Bill Powell wrote:
(b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station
to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in
the control link.
snip
Nothing about timeout though.
The 3-minute timeout timer is the accepted means of accomplishing the
above. It
skipp025 wrote:
Hi Jim,
I don't remember seeing the book/manual yet...
Anything anyone sends me gets scanned into pdf files and is made
available to anyone for free.
Scom Bob sent me the Repco vhf and uhf manuals and I've already
sent complete manual scans to Mike (and back to
Nate Duehr wrote:
There's a number of decent options out there along those lines. People
have
been discussing Cresend with reasonably favorable comments, lately here --
for one example. I've seen a few analog public safety systems that are
Kenwood's driving Crescend and/or Vocom (they
Paul Finch wrote:
I just completed a crossband repeater for a
balloon launch built out of Johnson's old HT line of radios. Weighs 10
ounces without batteries, the controller adds about 2 I think.
Paul
WB5IDM
587/589's? I remember them! I remember one customer that had a fleet of
Tim S wrote:
I've been asked to help spec out the new equipment and I've been stuck in a
radio time warp for the last 12 years maintaining these Master II's. So I'm
just looking for some direct experience with the new stuff as far as
reliability and serviceability as well.
It's been
anpap wrote:
Yes, the controller is in the Tait station.
You may be right, it could be a Tone Remote board or
something similar.
Any idea where I can find more infromation about it?
cheers,
Andreas - 5B8AP
It doesn't appear so. The name of the company was Solid-State
skipp025 wrote:
Funny you should mention the tone remote stuff... I just scanned
the SSC 831y tone remote manual into pdf and it's free to anyone
by simply contacting me direct (not through the group) for a copy.
BTW-did you get the ST-822 book OK? I expect to get those boxed and out
the
N9WYS wrote:
Tim,
Now THAT'S a loaded question. hehehehe
Be prepared - now you'll get responses from Motorola fans,
GE/Ericsson/MA-Com/Tyco fans, Kenwood, et al. So now it becomes a
question of: new vs. old equipment; what purpose of usage (commercial
vs. ham); etc. Ad Nauseum
Mark -
mch wrote:
So, it looks like even non-open standards may be used now - INCLUDING
ENCRYPTION! That used to be specifically prohibited.
Joe M.
non-open standards have always been legal. The point is whether you
need a special code or other key to receive it, ie, can the FCC pick up
a radio
Steven Samuel Bosshard (NU5D) wrote:
I remember once upon a time a couple of hams were running RTTY on 2M using a
non-ascii code. Back then the take was that as long as both parties kept a
record of the coding being used and had same readily available for
inspection in their station records
Bryon Jeffers K0BSJ wrote:
Too many acronyms...
Bryon Jeffers KØBSJ
Rgr that!
;cD
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
Steve Bosshard (NU5D) wrote:
Until P25 radios become ham affordable I don't think they will be
mainstream
ham radio. I believe there is still a pretty hefty payment to Moto for use
of the P25 standard, but I may be wrong.
Steve NU5D
Hi, Steve,
I think you're right, but I don't see that
Bob Dengler wrote:
At 4/24/2007 05:17 PM, you wrote:
I don't know. Like any other radio gear it depends on the brand, model,
and how badly the seller wants to sell I guess. Motorola isn't the only
maker offering P25 digital audio capable radios (we'll assume CAI/IMBE
compatible). Icom,
anpap wrote:
Hello all,
Does anyone have a manual or information on an SSC 836AA
repeater controller? It also has the following on the PCB:
T-A2-1761-4 if it makes any difference...
Was this in the Tait station you mentioned? I ask because I think this
is not a repeater controller, but a
mch wrote:
Wrong. If it's not an open protocol, it's not legal in the ham band.
If AOR's is not an open standard, it too would not be legal.
The fact that a unit only works with other like units does not matter.
After all, D-Star only talks with D-Star, and P25 with P25.
Joe M.
So
Bryon Jeffers K0BSJ wrote:
Well I will agree with Nate on this one.. The crazy D-Star will only do
it's AMBE digital and will not pass analog voice...
At least when using a Quantar/Quantro with P25 capability you can set it up
with CAI (Clear Air Interface)/P25 IMBE and it will do either
James wrote:
Bryon Jeffers K0BSJ wrote:
Well I will agree with Nate on this one.. The crazy D-Star will only do
it's AMBE digital and will not pass analog voice...
