[Repeater-Builder] AC Line Conditioner

[Don KA9QJG]

I Would like some input on What some are using for a AC Line Conditioner not a 
UPS ,   For a Repeater site  that may not have the Cleanest AC Coming in .  I 
do have a 50 Amp Astron with the Battery Backup on a Battery. I know that 
should Clean most things up, But I am a little concerned about what’s coming 
in. on the AC, I also have Great grounding and a Poly Phaser on the Antenna 
Side. 

 

Thanks Don 

KA9QJG 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

[Nate Duehr]

Tony L. wrote:
> I own a VX6 and regularly use a local Quantar repeater without any 
> problems.  To the best of my knowledge, the Quantar is stock.

I also know of at least two people using VX-6's through a 
digital-capable (set in dual-mode analog and P25, they're of course 
using analog!) Quantar.  Two Quantars in fact.  Not my Quantar's though.

Something odd is going on there.  That's why I recommended contacting 
both Yaesu *and* Moto... something's fishy.

And there's always other things to consider like... are the received 
signals being phase-shifted by something (lots of reflections/multipath) 
and it's confusing the Reverse Burst squelch-closure mechanism in the 
Quantar?

I forget now, wasn't there some mention of voting and/or Astro modems or 
something?  Maybe I'm mixing this conversation up with another about P25 
I was having...

I haven't ever set up one, but I bet that the RB feature can be turned 
off to find out if it's involved in the problem you're hearing.  And if 
there's "other stuff" on the repeaters, make sure the repeaters are 
working properly all by their little selves without all that stuff 
attached and doing things.

Anyway, that's more ideas that came to mind.

No Quantar's here for me... just another @#^%^#$ unhappy MASTR II VHF PA 
to go deal with... (sigh).  (Wish we could figure out what kills them. 
The thing is driving directly into a dual-stage isolator, it's 
definitely seeing a 50 ohm load and no reflected power...)

I'm sure my "GE friends" would be appalled that I'd love to have a 
Quantar up there to try out... LOL!

Nate WY0X

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

[Tony L.]

I own a VX6 and regularly use a local Quantar repeater without any 
problems.  To the best of my knowledge, the Quantar is stock.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Al Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We recently replaced an aging UHF machine with a Quantar for a 
local ham 
> repeater. Now it seems that some users are not able to key up the 
system. 
> Turns out their radios (all VX6's) have fairly low tone deviation. 
Tests on 
> the Quantar show that it needs at least 300 htz to key it. This seems 
> reasonable to me but the users all say "Well, my radio used to work 
with the 
> old repeater. So fix the new one."
> 
> Is there a way to increase the sensitivity to PL tones in a UHF 
Quantar? 
> Is this desirable?
> 
> Al, K9SI
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[Gerald Pelnar]

Yep,

WD0FYF
Gerald Pelnar
McPherson, Ks
  - Original Message - 
  From: Ron _ 
  To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:32 AM
  Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT


  Don,
  WD prefixes and WD#xxx formats are not reserved for experimental.  It is part 
of the former "novice" block of calls issued in the mid 70's.

  Ron
  WD4RBJ

   



To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:31:01 -0500
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

Don,

This is an "experimental" callsign. The reason I'm familiar with this is I
tried to obtain a "WC9" callsign for my county's EMA Ham Club - that was
also denied since WC and WD prefixes are experimentals. (BTW - we ended up
with W9WIL.)

Which system was he on? SARA, CFMC? I'd be interested in listening to hear
this guy some time... Maybe I'd even query him on his callsign. Hehehehe

Moderator note: Sorry for the OT thread...

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:31 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

I found something interesting and Thought Would share, I heard a 
Ham talking as He was driving through the Chicago Metro area on a
large Repeater System , and when I am near the Computer , I Just
look up the Call to find more info about the person to see If We
might have something in common to talk about 

I looked up His call WD9XAD On http://www.qrz.com/ and 
http://hamcall.net/call nothing Found , Sure looks like a Older Call
and the Person talked like a Ham 

But now days who knows so I went to the FCC Site
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/reports7/ 

Top Search for Call sign Well it came up But NOT A Ham radio call, I
doubt very much if it was the Person with the Non ham lic using it,
But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We get
older, it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old Days
We just took people at their word , But with the Internet I find
things are not always what We think . 

73 De Don KA9QJG 





--
  Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. 
It's easy! Try it!  

