the 0.40dB IL. The cable adds 0.2dB. The settings of 2 cans from Sinclair are typically 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0dB. Larry, are you still up in Iqaluit? Harold, VA3HF
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
OK. That makes sense. How did you arrive at 9dB for .9 IL? And about the cable lengths between the pass cavites, I have found 3 different documents from Sinclair that gives me 3 different lengths for the same frequency. One document shows only 2 different cable lengths for the entire VHF band. If these are all correct it tells me that the lengths are not that critical. lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:32 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Harold, I used 2 cans in my initial post for simplicity. What I'm working on is a 2037, 3 pass and one notch and I need 3 dB, so 1 dB per can. I'm not moving them very far from the original setup, but I want to verify the IL. Is there a published chart for these settings? Indeed, still in VY0 land... lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:54 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: Just looked up the settings in my files. 9dB notch at 160MHz produces 1.4dB. 11 to 11.5 will produce your desired 0.9dB Insertion Loss. 14 to 15 dB produces the 0.40dB IL. The cable adds 0.2dB. The settings of 2 cans from Sinclair are typically 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0dB. Larry, are you still up in Iqaluit? Harold, VA3HF --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
These cans are recent vintage and have top mounted loops. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:24 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: Are they for top mounted loops or side mounted. The side mounted loops had different loop lengths for the different insertion losses and hence the cable lengths were different. Unless the top loops were extra large for making a wider pass window, they should be very close in lengths (within an inch or so) for a given frequency. See my previous post for the correct notch depths. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: OK. That makes sense. How did you arrive at 9dB for .9 IL? And about the cable lengths between the pass cavites, I have found 3 different documents from Sinclair that gives me 3 different lengths for the same frequency. One document shows only 2 different cable lengths for the entire VHF band. If these are all correct it tells me that the lengths are not that critical. lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:32 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
The cavities were initially tuned individually and the loop positions set for 1 db IL. They were then coupled together using a 18.5 cable and the rods touched up to re-establish resonance. The measured IL is now 2.9. The loop positions were not changed after coupling. When using the RL bridge I do not see one clear notch, but rather a notch that has a bump; kinda looks like 2 notches. This is what I always see even when cavities are factory tuned, so I'm confident that the tuning is OK. On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com wrote: I have 2 C-Series bandpass cavities, with individual I.L. set at 1.0 db each. When I couple them together and measure, I get a total I.L. of 2.9 db. I should see something like 2.1 or 2.2. I have measured the coupling cable and see .1 db, so the cable is good. Anyone have an idea why the loss is so high when coupled? Most likely they aren't tuned correctly for maximum return loss, and when you cascade them, the resonant frequency is no longer where you thought it was (i.e. a detuning effect). Have you measured the return loss of the cavities individually? --- Jeff WN3A
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
But were the loops adjusted to maximize return loss at the desired inseretion loss setting? That's the key point. Or did you just dial in 1 dB of insertion loss and call it good? Not sure what u mean??
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
I adjusted the loop positions, trying to maintain symmetry of the curve, aiming for 1 db on the analyzer. I didn't adjust the loops while looking at the RL. How would I translate RL into IL? On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com wrote: What process did you go through when setting the insertion loss to the 1 dB you were targetting? Did you optimize the coupling angle of the loops for maximum return loss at (or near) the desired 1 dB of insertion loss? --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:54 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths But were the loops adjusted to maximize return loss at the desired inseretion loss setting? That's the key point. Or did you just dial in 1 dB of insertion loss and call it good? Not sure what u mean?? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/20/10 02:31:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Jeff, Thanks for the detailed instructions. I understand everything, but I'm confused about one detail. Using this method will produce the largest RL and consequently the lowest IL. But I don't want the lowest IL; I want a specific value, i.e. 1 db per cavity. How do I use RLB to set a specific IL? On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com wrote: I adjusted the loop positions, trying to maintain symmetry of the curve, aiming for 1 db on the analyzer. I didn't adjust the loops while looking at the RL. How would I translate RL into IL? You can't directly translate from RL to IL or vice-versa. Here's how to tune a pass cavity: 1. Ballpark the insertion loss using the stickers on the loops and/or by measuring the insertion loss at whatever frequency the cavity is presently tuned to. 2. Rough-tune the cavity to something near your desired frequency. Don't bother being too critical here - the resonant frequency is going to wander a bit as you adjust the loops in the following steps. 3. Terminate one cavity port with a high-quality 50 ohm load (high quality: = 30 dB return loss). Connect your RLB to your SA/TG, with the DUT port connected to the other port on the cavity. You *must* use a cable between the DUT port and the cavity that is known to have excellent return loss! The cables between the SA/TG and RLB should be good quality, but are nowhere near as critical as the cable between the RLB and the device under test. 4. While measuring the return loss, make minor adjustments to one of the loops to maximize the return loss. Again, ignore the frequency of the return loss dip, it's going to vary slightly as you adjust the loop, just go for maximum return loss at whatever frequency the dip happens to fall at. Keep the screws snugged down well on the loop assembly; if it's not sitting tight and flush in the top of the cavity the tuning will change when you go to tighten the screws later. There's a little chicken-and-egg here; you have to loosen the screws to adjust the loop, but when you tighten them it's going to change it a bit, so you have to emperically find the sweet spot. With most cavities, you should have no problem getting well in excess of 20 dB return loss - shoot for 30 dB if you can, even though at that point uncertainty due to the test equipment's limitations will be dominating the measurement accuracy. 5. Reverse the connections you set up in #2 above. Check to make sure the return loss is still high looking into the other port (it should be). 6. NOW, adjust the resonant frequency using the rod to put the return loss maxima it where you want it (i.e. at your pass frequency). Assuming the cavity was rough-tuned in step #2 above, the return loss should not change as you fine-tune the resonant frequency. 7. THEN, check the insertion loss through the cavity using the SA/TG. It should be fairly close to what you set it to in #1 above; if it's more/less than what you'd like, adjust ONE loop for more/less insertion loss, and then repeat again from step #3. DO NOT adjust the resonant frequency via the tuning rod during this step!!! Unless the cavity was poorly designed, tuned, or handled, the return loss maximum should align very closely with the insertion loss minimum. Once you've properly tuned the cavities individually, then cable them together and re-check return loss and insertion loss. Report back how it goes and what numbers you come up with. --- Jeff WN3A