At least when using a Quantar/Quantro with P25 capability you can set it up
with CAI (Clear Air Interface)/P25 IMBE and it will
Nate Duehr wrote:
Not trying to be a spoil-sport, but since Mototrbo isn't a documented
public protocol doesn't it fall under the encrypted transmission
rules, and wouldn't be allowed in the Amateur bands?
No, because any Mototrbo radio can talk to any other Mototrbo radio set
for the same
nn6j wrote:
Does anyone know about Spectrum Communications? I ordered a receiver
from them over two months ago and have not received it as yet. I call
almost every day to find out the status of the shipment and get nobody
to answer the phone. I leave a message every time I call for Kevin
Jack Taylor wrote:
Along with a custom built repeater project, how about a custom built
basic service monitor? The $1500 and up used/new service monitors are
a necessity for those in the business but for those who only have a
need to tune an occasional radio, a less expensive tool would be
Steve Bosshard (NU5D) wrote:
Cheep Service Monitor - Take a receiver and an oscilloscope and calibrate
the scope to measure transmitter deviation. Then use an inexpensive
frequency counter. For receiver testing find a surplus generator and
use it
with the counter and home made deviation
skipp025 wrote:
Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how are people testing/working on their D-Star systems?
I can't think of a single SM that knows how to do bit-error
rates and/or other AMBE vocoder functions.
The fudge answer is... most people just connect the equipment
and press
William Delbert Ellis wrote:
Howdy, New to this group today.
I am the control operator for two of our ham club repeaters.
A 2m Motorola and 70cm Motorola.
We had them next to each other hard wired linked with antennas on a
very tall commercial
tower in Austin. The UHF antenna was turned to
Eric Lemmon wrote:
I have installed and/or specified several repeater systems at my work, which
has many buildings that are Butler-type, completely metal with very few
perimeter windows. A six-element Yagi antenna is on the roof, pointing to
one of several cell sites. A BDA (Bi-Directional
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/20/2007 6:17:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
writes:
Beware!!! It is a violation of FCC rules to install and operate a BDA
without the permission of the licensee, and this includes cellular!
Many illegally and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sky Command does not do any control on 2 meters. This aspect of the
rules has not changed. What did change is that an auxiliary link can
now be used on 2 meters. This makes it possible to link into a 2 meter
repeater in-band without violating the rules. I think that
Nate Duehr wrote:
On 4/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sky Command does not do any control on 2 meters. This aspect of the
rules has not changed. What did change is that an auxiliary link can
now be used on 2 meters. This makes it possible to link into a 2 meter
repeater
KD5SFA wrote:
'retuned as receiver'..may be that it is tuned elsewhere
and it was just a radio laying around to be used as a
inexpensive receiver...by no means does it imply it is
being used on FRS frequencies.
Jon
Yes it does. There are no mods for FRS radios to put them anywhere other
Paul M Schmitter wrote:
Running it on GMRS. The way I read the rules, a GMRS
repeater can be 50 watts. The frequency of a FRS radio
can be adjusted slightly to fall into the GMRS
frequecies and since it's only for receive there is no
type acceptance issue.
Ok-but I don't know how you did
Bob Linda Smith wrote:
Dear Chuck and everyone else who gave valuable suggestions,
It looks like I, and the club, need to rethink this question. I am very
impressed with some of the new equipment out there and was thinking our
radio is a bit outdated. Also, I was thinking of the space
rtoplus wrote:
My only response on this topic since Kevin doesn't allow rules
discussions.
GMRS is allowed up to 50 watts TPO unless you are operating a small
base station, then the 15 watt rule comes into play. A small base
station operates at 5ppm minimum frequency tolerance and a
Paul M Schmitter wrote:
Ooops. Re-read the rules. It's 15 watts for a fixed
station as long as it's not within 50 miles of Canada.
--- Jim B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention that even with a GMRS license, power
is limited to 5W max?
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
Not for FRS freqs
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Looks like I better program
in some way to keep the weather receiver from hanging my repeater TOT
for hours and hours...