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

[Eric Lemmon]

I agree with Joe and Nate.  The Quantar shares audio and data between
modules on a digital SPI bus, and there is no provision for adjusting the
CTCSS sensitivity.  Hello?  This is Motorola's flagship station, and a
high-tier one at that.  Pardon my sarcasm, but we should not lower the bar
to accommodate Amateur-grade equipment!  Is the "group" a bunch of licensed
Hams who believe that the Yaesu VX6 is a top-quality rig?  Okay, okay, the
sarcasm switch is now off.

When the statement was made that the CTCSS deviation from the VX6 portables
seemed to be very low, I hafta wonder if the bandwidth setting of the
service monitor was not set to include the 5-300 Hz bandwidth, rather than
just the voice 300-3000 Hz bandwidth.  Hey, I've made this mistake myself,
so I know it is possible.  When my R2600D service monitor is set for
300-3000 Hz bandwidth (its default), CTCSS deviation looks very anemic.  As
well it should!

I think the Yaesu VX6 radios are sending trashy CTCSS tones, and the Quantar
is properly ignoring them.  That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:26 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

I doubt you would get far with Motorola since the problem is that Yaesu
is not using good engineering practice by not filtering the TX audio to
remove CTCSS components. I would start with Yaesu asking them why not.

Joe M.

Nate Duehr wrote:
> 
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 7:09 AM, Al Wolfe wrote:
> 
> > So the questions remain: Is the Quantar PL sensitivity
> > adjustable? Is it
> > a good thing to make it more sensitive? How do I convince some
> > users that
> > there may be a problem with their radio?
> 
> Not trying to sound sarcastic here at all, just serious...
> 
> Since the Quantar and the VX-6 are both "current product" from both
> Motorola and Yaesu, it would seem that a discussion with both
> regarding the problem would be in order.
> 
> (I know we're all used to using stuff that was "end of life" years
> before we put it on the air, but... this stuff is being sold today,
> and both companies should offer support. Whether or not they'll try
> to CHARGE you for that support in today's stupid support climate, is
> another story.)
> 
> It's a pain, but I would start with a call to Motorola, possibly
> following up (and being prepared ahead of time to send) with screen-
> shots from some test gear of what's coming out of the Yaesu to both
> companies.
> 
> --
> Nate Duehr, WY0X
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Tait 220 equipment

[Nate Duehr]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Doug Bade wrote:

>  Much of it is commercially type accepted as we have a
> commercial band from 216-220 that is populated with LTR users in some
> places..it is not Part 90  but it is a commercial band segment.
> Coastal radio services ( Maritime) and shared with some land mobile
> auction licensees away from the coastal areas...( I am not referring
> to the 220-222 segment using ACSB etc that IS Part 90.)
>
>  TAIT is one of the vendors that supports this market... also
> Kenwood I hear, but I have never seen those particular radios in  
> person...

I've also seen some odd-ball 220 MHz Motorola rigs on eBay recently,  
but it looked like they came from a foreign market and weren't  
targeted at the U.S. segment.

Could be wrong about that one, for sure.

--
Nate Duehr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Tait 220 equipment

[Doug Bade]

 Much of it is commercially type accepted as we have a 
commercial band from 216-220 that is populated with LTR users in some 
places..it is not Part 90  but it is a commercial band segment. 
Coastal radio services ( Maritime) and shared with some land mobile 
auction licensees away from the coastal areas...( I am not referring 
to the 220-222 segment using ACSB etc that IS Part 90.)

 TAIT is one of the vendors that supports this market... also 
Kenwood I hear, but I have never seen those particular radios in person...

 Many of the 220 TAIT radios are MPT 1327 radios and do not 
do conventional well if at all.. so buyer beware
Doug
KD8B


At 07:14 PM 9/26/2007, you wrote:

>I wonder if the Tait 220 stuff is type accepted. Not that I care, but
>it may make a difference in whether or not the dealer would try and
>get them for us. Just curious. We could always go directly to a tait
>dealer in ZL land and get them shipped, but the shipping costs would
>be high.
>
>Another option to consider is getting stuff from the UK and Europe.
>Over there, that band segment was/is called "VHF Band 3"(some
>trunked). I looked into that awhile back. Most of the equipment I
>found on UK ebay was narrow band, but might be modified (or used
>as-is?) Anyway, VHF Band 3 is now some sort of terrestrial digital
>broadcast band, so the old two way radio gear is pretty much worthless
>there now. It should be able to be had for a bargain, not counting
>shipping..
>
>7treez,
>na6df
>
>--- In 
>Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, 
>Jed Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That souds like a plan
> > Yeah 220 stuff is getting very very hard to find for sure On Sep 26,
> > 2007, at 2:55 PM, Doug Bade wrote:
> >
> > > There was some notes I read somewhere that the channel steps on the
> > > 220 version was limited and in this country we could not access ALL
> > > freq's on 15/20 khz band plans.. just some... I think I read it was
> > > 12k5or 10k0 or something like this, and channel stepped which did
> > > not match all of our bandplans...I would want to check into it before
> > > finding out the hard way..
> > >
> > > Doug
> > > KD8B
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:47 PM 9/26/2007, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Jed Barton wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Does anyone know if any of the tait mobiles or portables will work
> > >>> in the
> > >>> amateur 220 band, or have any specs for them?
> > >>> I know they have a bunch of repeaters.
> > >>> Any info would be appreciated.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Jed
> > >>
> > >> They do have them, and according to a local Tait dealer, they will
> > >> program into the ham bands, but I have no direct experience with
> > >> them.
> > >>
> > >> I have programmed Tait 220 LTR rigs into the ham bands before... it
> > >> was a trial-and-error thing, since the LTR rigs are channelized. I
> > >> was dorking around with making one a transmitter and one a receiver
> > >> for a backyard repeater. The project never got finished. But I was
> > >> able to trick them into having one rig transmitting on 224.34 and the
> > >> receiver on the receive portion of that pair.
> > >>
> > >> He was going to order a couple of mobiles into his "collection" and
> > >> try them out. I should follow up with him and see what he thinks of
> > >> them.
> > >>
> > >> I would guess from my experience with the LTR rigs, as long as their
> > >> newer programming software doesn't lock the rigs to commercial
> > >> frequencies (unlikely), they'd probably work just fine in Amateur
> > >> service.
> > >>
> > >> Looking at their website, the TM8115 is a 99 channel conventional
> > >> rig, and they have a version banded "D1" that is 216-266 MHz.
> > >>
> > >> Not sure how you go about finding a dealer in any particular area, or
> > >> whether the dealer could sell the D1 banded radios in the U.S. Can't
> > >> see why not, though...
> > >>
> > >> 
> <http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/1,178,0,44,html>http://
>  
>
> > >> www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/1,178,0,44,html
> > >> for docs on
> > >> all the models.
> > >> 
> <http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/3,178,241/
>  
>
> > >> 
> sp8115_final.pdf>http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/3,178,241/
>  
>
> > >> sp8115_final.pdf
> > >> -
> > >> see page two/specifications for bands, etc.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Nate Duehr, WY0X
> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Tait 220 equipment

[na6df]

I wonder if the Tait 220 stuff is type accepted. Not that I care, but
it may make a difference in whether or not the dealer would try and
get them for us. Just curious. We could always go directly to a tait
dealer in ZL land and get them shipped, but the shipping costs would
be high.

Another option to consider is getting stuff from the UK and Europe.
Over there, that band segment was/is called "VHF Band 3"(some
trunked). I looked into that awhile back. Most of the equipment I
found on UK ebay was narrow band, but might be modified (or used
as-is?) Anyway, VHF Band 3 is now some sort of terrestrial digital
broadcast band, so the old two way radio gear is pretty much worthless
there now. It should be able to be had for a bargain, not counting
shipping..