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Jeff, But for the purpose of this exercise, setting the loops, the position of max RL has to be the position of min. IL? No? Is my thinking completely flawed here? I've never used an RLB to set the loops; I've always used an SA/TG. I also have several different tutorials on cavity tuning, but none even touch on the IL adjustment. lh On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com wrote: Thanks for the detailed instructions. I understand everything, but I'm confused about one detail. Using this method will produce the largest RL and consequently the lowest IL. Well, sort of. You want the most return loss AT THE DESIRED INSERTION LOSS. Maximizing return doesn't mean you have the minimum insertion loss. A 20 dB pad might have great return loss, but obviously it also has 20 dB of insertion loss! But I don't want the lowest IL; I want a specific value, i.e. 1 db per cavity. Right, and that's what you set in #1 in my instructions/notes. You rough in the insertion loss setting initially, but the actual tuning of the cavity is done based on return loss. In step 7 you measure the final insertion loss after you're done tuning. If it's too high or too low, you increase/decrease the coupling respectively and re-tune from scratch. If my instuction on changing the coupling again in step #7 and then re-tuning from scratch confused you, I apologize, I probably should have been more clear. If you change the coupling of one loop to increase/decrease the insertion loss, then you should be adjusting the OTHER loop in the next round of tuning. Obviously if you adjust one loop and then go back through the same procedure with the test equipment connected to that same loop you just adjusted, you're just going to end back up where you started. So, just so we're clear, if you're going to connect the RLB to port A, you would want to increase/decrease the insertion loss by adjusting the port B loop in step 7 before re-tuning starting at step 3. How do I use RLB to set a specific IL? You don't. An RLB measures return loss (obviously). The SA/TG alone is used to measure the insertion loss. --- Jeff WN3A 1. Ballpark the insertion loss using the stickers on the loops and/or by measuring the insertion loss at whatever frequency the cavity is presently tuned to. 2. Rough-tune the cavity to something near your desired frequency. Don't bother being too critical here - the resonant frequency is going to wander a bit as you adjust the loops in the following steps. 3. Terminate one cavity port with a high-quality 50 ohm load (high quality: = 30 dB return loss). Connect your RLB to your SA/TG, with the DUT port connected to the other port on the cavity. You *must* use a cable between the DUT port and the cavity that is known to have excellent return loss! The cables between the SA/TG and RLB should be good quality, but are nowhere near as critical as the cable between the RLB and the device under test. 4. While measuring the return loss, make minor adjustments to one of the loops to maximize the return loss. Again, ignore the frequency of the return loss dip, it's going to vary slightly as you adjust the loop, just go for maximum return loss at whatever frequency the dip happens to fall at. Keep the screws snugged down well on the loop assembly; if it's not sitting tight and flush in the top of the cavity the tuning will change when you go to tighten the screws later. There's a little chicken-and-egg here; you have to loosen the screws to adjust the loop, but when you tighten them it's going to change it a bit, so you have to emperically find the sweet spot. With most cavities, you should have no problem getting well in excess of 20 dB return loss - shoot for 30 dB if you can, even though at that point uncertainty due to the test equipment's limitations will be dominating the measurement accuracy. 5. Reverse the connections you set up in #2 above. Check to make sure the return loss is still high looking into the other port (it should be). 6. NOW, adjust the resonant frequency using the rod to put the return loss maxima it where you want it (i.e. at your pass frequency). Assuming the cavity was rough-tuned in step #2 above, the return loss should not change as you fine-tune the resonant frequency. 7. THEN, check the insertion loss through the cavity using the SA/TG. It should be fairly close to what you set it to in #1 above; if it's more/less than what you'd like, adjust ONE loop for more/less insertion loss, and then repeat again from step #3. DO NOT adjust the resonant frequency via the tuning rod during this step!!! Unless the cavity was poorly designed, tuned, or handled, the return loss maximum should align very closely with the insertion loss minimum. Once you've properly tuned the cavities individually,
[Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
I have 2 C-Series bandpass cavities, with individual I.L. set at 1.0 db each. When I couple them together and measure, I get a total I.L. of 2.9 db. I should see something like 2.1 or 2.2. I have measured the coupling cable and see .1 db, so the cable is good. Anyone have an idea why the loss is so high when coupled? lh
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
These are measured values using a Service Monitor. I have two charts that show the cable lengths, but the values are not the same. They differ by 1 for the same frequency. Would that produce the effect I'm seeing? On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:16 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote: At 4/19/2010 10:24, you wrote: I have 2 C-Series bandpass cavities, with individual I.L. set at 1.0 db each. When I couple them together and measure, I get a total I.L. of 2.9 db. I should see something like 2.1 or 2.2. I have measured the coupling cable and see .1 db, so the cable is good. Anyone have an idea why the loss is so high when coupled? Did you actually measure the individual loss of each can, or are you just going by the indicators on the loops? Try changing the length of cable between the cans. I think an electrical 1/4 wave multiple (1/4, 3/4, 5/4, etc.) is what you want. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
The freq in question is 166 mHz. One chart gives me 19 and the other 18. I didn't think 1 at this freq would make much difference. I'm also not clear if the length is after the connectors are installed or the cut cable before installing the connectors. Which do you think it is? On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote: At 4/19/2010 17:24, you wrote: These are measured values using a Service Monitor. I have two charts that show the cable lengths, but the values are not the same. They differ by 1 for the same frequency. Would that produce the effect I'm seeing? Depends on what frequency band we're talking about. 1 is not enough @ 2 meters to make a significant change. Try changing the length by about a foot for 2 meters, or 4 @ 440. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DC power cord HKN4137A
What is wire size used? On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Robert Boles bobe...@yahoo.com wrote: E bay item 270549058766, I have brought from this seller and they are Motorola cables, Have not had any trouble with them, fast shipping --- On *Tue, 4/13/10, la88y llhorl...@gmail.com* wrote: From: la88y llhorl...@gmail.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] DC power cord HKN4137A To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:37 AM Anyone have a suggestion for a less expensive alternative to the standard Motorola power cord? lh
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DC power cord HKN4137A