BTW-I determined that the Midland WX radio I have is a WR-300. To
rehash, it does NOT support the 'turn-off code' in SAME, it just
Bill Hudson wrote:
Let me help you a little with this 38 vs. 38A thing.
snip
If you were talking to someone with a 38 on the repeater, and the other
station answers (keys up) during the hang delay, the repeater passes the
audio from the responding station, but drops out after the normal
Paul M Schmitter wrote:
I'm actually working on improving my poor man's
repeater right now.
Basically here's what I've been using during tests:
Vertex FTL-7011 as transmitter
Advanced research preamp
Radio Shack FRS Cat # 21-1811 retuned as receiver(not
very selective)
You DO know that
Jay Urish wrote:
playing devils advocate--
I don't recall seeing the frequencies that this repeater is running.
How do you know what they are?
Paul M Schmitter wrote:
Radio Shack FRS Cat # 21-1811 retuned as receiver(not
very selective)
That tells me.
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
Jay Urish wrote:
Jim..
That is an ASSumption.
How do you know that that radio won't drop into the ham band?
Because it's an FRS radio-channels are hard-coded into the controller.
They are ALL like that.
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
Jay Urish wrote:
I think that was the thinking behind the DARC decision to replace the
micor.. You cant go to the corner store and buy parts...
I agree.. They are bullet proof as hell...
Heh-you can't go to the corner store and buy parts for ANYTHING anymore...
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
skipp025 wrote:
Re: Poor Mans Repeater Project anyone?
Would some of you group members be interested in a Poor Mans
Repeater Project as described below?
Back in the 70's I breadboarded a VOX circuit that used a diode voltage
doubler driving a big cap and a NPN transistor keying a small
nj902 wrote:
The Pulsar mobile phone is not a 1969 product, they were produced from
the late 1970's through the 1980's.
That would be a Pulsar II. The first Pulsar goes back to the late 60's,
and was made out of componentry from...I think a Mocom-30 or 35. The one
you're thinking of was
skipp025 wrote:
Re: 2007 IWCE Las Vegas
So the big thing/buzz at the IWCE Las Vegas Convention is narrow
bandwidth digital uhf radios.
Both Motorola and Icom are trying to drive narrow bandwidth hype...
both having working 6KHz radios demos.
Nice idea until you pick up a pair and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim, you may be my last hope. I have an HW-24 talkie and need to change
the encode/decode tone frequency. Most functions are pretty straight
forward, but for the life of me I can't remember how to set the tone
frequency.
If you could enlighten me, I would sure
Mike Morris wrote:
Would either of you two would like to contribute the info to the
Standard page at www.repeater-builder.com ???
What would you want, Mike? About all I have is the basic op's, pretty
much available anywhere I would think.
And not very repeater-related...
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
achowalogen457 wrote:
Gretings,
I may be showing my inexperience, but has anyone ever used the Midland
70-0375c radios to build a repeater. I seem to find this model radio
fairly common and it can be tuned to the 6m band. I'm just not sure
that it would be a good choice for a repeater.
Doug wrote:
I have just about completed setting up the MSR2000 as per the
article by K4HAL and WA6ILQ
and it appears to work just great. I have to interface it to the 7k
and Doug Hall interface and
it will be ready to go. All the cabling is done. The only option
cards left in are
That would be a Pulsar II. The first Pulsar goes back to the late 60's,
and was made out of componentry from...I think a Mocom-30 or 35. The one
you're thinking of was built from a Mocom-70, and the early version of
that, plus the first one were not synthesized, but crystal-plex-two or
I like how so many people did such a great job of exacerbating the
problem exponentially by continuing to post instead of shutting up until
the problem was fixed.
Almost as bad as the people who hear the repeater go into battery
backup, and spend an hour or two talking about it instead of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question for the gurus: I am tuning up and donating an E.F. Johnson
CR1100 repeater to the local Ham Club. They have asked me to install
a talking, chirping, beeping type repeater controller (which they
have offered to buy). I work with basic repeater, one each type
Ken Arck wrote:
At 08:25 AM 3/23/2007, you wrote:
Going back into history... I'm told the original RCA style connector
is one of the better early rf connectors. Heathkit used to drive hams
crazy with it... but it is/was the better animal.
---Everyone from Motorola to GE to Marconi used
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, these things need not triple or even double the price of a new radio,
as some have suggested. An extra pot for CTCSS deviation, decent CTCSS
decoders, higher IP3 front-end amps mixer more front-end filtering
would probably add $50-$100 to the cost of the
Gareth Bennett wrote:
Interestingly we replaced the -750 with a Vertex VXR-9000 repeater
and commissioning tests revealed about 3 dB better sensitivity than
the 750's for 12dB Sinad.