7treez,
na6df


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jed Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That souds like a plan
> Yeah 220 stuff is getting very very hard to find for sure On Sep 26,  
> 2007, at 2:55 PM, Doug Bade wrote:
> 
> > There was some notes I read somewhere that the channel steps on the
> > 220 version was limited and in this country we could not access ALL
> > freq's on 15/20 khz band plans.. just some... I think I read it was
> > 12k5or 10k0  or something like this, and channel stepped which did
> > not match all of our bandplans...I would want to check into it before
> > finding out the hard way..
> >
> > Doug
> > KD8B
> >
> >
> > At 02:47 PM 9/26/2007, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Jed Barton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does anyone know if any of the tait mobiles or portables will work
> >>> in the
> >>> amateur 220 band, or have any specs for them?
> >>> I know they have a bunch of repeaters.
> >>> Any info would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jed
> >>
> >> They do have them, and according to a local Tait dealer, they will
> >> program into the ham bands, but I have no direct experience with  
> >> them.
> >>
> >> I have programmed Tait 220 LTR rigs into the ham bands before... it
> >> was a trial-and-error thing, since the LTR rigs are channelized. I
> >> was dorking around with making one a transmitter and one a receiver
> >> for a backyard repeater. The project never got finished. But I was
> >> able to trick them into having one rig transmitting on 224.34 and the
> >> receiver on the receive portion of that pair.
> >>
> >> He was going to order a couple of mobiles into his "collection" and
> >> try them out. I should follow up with him and see what he thinks of
> >> them.
> >>
> >> I would guess from my experience with the LTR rigs, as long as their
> >> newer programming software doesn't lock the rigs to commercial
> >> frequencies (unlikely), they'd probably work just fine in Amateur
> >> service.
> >>
> >> Looking at their website, the TM8115 is a 99 channel conventional
> >> rig, and they have a version banded "D1" that is 216-266 MHz.
> >>
> >> Not sure how you go about finding a dealer in any particular area, or
> >> whether the dealer could sell the D1 banded radios in the U.S. Can't
> >> see why not, though...
> >>
> >> http:// 
> >> www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/1,178,0,44,html
> >> for docs on
> >> all the models.
> >>  >> sp8115_final.pdf>http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/3,178,241/ 
> >> sp8115_final.pdf
> >> -
> >> see page two/specifications for bands, etc.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nate Duehr, WY0X
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>

[Repeater-Builder] RE:MOTOROLA MTRD5532AA RECEIVER

[Doug]

Can anyone tell me if this is good for anything. Trying to clean up
the basement. I am not sure what frequency it is for as the icom is
missing..

73

Doug VE5DA

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Si gn and Sounds like a Ham  ,  NOT

[dmurman]

In Texas you can have up to 10 vehicles with the same ham call sign as long as 
you are the owner of the vehicles.

What a mess when you see two cars with the same ham radio plate.



David
Deputy
Collin CO SO
WA4ECM

=
From: Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2007/09/26 Wed PM 01:28:42 CDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham  ,  NOT

  

On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Likewise in Oregon. We were at a ham lunch several times and saw a  
> plate with the letters N4CER. It was some Security company guy, who  
> wanted it to be a cute version of "Enforcer" - we visited with him  
> and he wasn't aware of what ham radio was and really seemed to care  
> less. I guess if N4CER had moved to Oregon and wanted a Call Letter  
> plate, he would have been out of luck since it was already taken.
>
> LJ
In Colorado, you can have both a "WY0X" vanity plate, and a "WY0X"  
callsign plate.  The price is different, and the "real" callsign  
plate will have "SCL" printed vertically down the left side of the  
plate in very small letters.  (Special Callsign License)

Someone without a ham ticket could get the vanity plate, but not the  
SCL plate.  You have to provide a copy of your license to get the SCL  
plate.

SCL plates are also issued for commercial broadcast stations wishing  
to have their callsign on remote trucks/whatever.  For broadcasters  
with multiple of these "semi-vanity" plates, a "-#" is usually added  
to the plates... "KBCO-1", "KBCO-2"... etc.  (Disclaimer: I don't  
know if KBCO uses the SCL plates or not, just using them as an  
example of what I've seen on some remote trucks.)

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tait 220 equipment

[Jed Barton]

That souds like a plan
Yeah 220 stuff is getting very very hard to find for sure On Sep 26,  
2007, at 2:55 PM, Doug Bade wrote:

> There was some notes I read somewhere that the channel steps on the
> 220 version was limited and in this country we could not access ALL
> freq's on 15/20 khz band plans.. just some... I think I read it was
> 12k5or 10k0  or something like this, and channel stepped which did
> not match all of our bandplans...I would want to check into it before
> finding out the hard way..
>
> Doug
> KD8B
>
>
> At 02:47 PM 9/26/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Jed Barton wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know if any of the tait mobiles or portables will work
>>> in the
>>> amateur 220 band, or have any specs for them?
>>> I know they have a bunch of repeaters.
>>> Any info would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jed
>>
>> They do have them, and according to a local Tait dealer, they will
>> program into the ham bands, but I have no direct experience with  
>> them.
>>
>> I have programmed Tait 220 LTR rigs into the ham bands before... it
>> was a trial-and-error thing, since the LTR rigs are channelized. I
>> was dorking around with making one a transmitter and one a receiver
>> for a backyard repeater. The project never got finished. But I was
>> able to trick them into having one rig transmitting on 224.34 and the
>> receiver on the receive portion of that pair.
>>
>> He was going to order a couple of mobiles into his "collection" and
>> try them out. I should follow up with him and see what he thinks of
>> them.
>>
>> I would guess from my experience with the LTR rigs, as long as their
>> newer programming software doesn't lock the rigs to commercial
>> frequencies (unlikely), they'd probably work just fine in Amateur
>> service.
>>
>> Looking at their website, the TM8115 is a 99 channel conventional
>> rig, and they have a version banded "D1" that is 216-266 MHz.
>>
>> Not sure how you go about finding a dealer in any particular area, or
>> whether the dealer could sell the D1 banded radios in the U.S. Can't
>> see why not, though...
>>
>> http:// 
>> www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/1,178,0,44,html
>> for docs on
>> all the models.
>> > sp8115_final.pdf>http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/3,178,241/ 
>> sp8115_final.pdf
>> -
>> see page two/specifications for bands, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Nate Duehr, WY0X
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tait 220 equipment