I agree, Eric, but I need 30 of them, so even a slightly lower price will be good. I've found only 1 on Ebay, so I may buy one just to see what the quality is like. And the Moto stuff is probably made in China anyway. lh On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Not really. Even though it costs about $16, I think that kit is a good value for what you get: Color-coded heavy-duty high-temperature wires (14 AWG) that are long enough to reach the battery- even with a Charge Guard in line- and with an inline fuse and equipped with the proper plug on the radio end. Similar cables I found at RV stores were only 16 AWG and never long enough. I can't see trying to kluge together a cable when one is readily available, especially for what is probably a one-time purchase. I suppose that some vendor in China will come out with a cheap knock-off of the HKN4137A kit, but I would expect the thick insulation to hide some small conductors. Caveat Emptor! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of la88y Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 6:37 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] DC power cord HKN4137A Anyone have a suggestion for a less expensive alternative to the standard Motorola power cord? lh
Re: [Repeater-Builder] crimping assistance please
The die size is actually specific to the connector, but in my experience .215 (.213 on some crimpers) is the one you will use for the braid crimp on most RG-58 connectors. The smaller sizes is for crimping the center pin. This one really depends on the specific connector, but generally the .068 is for TNC, BNC and N center pin crimps. lh On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:51 PM, hitekgearhead hitekgearh...@hotmail.comwrote: I know this has been thrown around a bit before but I could use a little assistance. I just purchased a crimper and a couple sets of dies. I bought some cheap BNC and TNC connectors to practice with along with some RG-58A/U cable. I bought 3 different sets of dies. One of which is for RG-8 size connectors so I am not really concerned with that yet. The other two dies have hex crimp sizes of .324, .255, .215, .100, .068 and .215, .184, .068, .042 Obviously these two dies duplicate the .215 and .068 sizes. Basically I am not sure what size hex to use for the above stated RG-58A/U and BNC and TNC connectors. Also, I have a question regarding stripping the cable. I am not going to be doing high volumes of cables, but probably will be doing them on different size of coax. Would you recommend a stripper or will a razor knife suffice. Lastly, and relating to the coax strippers: Don't different connectors, even on the same type/size of coax, need different stripping lengths? This would probably translate into quite a few different strippers for different cables and connectors, no? Thanks Albert
Re: [Repeater-Builder] crimping assistance please
What is the reason for soldering instead of crimping? lh On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com wrote: Not from what I've seen/read. Tin/lead and even the newer RoHS-compliant solders don't have ferrous components which is one of the biggest PIM concerns. Besides, just about every device in the RF path has some solder somewhere (cavity loops, integral connectors on equipment, heck even the antenna for most collinears). Suggested reading: http://www.amphenolrf.com/simple/PIM%20Paper.pdf http://www.sinctech.com/pdfs/Intermod.pdf http://www.imscs.com/passive-intermodulation.html I've been considering buying a PIM tester (Boonton PIM 20). If/when I do I guess I could give you my personal conclusion on the matter, but for now, all I have to go by is what I read... Later gator. You going to Dayton? --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of allan crites Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 11:27 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] crimping assistance please Jeff Doesn't soldering of the center contact to the center conductor affect the connector PIM adversely vs not soldering? AC No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/12/10 02:32:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slightly OT: How are folks taking audio from multiple mobile radios and outputting them to one speaker?
Look at the gear at: www.ncsradio.com lh On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Folks, I am wondering what people are doing these days with multiple two-way radios and scanners in their vehicle and then outputting it to one speaker in the vehicle? How are they isolating each radio? Thanks, Mike
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: opinions for a public safety repeater
The digital side is Kenwood Nextedge, is it not? Does this mean that only Kenwood mobiles can be used? lh On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Jed Barton j...@jedbarton.com wrote: hmmm, tell me more about that one. Is that the combination analog / digital? Did the tkr750 go away? -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maire-Radios Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:22 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: opinions for a public safety repeater also there is the NXR-710 that replaces the TKR-750 - Original Message - From: Maire-Radios mailto:maire-rad...@verizon.netmaire-radios%40verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: opinions for a public safety repeater look at the new version of the TKR-740 the NXR-700 repeater it is the way to go and get the ver 2 software. John 727-441-3250 - Original Message - From: skipp025 mailto:skipp...@yahoo.com skipp025%40yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 8:37 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: opinions for a public safety repeater Jed Barton j...@... wrote: Hey guys, Need some input here. I'm putting together a public safety repeater for my local FD. It's going to be really simple. Given the reliability factor, we're going with a Kenwood. Here's the million dollar question, i need some input. How about a kenwood tkr750 or a tkr740. I've run several 750s with great results. I have not played with the 740, but i know it has an amazing receiver, but yet only pushes a few watts. Any suggestions for a good amp, perhaps Cresend i think it is. Thanks, Jed Hi Jed, The Kenwood TKR-750 and TKR-740 are both great Repeaters. The TKR-750 also has an amazing receiver. Proper setup of the receiver should normally include the front end pre-selector alignment using a special coax cable jig assembly and a tracking generator properly configured and installed onto the PC-Board matching input and RF sample port/jack. Most people and Dealers tend to do the more casual peak for max signal method, which results in very usable but not the absolute best sensitivity and performance. I'm very much amazed how many repeaters we service with rather odd looking (on the test equipment) tweak and peak front end alignment(s). So be sure to ask any Dealer what and how they prepare your equipment before they send it to you. The TKR-750 is more of a self contained ready to use repeater with a lot of built in features. Very popular for operations toward the 50 watt power level. The TKR-740 is more of system repeater meaning... how many owners often use them with external Power Amplifiers and Controllers. The TKR-740 has much less power output and normal operation assumed by most people is to include an external RF Power Amplifier. If you need to bark higher than a 50 watt signal onto the air the most popular method is to include (and use) an external RF Amplifier. You can save quite a bit of serious money by using the same external amplifier configuration with a TKR-750 Repeater and a higher drive (input) level External Amplifier. There's nothing in stone about driving an external high power RF Amplifier at the 25 to 50 watt level compared to spending a lot more money on a low drive level amplifier. TPL, Cresend and TE can and will sell you higher drive amplifiers for much less money and you end up with pretty much the same end product. In the hopefully rare case where an external amplifier might fail, continued repeater operation at the 25-50 watt power level is quite usable versus the very low power output of the 740 repeater. There can be different advantages to using the TKR-750 or the TKR-740 Repeater. cheers, skipp skipp025 at yahoo.com www.radiowrench.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Antenna for 2m Repeater Question