Hmmm-you might check effective sensitivity with the antenna connected,
etc, and see what you get.
---
Jim
Fred Flowers wrote:
Eric,
I understand all that. Any of them will have the shelf, the TX RX,
system module. Beggars can't be choosers. I can get started with about
anything.
Fred
They're not all the same. There have been several different tx and rx
synth modules especially, and the LBI
mch wrote:
OK. Let me approach this from another angle. What is the deviation on
your system that is not the standard 5.0 kHz or so (running 16K0F3E)?
Joe M.
Deviation has nothing to do with it. He was talking about the minimum
channel step resolution, which is a function of the
Oh, and one last comment, most every Amateur Radio potable is unable
to do split Tone PL's. One Tone PL for TX and another Tone PL for RX.
I don't know why that is so. It would just take a little extra code
writing, but what do we expect, It's Amateur Radio Grade Equipment.
Paul
James wrote:
Yes, thank you Jim .. I did say channel steps not spacing. 2.5 Khz channel
step
tends to go with 12.5 KHz channel spacing. 7.5 Khz is a form of ultra narrow
that I have yet to use for anything.
James
If you do anything in the commercial spectrum from about 150 to 175 Mhz,
Most times when we hear or read about the term flat audio... our
attention is normally directed toward the demodulated audio sections
of the repeater hardware. Or at least our attention should normally
be directed at the demodulated audio stages.
When you look at the global repeater
Nate Duehr wrote:
A...
We haven't had a good What kind of audio is it REALLY mini-debate on
the list in quite a while... good to see it again... heh. I agree
with Bob that people keep mixing the term flat with discriminator
and that's just downright confusing to new folks. Some of us
Nate Duehr wrote:
Sure would be nice to see ARRL labs do a shootout of repeater
controllers with tests like this one... they spend days and days (and
page after page) testing out $10,000 HF rigs...
And people wonder why I don't join...
If I could afford to blow $10K on an HF pos rig, I
Eric Lemmon wrote:
Nate,
Several years ago, I chastised ARRL Labs for failing to report the basic
2-way radio performance parameters of 12dB SINAD sensitivity, voice
deviation limit, CTCSS deviation limit, and center frequency accuracy. I
did not get a satisfactory answer, but I suspect
skipp025 wrote:
mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the real world, if someone's radio sounds crappy, it needs
fixed by someone or the radio will get a (well deserved) reputation
as a POS and people need to know to not buy that model.
But an over deviated new radio doesn't sound crappy in
mch wrote:
2.5 kHz channel spacing? Where is that used? It's not in the commercial
USA market. Or did you mean 7.5 kHz?
Joe M.
FWIW-He said channel steps, not spacing.
James wrote:
It even does 2.5 KHz channel steps to
comply with modern narrow band channel planning
--
Jim Barbour
Jeff DePolo wrote:
Real world transmitters always have limiters. Those DO change
flatness.
That keeps throwing me. I hear 'limiter' and I go towards the receiver.
A limiter is a low IF amplifier that is biased to go into saturation
with very little input. This clips off amplitude peaks,
'nj902' wrote:
Real world transmitters always have limiters. Those DO change
flatness.
That keeps throwing me. I hear 'limiter' and I go towards the
receiver.
Jeff DePolo wrote:
Actually, it wasn't me that said Real world transmitters always have
limiters. I know it was just a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This radio is doing LTR Trunking FM Right now .
Steve. KB3FSR
BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Hmmm-I don't think that radio's from around
skipp025 wrote:
which seems rather odd because most of the 220-220 Licenses I've
seen are narrow band acsb type emissions. But I can't see a
reason why nb fm wouldn't work or be allowed. Certainly be more
practical in the commercial radio world than the acsb format.
cheers,
Captainlance wrote:
Anyone have any luck using a 450-470 Micor receiver below 440? I am
considering using them as link receivers. Or, anyone use a 403-420
model in 430-440 use? Lance N2HBA
Yes-I took one down to 438-something years ago, just to try it. (I just
retuned an existing element
Richard wrote:
My opinion is that a repeater should be used a lot, that way it's known to
be reliable in case of emergency use. Plus, as you say, there'll be people
listening.
hmph-the more a repeater is used, the less likely I am to want to listen
to it...
