I concur - I would *love* to see a write up with photos (preferrably with arrows and captions pointing out actual issues rather than playing Where's Waldo?) up on the RB site.
Half the battle is encouraging folks to do it right the first time - the easier we, as a community, make it for new and soon-to-be Repeater Builders to "mimick" the proper, correct and respectable way to build, upgrade, repair or maintain their own repeaters, the sooner we'll be able to put these sort of installs behind us and in to the history books as "where we've been, where we are now & where we're going to be in the future." 73, AJ, K6LOR On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Chuck Kelsey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Nate - > > May I suggest that you do a write-up with photos that could be posted on > the > RB site? Maybe "the right way" and "the wrong way" would be helpful for > guys > making installs. And explain why it's done this way, not that way. > > Chuck > WB2EDV > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nate Duehr" <[email protected] <nate%40natetech.com>> > To: <[email protected] <Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 4:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality > > > > > On Tue, 05 May 2009 12:32:57 -0000, "Louis" > > <[email protected]<k1stx%40yahoo.com>> > said: > >> Interesting, this looks like one of those Hams/bash-hams discussions > >> that is not suppose to take place on this forum! > > > > Sometimes you just have to rant when you see something this bad. I > > didn't name names, and I didn't attack any individual. > > > >> Yes, I will agree their are those that cause havoc with a tower site > >> owner, or other lessors, but the number is minor compared to those > >> Amateur Radio installs that are done properly and well maintained. > > > > I hope so. From the "proud papa photos" around the Internet, I'd say > > it's closer to 50/50, but luckily that ratio gets better at commercial > > sites, where my club's gear often lives. > > > <SNIP> > > >