*Before writing this off do a return loss analysis of the antenna. In my experience I have found that often the antenna will **cover a broader frequency range that the spec says.* ** lh On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:13 AM, David Jordan wa3...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Folks, Our club has been given permission to use one of the Public Safety antennas for our 2m repeater. The antenna is a PD-220-3A 150.5-158.5MHz. Our repeater freq. is 146.745. The antenna is fed with some nice looking Cell Flex LCF-12-50 ju, hard-line. The PD-200 is one of those totally enclosed fiberglass antennas; we don’t have funds to pay for a climb to take down or replace or tweak. Have two questions: We think we can live with the power loss if we build a coupler to match the inevitable high SWR. Can someone point us to a formula to estimate/calculate both the projected SWR and power loss, etc? WAGs R fine too. Is anyone aware of any 2m coupler projects that might work for this scenario? Our current repeater antenna is in the attic of one of our members garage at 25ft ASL…this antenna would be 425ft ASL…so even with losses we expect significantly better performance. 73, Dave WA3GIN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola MSR2000
Randy, I believe I have a MSR2000 service manual at work. I seem to remember converting a base station to a repeater many years ago. What info are you looking for? lh On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Rick wb9...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I HAVE SOME. WILL CONTACT you later tronight -- From: slrfbennett slrfbenn...@peoplepc.com Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 5:49 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola MSR2000 Looking for information concerning a Motorola TRN5068A squelch and audio board. Randy Bennett w4...@arrl.net W4RFB%40arrl.net WTARS Equipment Manager Reply to sender slrfbenn...@peoplepc.com?subject=motorola+msr2000 | Reply to group repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com?subject=motorola+msr2000 | Reply via web posthttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwNDJwcXRsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTg5ODAEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjY5MDY4ODc1?act=replymessageNum=98980| Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdWtoYTR2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjY5MDY4ODc1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/message/98980;_ylc=X3oDMTM1bWdqYnVvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTg5ODAEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQ [The entire original message is not included]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: [rfamplifiers] Return Loss Bridge Kit
Don, I cannot speak to the Amtronix, but I use an Eagle RLB150 and can say without reservation that it is an excellent product. I use almost daily for tuning various types of cavities. In fact if you buy an Aeroflex (formerly IFR) radio test set, and order the RLB option what you get is an Eagle. lh On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Don Kupferschmidt dkupf...@sbcglobal.netwrote: It would be nice if *someone or many* on the list would be nice to respond to this. There were other discussions in the past about the RLB, but know one ever responded. I'm hoping that others looking on can gain an education. Thanks, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - *From:* Don Kupferschmidt dkupf...@sbcglobal.net *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:58 PM *Subject:* Fw: [rfamplifiers] Return Loss Bridge Kit Cross posted to rb list. - Original Message - *From:* Don Kupferschmidt dkupf...@sbcglobal.net *To:* rfamplifi...@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:57 PM *Subject:* Re: [rfamplifiers] Return Loss Bridge Kit Jeff Skipp, There's an EBAY auction right now selling Eagle RF return loss bridges for $489.00. Here's the link: http://cgi.ebay.com/EAGLE-RLB150X3-RETURN-LOSS-BRIDGE-5MHZ-1300MHZ_W0QQitemZ380211935016QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBI_Analyzers?hash=item588665b728 You know the old saying, you get what you pay for. Just wondering how the Eagle brand stacks up against the one that Amtronix is selling. Also, are there other comparable units out there for less money? Maybe the list members will chime in with ideas. 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - *From:* skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com *To:* rfamplifi...@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:18 AM *Subject:* [rfamplifiers] Return Loss Bridge Kit Group Member Jeff posted this at another location and the info is well worth sharing here. Amtronix (a Test Equipment Repair Facility near Buffalo, NY) is offering a kit form Return Loss Bridge. http://www.amtronix.com/rlb.htm ... and you'll notice the source/reference article/web page. http://www.wetterlin.org/sam/Reflection/Bridge_BalunPlusBeads.pdf I think this is a pretty neat idea/kit. cheers, skipp
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amphenol Connex RF connectors
Well that gives me some comfort. I have been using H+S for many years and find them to be excellent as well as their feedlines. But I have been having some trouble getting H+S since they pulled out of Canukistan 5 years ago. Thanks for the opinion. lh On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com wrote: Anyone care to comment on the quality of the Amphenol Connex line of RF connectors? They have a pretty good price point, but only if they aren't junk. lh It is my understanding that Connex was started as a division of Amphenol after some kind of a buy-out of another manufacturer that mostly manufacturered overseas. Amphenol's strategy was to keep Connex as a RF-connectors-only subsidiary, and leverage the reduce costs of off-shore manufacturing, selling the resulting products under the Connex name rather than replacing existing products in the Amphenol product line (which extends way behind just RF connectors). I was reluctant to buy any of the Connex connectors when they first showed up, but I've bought a bunch (maybe 20 or 30) adapters and a few dozen N and BNC connectors and the quality is good. I'd say they're a step up from Amphenol's RFX product line, which had been their lower-budget line they came out with maybe 15 years or so ago to compete with some of the lower-cost manufacturers' products. While I mainly buy RF Industries connectors for run-of-the-mill applications and Huber+Suhner, Delta, and Kings for more mission-critical stuff, I wouldn't hesitate to use Connex based on what I've seen thus far. There are other manufacturers that I purposely avoid... --- - Jeff WN3A
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amphenol Connex RF connectors
But I am led to believe that the Connex line may not be a purebred. There is certainly a remarkable price difference between those labeled Amphenol Connex and one labeled Amphenol. lh On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:41 PM, James Cicirello ka2...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO Amphenol Connectors are hard to beat and I personally do not know of any better. Especially when it comes to adapters they will outlast the cheapies many times over. Even when they discolor because of years of service, they still work good. Having said that I shop economy because of ham use, but it depends on where I put the connectors that makes me choose the quality. If you are going to hire a climber to put up an antenna you want the best connector or adapter in the air and again I believe that would be Amphenol. Good Luck JIM KA2AJH On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, la88y llhorl...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone care to comment on the quality of the Amphenol Connex line of RF connectors? They have a pretty good price point, but only if they aren't junk. lh -- Jim Cicirello 181 Stevens Street Wellsville, N.Y. 14895 (585)593-4655
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amphenol Connex RF connectors