Who wants a radio tied up all day
Kris Kirby wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Eric Lemmon wrote:
talkative. Most of these blabbermouths consider setting the TOT on
their own radios as too restrictive.
Every user radio in my commercial fleet has the TOT set for 30 seconds. In
my mind, that's more than enough time to get any
Daniel M LePage wrote:
I have a Micor repeater that I can not get the CTCSS tone through the
receiver. I can get a good 1Khz tone but when I try and put a CTCSS
tone through the receiver it is broken up.
I did not convert this Micor and it will operate as a repeater with out
a CTCSS tone.
Stephen Reynolds wrote:
On the North Fulton ARS Repeater (145.47) in North Atlanta we have
Fred Flintstone and the End of the Work Day Whistle set for 5PM.
Problem is the clock on the repeater is 10 minutes early so we all
leave work early.
Steve W4CNG
And the problem is
Tim and Janet wrote:
Repeater BuilderWhat is the standard spacing for a VHF antenna side
mounted on rohn 25 tower? I found a page on repeater builder that
showed 1/4-1/2 wavelength with a null behind the tower. I don't want
to mount it any further than 4' from the tower but of course I would
skipp025 wrote:
Well... to sell radios to Amateurs most mfgrs promise the moon and try
to build it into the radio. Most hams use radios in locations where
the excessive gain is desired (ie not on a mountain top). So a user
outside most metro - busy areas really loves the red hot receiver.
Ken Arck wrote:
At 07:23 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
Were about to implement it on a site in Portland and from preliminary
testes it looks good.
---Has a lot of balls, eh?
Ken
Oh, dear...
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
George Henry wrote:
I think Yahoo has been having hiccups the last couple of days... I
see quite a few messages on the Yahoogroups site that I never got in
my email, and other messages have been arriving out of order (replies
before the originals...)
Very weird.
George
Right-they
Bob M. wrote:
Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Groups.
I have read your email and understand that you are
unable to received group messages since Feb. 28. I
appreciate you contacting us and I'll be glad to
assist you on this matter.
As you've noticed, we were experiencing some
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
They will work but the Motorola SM-50 radio works much better and you don't
have to modify the VCO.
What Kenwood radios do you need to modify the VCO on to get them to work
on the ham bands? Every Kenwood commercial rig I've played with since
the 705/805 series has gone
Bob Dengler wrote:
At 2/23/2007 12:50 PM, you wrote:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater applications:
1. Can you say categorically that there is sufficient TX/RX shielding
to prevent any desense at any power level the conversion is capable of
operating?
In my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You laugh, but with the use of Time Division Multiplex it may be
possible to transmit and receive on the same frequency in different
time slots. It may not be that far fetched.
73, Joe, k1ike
Technically, it's not full duplex when you do that. You transmit a
skipp025 wrote:
So would/should we actually call the below problem desense, blocking
or capture of the repeater receiver?
s.
Years ago an upside down repeater in New Mexico on the intertie using
PL access would regularly be de-sensed by one in Texas 300 miles away
in the spring with
skipp025 wrote:
Re: GM300 Repeater with Harris Duplexer
Depends on which Harris Mobile Duplexer you're using. One version
is almost plug and play into the ham bands while another is not
such a great performer when used below say... 452MHz.
Are you using the Black Celwave Flat-pack or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see the same thing even in the big cities - Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Vancouver B.C., etc. As you tune across
2-Meters, 220 and 440 MHz, most Repeaters are quiet, most of the
time. You can often scan the entire band(s) from a clear location and
In a message dated 2/22/2007 11:40:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of active ham repeaters in my area is way, way down in
comparison to levels of 10 years ago. It isn't uncommon to monitor a
repeater frequency and hear no traffic for weeks. Some clubs
Ken Harrison wrote:
Thanks for the recommendation, Don. Though I'm sure a MastrII would
be a great conversion for 220, we (in the group sense) want to try to
save some of our money to get a remote base setup going on our
repeater, too. Our small savings would be wiped out to replace the
Tony L. wrote:
What manufacturers currently have P25 capable repeaters on the market?
Motorola, M/A-Com, EADS, Daniels, EFJ, Tait, maybe Racal. Several others
are reselling Daniels, maybe other brands.