[Doug Bade]

There was some notes I read somewhere that the channel steps on the 
220 version was limited and in this country we could not access ALL 
freq's on 15/20 khz band plans.. just some... I think I read it was 
12k5or 10k0  or something like this, and channel stepped which did 
not match all of our bandplans...I would want to check into it before 
finding out the hard way..

Doug
KD8B


At 02:47 PM 9/26/2007, you wrote:


>On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Jed Barton wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know if any of the tait mobiles or portables will work
> > in the
> > amateur 220 band, or have any specs for them?
> > I know they have a bunch of repeaters.
> > Any info would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jed
>
>They do have them, and according to a local Tait dealer, they will
>program into the ham bands, but I have no direct experience with them.
>
>I have programmed Tait 220 LTR rigs into the ham bands before... it
>was a trial-and-error thing, since the LTR rigs are channelized. I
>was dorking around with making one a transmitter and one a receiver
>for a backyard repeater. The project never got finished. But I was
>able to trick them into having one rig transmitting on 224.34 and the
>receiver on the receive portion of that pair.
>
>He was going to order a couple of mobiles into his "collection" and
>try them out. I should follow up with him and see what he thinks of
>them.
>
>I would guess from my experience with the LTR rigs, as long as their
>newer programming software doesn't lock the rigs to commercial
>frequencies (unlikely), they'd probably work just fine in Amateur
>service.
>
>Looking at their website, the TM8115 is a 99 channel conventional
>rig, and they have a version banded "D1" that is 216-266 MHz.
>
>Not sure how you go about finding a dealer in any particular area, or
>whether the dealer could sell the D1 banded radios in the U.S. Can't
>see why not, though...
>
>http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/1,178,0,44,html
> 
>for docs on
>all the models.
>http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/3,178,241/sp8115_final.pdf
> 
>-
>see page two/specifications for bands, etc.
>
>--
>Nate Duehr, WY0X
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tait 220 equipment

[Nate Duehr]

On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Jed Barton wrote:

> Does anyone know if any of the tait mobiles or portables will work  
> in the
> amateur 220 band, or have any specs for them?
> I know they have a bunch of repeaters.
> Any info would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Jed

They do have them, and according to a local Tait dealer, they will  
program into the ham bands, but I have no direct experience with them.

I have programmed Tait 220 LTR rigs into the ham bands before... it  
was a trial-and-error thing, since the LTR rigs are channelized.  I  
was dorking around with making one a transmitter and one a receiver  
for a backyard repeater.  The project never got finished.  But I was  
able to trick them into having one rig transmitting on 224.34 and the  
receiver on the receive portion of that pair.

He was going to order a couple of mobiles into his "collection" and  
try them out.  I should follow up with him and see what he thinks of  
them.

I would guess from my experience with the LTR rigs, as long as their  
newer programming software doesn't lock the rigs to commercial  
frequencies (unlikely), they'd probably work just fine in Amateur  
service.

Looking at their website, the TM8115 is a 99 channel conventional  
rig, and they have a version banded "D1" that is 216-266 MHz.

Not sure how you go about finding a dealer in any particular area, or  
whether the dealer could sell the D1 banded radios in the U.S.  Can't  
see why not, though...

http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/1,178,0,44,html for docs on  
all the models.
http://www.taitworld.com/main/index.cfm/3,178,241/sp8115_final.pdf -  
see page two/specifications for bands, etc.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

[Nate Duehr]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Likewise in Oregon. We were at a ham lunch several times and saw a  
> plate with the letters N4CER. It was some Security company guy, who  
> wanted it to be a cute version of "Enforcer" - we visited with him  
> and he wasn't aware of what ham radio was and really seemed to care  
> less. I guess if N4CER had moved to Oregon and wanted a Call Letter  
> plate, he would have been out of luck since it was already taken.
>
> LJ
In Colorado, you can have both a "WY0X" vanity plate, and a "WY0X"  
callsign plate.  The price is different, and the "real" callsign  
plate will have "SCL" printed vertically down the left side of the  
plate in very small letters.  (Special Callsign License)

Someone without a ham ticket could get the vanity plate, but not the  
SCL plate.  You have to provide a copy of your license to get the SCL  
plate.