Bill, Are you familiar with Huber+Suhner? lh On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Bill Smith brsc...@yahoo.com wrote: The Connex line is the cheapie line. It's still better than the real cheap imported crap, but as the price indicates, nowhere near the quality of the main mil-spec products. That said, I use quite a bit of the Connex stuff unless it's a critical application. You do get what you pay for. Bill KB1MGH -- *From:* James Cicirello ka2...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tue, March 9, 2010 11:41:55 AM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amphenol Connex RF connectors IMHO Amphenol Connectors are hard to beat and I personally do not know of any better. Especially when it comes to adapters they will outlast the cheapies many times over. Even when they discolor because of years of service, they still work good. Having said that I shop economy because of ham use, but it depends on where I put the connectors that makes me choose the quality. If you are going to hire a climber to put up an antenna you want the best connector or adapter in the air and again I believe that would be Amphenol. Good Luck JIM KA2AJH On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, la88y llhorl...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone care to comment on the quality of the Amphenol Connex line of RF connectors? They have a pretty good price point, but only if they aren't junk. lh -- Jim Cicirello 181 Stevens Street Wellsville, N.Y. 14895 (585)593-4655 The Connex line is their cheapy
Re: [Repeater-Builder] New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder
So the give away here was the word TYPE, which by its presence, negated any comfort that one could derive from concurrent use of the term MIL-SPEC? On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Yes. In fact, only those manufacturers who are listed in the QPL (Qualified Products List) as making approved cable that meets the specification are allowed to mark it in such a way as to lead the buyer to assume that the cable is genuine Military Specification cable. Any cable that does not meet the applicable specification must have the word TYPE following the part number. Of course, the makers of counterfeit cable are depending upon the ignorance and/or naïveté of potential buyers, who perhaps may be clueless about coaxial cable quality variations. A case in point: Several years ago, a local Ham who is known for pinching pennies (aren't we all?) spread the word that he had found a source for Genuine MIL-SPEC RG-213/U Coaxial Cable for an incredibly low price, if bought in 1,000 foot spools. I challenged him to prove that it really was genuine Mil-Spec cable, and he showed me a sample of the cable on which was printed MIL-C-17 RG-213/U TYPE without any manufacturer's name or CAGE code. I stripped off some jacket and noted that the shield braid was minimal, and coverage was probably less than 40%- the dielectric was visible through the gaps in the braid. I told him that he had been scammed, and he said Look right here, it is stamped MIL-C-17 RG-213/U TYPE, and that means it is genuine Mil-Spec cable! Yeah, as comedian Ron White often says, you can't fix stupid! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 5:02 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder So does that mean that in order for a cable to be labeled RG-223 it must meet this mil-spec? On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com wrote: Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Repeater-Builder group. File : /Coaxial Cable Specifications/MIL-C-17_84B RG-223 Cable.pdf Uploaded by : wb6fly wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net mailto:wb6fly%40verizon.net wb6fly%2540verizon.net Description : MIL-C-17_RG-223 Cable You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Coaxial%20Cable%20Speci fications/MIL-C-17_84B%20RG-223%20Cable.pdf http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Coaxial%20Cable%20Spec ifications/MIL-C-17_84B%20RG-223%20Cable.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlf iles http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.html files Regards, wb6fly wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net mailto: wb6fly%40verizon.net wb6fly%2540verizon.net
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable
Eric, Most duplexers and multi-couplers that I have come across are from either Rx/Tx or Sinclair and all use the RG-214 with copper rather than silver plated conductors. You would think that if the difference was significant those guys would use the better of the two. Someone had suggested that small diameter LDF or FSJ be used as interconnecting cables for duplexers, multi-couplers and the like, but doesn't the weakest link in the chain principle apply? In other words, if even one piece of crap cable is used isn't it just as well as it all be crap-cable? Your comments about the RG-142 are interesting. I use a short jumper as a rotation loop because it IS so flexible and tolerant to low temps. But this is for HF so maybe the dandruff issue isn't as important? Thanks for chiming in on this. Interesting stuff! lh On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Larry, Real RG-214/U is genuine military specification cable, while un-real RG-214 is ersatz, make-believe crap that fails to meet many or all of the Mil-Spec requirements. Although such cable is supposed to have the work TYPE following the part number, there are dishonest vendors who omit that word and hope that the buyers are too focused on price to know that they're buying junk. That said, I will admit that some reputable cable manufacturers do offer a line of RG-214/U TYPE cable that is double-shielded with tinned or bare copper braids and center conductor, rather than silver-plated braids and silver-plated center conductor. Naturally, this cable costs much less than the silver-plated variety. I would never shop for cable based solely on price, but many people do. RG-142/U coaxial cable is good stuff, provided it will not be flexed after installation. RG-142/U is identical to RG-400/U, except that the former has a silver-plated solid steel center conductor, while the latter has a silver-plated stranded copper center conductor. I have attached the Military Specification for RG-214/U cable as an example. It is also posted in the Files section of this Group. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 3:25 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable What is the difference between real and un-real RG214? And what is the problem with RG-142? lh On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, NORM KNAPP nkn...@twowayradio.netnknapp%40twowayradio.net mailto:nkn...@twowayradio.net nknapp%40twowayradio.net wrote: Those are usually the preferred types of cables. You should have no problems with either of those. I prefer REAL RG214/U., but RG400/U, RG393 or RG223/U will work. Avoid RG-142 and RG-9/U. Superflex is also a good choice. Don't even think about any LMR type or similar. N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun Mar 07 16:54:30 2010 Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable Any problems with RG-214 or RG223 for duplexers/multi-couplers/combiners? lh On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Dan Saputo dan17...@yahoo.comdan173mi%40yahoo.com mailto:dan173mi%40yahoo.com dan173mi%2540yahoo.com mailto: dan17...@yahoo.com dan173mi%40yahoo.com mailto:dan173mi%40yahoo.com dan173mi%2540yahoo.com wrote: well-documented and caused mainly by the use of foil shielding as in the lmr series. gets worse as cable ages and internal braid-foil contact degrades. Although not as big of a problem with lmr due to an insulating layer over the actual foil. beware of belden 9913 and lmr look-alikes. trouble when used duplex. Dan k8plw --- On Sun, 3/7/10, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.comwb2edv%40roadrunner.com mailto:wb2edv%40roadrunner.com wb2edv%2540roadrunner.com mailto: wb2...@roadrunner.com wb2edv%40roadrunner.com mailto:wb2edv%40roadrunner.com wb2edv%2540roadrunner.com wrote: From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com wb2edv%40roadrunner.com mailto:wb2edv%40roadrunner.com wb2edv%2540roadrunner.com mailto: wb2...@roadrunner.com wb2edv%40roadrunner.com mailto:wb2edv%40roadrunner.com wb2edv%2540roadrunner.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Icom OPC-617 Interconnect Cable