Also, Raytheon has a P25CC controller that is supposed to add P25 to an
existing base, like
Phil wrote:
might take a look at a Quantar if you already have one, or even a
Mastr III can be upgraded (if not already)
Not all of either can be upgraded-only the newer ones. Older Quantars
and MIII's don't have the hardware to accomodate it.
BTW-Kenwood, Icom, Vertex, and Relm are reselling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For Scott:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater applications:
1. Can you say categorically that there is sufficient TX/RX shielding to
prevent any desense at any power level the conversion is capable of
operating?
At
W8MIA wrote:
There is one SMALL problem with your Hypothesis. RF is transmitted by
Electrons. Light is transmitted by Photons. Science has a rather good
handle on Electrons but Photons are still not fully understood!!!
Apples Oranges!!
August
W8MIA
Details, details...
--
Jim Barbour
Gary wrote:
I suggest checking with your local frequency coordination group(s) for
the bands. Linking in the 440Mhz band is generally not acceptible
however the 420-430Mhz portion of the amateur 70cm band is used for
linking in some regions.
Gary
Unless you live near the CDN border, where
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
And as of today we have 3402 members
Mike WA6ILQ
Wow...pretty impressive!
You guys all deserve a lot of congrats for putting this together and
making it the resource it is!
I remember Kevin making comments about how the list just passed 500,
800, then 1000...my
Paul Holm wrote:
Reading the replies that mentioned gain specs, I can't help but think of our
last ham club meeting. An older member persuaded the club to replace the
VHF repeater antenna with a Diamond X500HNA rather than a DB-224 because the
Diamond has 8.3 dB gain.
And even worse is
Gary Schafer wrote:
Measured on their range-they used to be based in Cleveland, and my
father was one of the designers.
(anybody here remember the PRO-27JR 27Mhz antenna? Or the original 4BTV?)
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
With all due respect to your father Jim, I think that 4 db of gain is
Jeff DePolo wrote:
There are a lot of unknown variables here, including, but not limited to the
size of the ground plane the antennas were mounted on, their heights above
the ground plane, the method of coupling to the ground plane (direct, mag
mount, etc.), matching networks' efficiencies,
Jeff DePolo wrote:
Oh, and 'mag mounts' didn't really exist much then...you
either mounted
the antenna in a hole, or you didn't have an antenna.
Ah, the gold old days, when men armed with a drill and Greenlee punch
thought nothing of putting holes in their roofs, fearing not the Wrath of
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
Recently I did some research on the membership statistics for this group.
Here's some interesting info:
snip
1,679 are on No Email - i.e. they read the mail via the YahooGroups
web site and they have locked themselves out of special notices.
That last tidbit is
ocwarren2000 wrote:
I've been watching this topic and cannot recommend the half
wave dipole bay antennas as not really efficient gain wise for what
one gets for the effort..
The Station Master series has been mentioned, which has good
omnidirectional gain, in the order of some
Laryn Lohman wrote:
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Barry C' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I presume its some sort of stacked arrangment , in chich case it
will make
that gain at resonance ,
Yes, the ASPB602 is four stacked dipoles, just like the DB224. My
point again is that
Right-slightly OT, for a mobile antenna, you will find that you can
squeak out a bit more gain by using a .64-wavelength whip instead of a
pure 5/8-wave (.625)
In the late 60's/early 70's, the NewTronics BBL series VHF gain antennas
were rated at an honest 4dB gain-and did it. The A/S VHF
Don wrote:
I have a Friend who always Times out my Repeater and others , Not
that this is a Bad thing, The Repeaters are being used, He has
jokingly wondered why No one or I has sent Him a Time out Award. I
looked on line and found nothing can anyone please let me know of one.
I could
Vincent McKever wrote:
There is a COS point on the main board. A pair of midland radios will
make a great repeater and one will make an easy remote. Much better
that a GE or Motorola. Try it, you'll love it.
Vincent N6OA
Well, I think that is exaggerating a bit, but yeah, they would do
ensemble953039 wrote:
Hi,
from the experiments carried out here in the U.K. on in-band and
cross-band portable and mobile repeaters vertical separation is
nowhere near as good as horizontal.This also offers the chance
to get the recieve antenna in a null from the
1 - 100 of 622 matches
Mail list logo