Try ebay. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:21 AM, m0hbk m0...@yahoo.com wrote: Does anyone know where I can source a couple of OPC-617 interconnect cables? Is Preston Moore still selling them? I have contacted him at www.prestonmoore.com without success. Any other sources? Thanks! 73, Carlos m0hbk
[Repeater-Builder] RG designations
Anyone want to take a stab at this, or point me to a good primer on this topic? The datasheet for Belden 88240 gives it an RG58A/U designation even though it OD is .159. Most RG-58s are .195. I have always thought that even though the materials may differ at least the cable sizes and connector compatability were consistent within an RG type...amongst reputable manufacturers, anyway. Such appears not to be the case. What's the scoop? lh
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RG designations
Interresting, Eric. I never realized that everything RGXX /RGXX TYPE wasn't the same. Thanks. lh On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Larry, Go to the Belden home site and look at the coaxial cable catalog. Belden 88240 is an RG-58A/U TYPE cable which is plenum-rated and has FEP dielectric and jacket- nothing at all similar to genuine MIL-Spec RG-58A/U cable. You can compare Belden 88240 to the genuine RG-58 datasheet in the Files section of the Repeater-Builder group, along with several other cables. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] RG designations Anyone want to take a stab at this, or point me to a good primer on this topic? The datasheet for Belden 88240 gives it an RG58A/U designation even though it OD is .159. Most RG-58s are .195. I have always thought that even though the materials may differ at least the cable sizes and connector compatability were consistent within an RG type...amongst reputable manufacturers, anyway. Such appears not to be the case. What's the scoop? lh
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable
Any problems with RG-214 or RG223 for duplexers/multi-couplers/combiners? lh On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Dan Saputo dan17...@yahoo.com wrote: well-documented and caused mainly by the use of foil shielding as in the lmr series. gets worse as cable ages and internal braid-foil contact degrades. Although not as big of a problem with lmr due to an insulating layer over the actual foil. beware of belden 9913 and lmr look-alikes. trouble when used duplex. Dan k8plw --- On *Sun, 3/7/10, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com* wrote: From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 4:56 PM Passive Intermod. In other words, it tends to be a source in which intermod can be generated easily. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: rffun radio...@her. forthnet. grhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=radiocom%40her.forthnet.gr To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 3:33 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable LMR and similar cables are not rated for low PIM What exactly do you mean by PIM ? rffun --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@. .. wrote: Indeed. I'll read the archives. Thanks. 73 On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... wrote: The subject comes up on this list about every other week. I can only assume you are new. LMR and similar cables are not rated for low PIM, a fact verified by the manufacturer. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Larry Horlick llhorl...@. .. *To:* Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:49 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Stock Power Supplies I've never heard of it. As an installer, I'm always under pressure to use less expensive feedlines than the venerable Heliax, and I had often considered LMR, but never actually succumbed to the temptation. This is interesting information. Is this a well documented phenomenon? Anyone else like to chime in on this... Larry - - -- Yahoo! Groups Links - - - - - - No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2728 - Release Date: 03/07/10 02:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable
What is the difference between real and un-real RG214? And what is the problem with RG-142? lh On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, NORM KNAPP nkn...@twowayradio.net wrote: Those are usually the preferred types of cables. You should have no problems with either of those. I prefer REAL RG214/U., but RG400/U, RG393 or RG223/U will work. Avoid RG-142 and RG-9/U. Superflex is also a good choice. Don't even think about any LMR type or similar. N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun Mar 07 16:54:30 2010 Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable Any problems with RG-214 or RG223 for duplexers/multi-couplers/combiners? lh On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Dan Saputo dan17...@yahoo.comdan173mi%40yahoo.commailto: dan17...@yahoo.com dan173mi%40yahoo.com wrote: well-documented and caused mainly by the use of foil shielding as in the lmr series. gets worse as cable ages and internal braid-foil contact degrades. Although not as big of a problem with lmr due to an insulating layer over the actual foil. beware of belden 9913 and lmr look-alikes. trouble when used duplex. Dan k8plw --- On Sun, 3/7/10, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.comwb2edv%40roadrunner.commailto: wb2...@roadrunner.com wb2edv%40roadrunner.com wrote: From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com wb2edv%40roadrunner.commailto: wb2...@roadrunner.com wb2edv%40roadrunner.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.commailto: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 4:56 PM Passive Intermod. In other words, it tends to be a source in which intermod can be generated easily. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: rffun radio...@her. forthnet. gr http://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=radiocom%40her.forthnet.gr To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com http://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 3:33 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable LMR and similar cables are not rated for low PIM What exactly do you mean by PIM ? rffun --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com http://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Larry Horlick llhorl...@. .. wrote: Indeed. I'll read the archives. Thanks. 73 On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... wrote: The subject comes up on this list about every other week. I can only assume you are new. LMR and similar cables are not rated for low PIM, a fact verified by the manufacturer. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Larry Horlick llhorl...@. .. *To:* Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com http://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:49 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Stock Power Supplies I've never heard of it. As an installer, I'm always under pressure to use less expensive feedlines than the venerable Heliax, and I had often considered LMR, but never actually succumbed to the temptation. This is interesting information. Is this a well documented phenomenon? Anyone else like to chime in on this... Larry - - -- Yahoo! Groups Links - - - - - - No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2728 - Release Date: 03/07/10 02:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable
So in a duplex application, if the supply of the better cable is limited, it's better to use it on the rx side? On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Dan Saputo dan17...@yahoo.com wrote: Real as it refers to the original military-spec'd construction of the cable. Type meaning similar to original spec but likely not exact. common differences in Type cable might be tinned vs. silver plated conductors, dialectric material etc. Spec RG-142 has a silver-plated steel center conductor. repeated flexing can cause the thin plating to fracture off creating duplex noise. i've personally not had this problem but it is a documented issue. Dan k8plw --- On *Sun, 3/7/10, Larry Horlick llhorl...@gmail.com* wrote: From: Larry Horlick llhorl...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 6:24 PM What is the difference between real and un-real RG214? And what is the problem with RG-142? lh On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, NORM KNAPP nkn...@twowayradio. nethttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nkn...@twowayradio.net wrote: Those are usually the preferred types of cables. You should have no problems with either of those. I prefer REAL RG214/U., but RG400/U, RG393 or RG223/U will work. Avoid RG-142 and RG-9/U. Superflex is also a good choice. Don't even think about any LMR type or similar. N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun Mar 07 16:54:30 2010 Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable Any problems with RG-214 or RG223 for duplexers/multi- couplers/ combiners? lh On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Dan Saputo dan17...@yahoo. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dan173mi%40yahoo.commailto:dan17...@yahoo. com http://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dan173mi%40yahoo.com wrote: well-documented and caused mainly by the use of foil shielding as in the lmr series. gets worse as cable ages and internal braid-foil contact degrades. Although not as big of a problem with lmr due to an insulating layer over the actual foil. beware of belden 9913 and lmr look-alikes. trouble when used duplex. Dan k8plw --- On Sun, 3/7/10, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wb2edv%40roadrunner.commailto:wb2...@roadrunner. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wb2edv%40roadrunner.com wrote: From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wb2edv%40roadrunner.commailto:wb2...@roadrunner. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wb2edv%40roadrunner.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.commailto:Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 4:56 PM Passive Intermod. In other words, it tends to be a source in which intermod can be generated easily. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: rffun radio...@her. forthnet. gr http://us.mc560. mail.yahoo. com/mc/compose? to=radiocom% 40her.forthnet. grhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=radiocom%40her.forthnet.gr To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com http://us.mc560. mail.yahoo. com/mc/compose? to=Repeater- Builder%40yahoog roups.comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 3:33 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable LMR and similar cables are not rated for low PIM What exactly do you mean by PIM ? rffun --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com http://us.mc560. mail.yahoo. com/mc/compose? to=Repeater- Builder%40yahoog roups.comhttp://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Larry Horlick llhorl...@. .. wrote: Indeed. I'll read the archives. Thanks. 73 On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... wrote: The subject comes up on this list about every other week. I can only assume you are new. LMR and similar cables are not rated for low PIM, a fact verified by the manufacturer. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Larry Horlick llhorl...@. .. *To:* Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com http://us.mc560. mail.yahoo. com/mc/compose? to=Repeater- Builder%40yahoog roups.comhttp
Re: [Repeater-Builder] New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder
So does that mean that in order for a cable to be labeled RG-223 it must meet this mil-spec? On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Repeater-Builder group. File : /Coaxial Cable Specifications/MIL-C-17_84B RG-223 Cable.pdf Uploaded by : wb6fly wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net Description : MIL-C-17_RG-223 Cable You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Coaxial%20Cable%20Specifications/MIL-C-17_84B%20RG-223%20Cable.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles Regards, wb6fly wb6...@verizon.net wb6fly%40verizon.net
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Interference
The 2m repeater and FM transmitter are at the same site? lh On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Leroy A. M. Baptiste leroybapti...@spiceisle.com wrote: Hello all, I am having some interference problems, it is coming from an FM transmitter on 94.500MHz, and getting into the Amateur Radio repeater’s receiver on 146.1600MHz. It is not there all the time, but when the repeater is keyed up, you can hear it getting in. The 2 Meter repeater is fed with heliax cable from the duplexer to the antenna, the transmission line on the FM station is ordinary coaxial cable, the power output is about 300 Watts, any ideas? Leroy. J39AI
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Interference
Is it IMD, though? Could it be in the audio chain? Leroy, did you troubleshoot from this angle? On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Leroy A. M. Baptiste leroybapti...@spiceisle.com wrote: Yes, they are. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:36 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Interference The 2m repeater and FM transmitter are at the same site? lh On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Leroy A. M. Baptiste leroybapti...@spiceisle.com leroybaptiste%40spiceisle.com mailto:leroybapti...@spiceisle.com leroybaptiste%40spiceisle.com wrote: Hello all, I am having some interference problems, it is coming from an FM transmitter on 94.500MHz, and getting into the Amateur Radio repeater's receiver on 146.1600MHz. It is not there all the time, but when the repeater is keyed up, you can hear it getting in. The 2 Meter repeater is fed with heliax cable from the duplexer to the antenna, the transmission line on the FM station is ordinary coaxial cable, the power output is about 300 Watts, any ideas? Leroy. J39AI
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Hamtronics versus Commercial (Kenwood) Repeater Selection
How would you stack a Kenwood TKR against a Motorola R1225? On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: Skipp, I agree with nearly every point you made, having had experience with both the Kenwood and Hamtronics repeaters. However, Hamtronics and similar repeaters have one serious deficiency: A total lack of PA protection against high SWR due to antenna or feedline problems. In addition, the Hamtronics PAs have no active power control circuitry; if the supply voltage goes up, the output power goes up, and vice-versa. The Kenwood TKR-x50 repeaters, on the other hand, have both active power control and high SWR protection built-in. I have a Hamtronics REP-200 repeater in service right now on 224.500 MHz, and I took the precaution of hanging a single ferrite isolator on its TX output to protect the very simple 15 watt PA. So far, so good... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of skipp025 Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:35 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Hamtronics versus Commercial (Kenwood) Repeater Selection A Hamtronics versus a Kenwood Repeater... If you are considering purchasing the Hamtronics REP-200 repeater, I would spend my money on a Kenwood TKR750/850 series repeater. They are about the same price, but the Kenwood is a much better built piece of equipment and has a decent built-in controller for basic operation. As a huge and long time fan of Hamtronics gear and of course a full Kenwood Dealer and Service Station... I have to say I'm in a corner regarding the above statements... Both complete Repeaters are in the same price range and of course the Kenwood is a commercial quality/spec unit. But the Hamtronics unit is also quite usable, has more desired Amateur Radio Operational features (because of the internal controller). The Hamtronics Repeater in basic form is lower in transmit power output and the chassis is not as rugged (thick metal chassis parts). But there's nothing wrong with the supplied chassis of the Hamtronics Repeater if you buy the pre-made complete repeater versus installing transmit and receive modules in your own box of your selected size and material(s). Unless you install an additional external repeater controller onto the Kenwood Repeater... you don't get an Auto-patch (telephone interconnect), the ability to command CTCSS (PL) and Carrier Squelch operation on/off and a number of other bells and whistles you could research by inventorying the feature set page of the Hamtronics Repeater Controller Manual (on their web page). If you were looking to buy just the individual pieces from Hamtronics and put your own repeater chassis together, I would prefer to use just about any commercial equipment instead of those pieces. ... which shows a fairly obvious bias against Hamtronics Equipment for what-ever reason good or bad. There's nothing wrong with current Hamtronics, Hi-Pro and similar products if you understand what you get when you buy them. They tend to be very decent performers and in the case of the Hamtronics unit... probably also FCC Type Accepted. I am not sure what features you are looking for in the controller but there is a large amount of support available in the amateur community for Arcom, NHRC, CAT, ICS, and Link-Comm controllers. The Pacific Research Controller does not seem to be used much in our area but it looks like it will do most things a person would need. So will the Hamtronics COR-5 Repeater Controller Good luck with your project. I suspect the selection of radio products would obviously come down to motivation and money. If you bought a ready to rock-and-roll Kenwood TKR-850 Repeater (from me :-) you'd be pretty much in a plug play situation once you had a duplexer antenna scheme in place. You could then or later install an external repeater controller onto the TKR-850 if you needed additional operational features not available with the stock TKR-850 repeater controller. If you were interested in a converted surplus radio package, you could save a bit of money and probably have to get more into the technical details of the equipment while trying to get it on the air. There are also a fairly large number of usable repeaters made from surplus Mobile Radios connected back to back with basic logic and audio cables. You could also go with a more modular and hand constructed Hamtronics, Hi-Pro Modular type of repeater project, which is a favorite topic of mine. You will learn a lot more about both repeater and radio operation if you construct your own repeater. There is a serious glut of cheap, high quality surplus radio gear available at flea markets and Ebay...
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Stock Power Supplies
What's the rationale behind the LMR ban? Leakage? lh On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Kevin Custer kug...@kuggie.com wrote: You wrote: Switchers -as a class- are more efficient and reliable than linear supplies. As a Class... More efficient - yes, More reliable - that's debatable. In the two-way radio world, linear supplies are the rule, switchers are the exception. In 25 or 30 years, we'll see if switchers are 'really' as reliable. In my experience with switchers (as a class), they are hard on filter capacitors, with failures of them way before the normal 'dry out' time - many times in just a few years. There are a few tower management companies that I know of that won't let you install a switcher because of the possibility of interference. The same companies also do not let anyone install LMR coax onto the site. I'll be interested to see the results too, Bob. Kevin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Stock Power Supplies
I've never heard of it. As an installer, I'm always under pressure to use less expensive feedlines than the venerable Heliax, and I had often considered LMR, but never actually succumbed to the temptation. This is interesting information. Is this a well documented phenomenon? Anyone else like to chime in on this... Larry On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ralph Mowery ku...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On *Sun, 2/28/10, Larry Horlick llhorl...@gmail.com* wrote: From: Larry Horlick llhorl...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Stock Power Supplies To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 7:26 PM What's the rationale behind the LMR ban? Leakage? The LMR type coax is fine for a while. Then the braid and foil start rubbing against each other and you get noise in the receiver and maybe other close in receivers.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR Cable
Indeed. I'll read the archives. Thanks. 73 On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com wrote: The subject comes up on this list about every other week. I can only assume you are new. LMR and similar cables are not rated for low PIM, a fact verified by the manufacturer. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Larry Horlick llhorl...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:49 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Stock Power Supplies I've never heard of it. As an installer, I'm always under pressure to use less expensive feedlines than the venerable Heliax, and I had often considered LMR, but never actually succumbed to the temptation. This is interesting information. Is this a well documented phenomenon? Anyone else like to chime in on this... Larry
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Stock Power Supplies
Andrew has a coaxial cable similar (remarkably similar) to LMR, called CNT. I guess the same cautions apply to this product, too? lh On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.comwrote: Go here: http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/ant-sys-index.html Scroll down to the article titled Recommended Coax and Connectors for the iDEN Enhanced Base Transceiver System. and read it, and the one following it (HELIAX Coaxial Cable for Low Intermodulation Generation. Basically the Time Wire LMR series of cables (that's a LMR followed by any 3 or 4 digit number) are not long-term duplexable feedlines. They have an internal construction that has aluminum foil rubbing against copper braid and the dissimilar metals create desense. Also the center conductor is copper clad aluminum. One of the kickers is that in many cases the noise problem doesn't happen immediately - the cable works fine for a while, then gets noisy, and the cable doesn't get immediate attention - because it's working fine. Mike WA6ILQ At 04:26 PM 02/28/10, you wrote: What's the rationale behind the LMR ban? Leakage? lh On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Kevin Custer kug...@kuggie.com wrote: You wrote: Switchers -as a class- are more efficient and reliable than linear supplies. As a Class... More efficient - yes, More reliable - that's debatable. In the two-way radio world, linear supplies are the rule, switchers are the exception. In 25 or 30 years, we'll see if switchers are 'really' as reliable. In my experience with switchers (as a class), they are hard on filter capacitors, with failures of them way before the normal 'dry out' time - many times in just a few years. There are a few tower management companies that I know of that won't let you install a switcher because of the possibility of interference. The same companies also do not let anyone install LMR coax onto the site. I'll be interested to see the results too, Bob. Kevin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Pair of GM300 as a repeater
Steve, So the reason for turning down the power is for PA protection or RF suppression? lh On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Steve steve.m1...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Hi they work OK but you must turn the tx pwr right down and fit a fan or pa won't last long. It is down to the duplexer finding a unit suitable at the right price will be almost impossible, the 5Mhz split is ok as you can get cheap duplexers from Hong Kong 73 Steve - Original Message - From: la88y llhorl...@gmail.com llhorlick%40gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:46 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Pair of GM300 as a repeater I'm wondering about the suitability of a pair of VHF GM300s as a repeater. Is the shielding sufficient to allow 600 kHz between Rx and Tx? If not, what is the suggested minimum? Same questions for UHF SM50, but with a 5 mHz split? lh Yahoo! Groups Links