SCL plates are also issued for commercial broadcast stations wishing  
to have their callsign on remote trucks/whatever.  For broadcasters  
with multiple of these "semi-vanity" plates, a "-#" is usually added  
to the plates... "KBCO-1", "KBCO-2"... etc.  (Disclaimer: I don't  
know if KBCO uses the SCL plates or not, just using them as an  
example of what I've seen on some remote trucks.)

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

[Nate Duehr]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:26 AM, skipp025 wrote:

> People can have callsigns not yet available in the QRZ & FCC database,
> but after a time they should show up... otherwise a simple phone call
> can track down the information. You can also reverse name search
> people to a ham call that might be their former ticket/call.

QRZ I could believe, but since the FCC's DB is what drives the paper  
that shows up...?

Not sure that's valid anymore... maybe back when the DB was a  
secondary thing and the paper was King... but today, if it's not in  
the DB, I'd really doubt that it's a valid call.

Especially since the FCC is fine with Amateurs who are waiting on new  
licenses to start operating as soon as they see their callsign show  
up in the DB, but before they've received the paper copy... print a  
copy for reference and fire up the rig...

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

[MCH]

I doubt you would get far with Motorola since the problem is that Yaesu
is not using good engineering practice by not filtering the TX audio to
remove CTCSS components. I would start with Yaesu asking them why not.

Joe M.

Nate Duehr wrote:
> 
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 7:09 AM, Al Wolfe wrote:
> 
> > So the questions remain: Is the Quantar PL sensitivity
> > adjustable? Is it
> > a good thing to make it more sensitive? How do I convince some
> > users that
> > there may be a problem with their radio?
> 
> Not trying to sound sarcastic here at all, just serious...
> 
> Since the Quantar and the VX-6 are both "current product" from both
> Motorola and Yaesu, it would seem that a discussion with both
> regarding the problem would be in order.
> 
> (I know we're all used to using stuff that was "end of life" years
> before we put it on the air, but... this stuff is being sold today,
> and both companies should offer support.  Whether or not they'll try
> to CHARGE you for that support in today's stupid support climate, is
> another story.)
> 
> It's a pain, but I would start with a call to Motorola, possibly
> following up (and being prepared ahead of time to send) with screen-
> shots from some test gear of what's coming out of the Yaesu to both
> companies.
> 
> --
> Nate Duehr, WY0X
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

[Nate Duehr]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 7:09 AM, Al Wolfe wrote:

> So the questions remain: Is the Quantar PL sensitivity  
> adjustable? Is it
> a good thing to make it more sensitive? How do I convince some  
> users that
> there may be a problem with their radio?

Not trying to sound sarcastic here at all, just serious...

Since the Quantar and the VX-6 are both "current product" from both  
Motorola and Yaesu, it would seem that a discussion with both  
regarding the problem would be in order.

(I know we're all used to using stuff that was "end of life" years  
before we put it on the air, but... this stuff is being sold today,  
and both companies should offer support.  Whether or not they'll try  
to CHARGE you for that support in today's stupid support climate, is  
another story.)

It's a pain, but I would start with a call to Motorola, possibly  
following up (and being prepared ahead of time to send) with screen- 
shots from some test gear of what's coming out of the Yaesu to both  
companies.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[MCH]

All experimental calls I've ever seen are in the form yy#Xyy - having an
X immediately after the number on a 2x3 callsign.

Everything posted thus far encorces that.

Maybe they are running out of 2x3 'X' suffixes.

Joe M.

Dexter McIntyre W4DEX wrote:
> 
> Fred Seamans wrote:
> > Not all WD are experimental calls. My XYL had WD5DXK call as a
> > General until she let it expire in Oct. 2006.
> 
> All the experimental calls I know of with a WD prefix are
> WD2.  I hold WD2XKO authorized for 2200 meters (137 kHz) and
> am one of the WD2XSH 600 meter (505 kHz)  licensees.
> However no repeaters are authorized in those bands :)
> 
> Dex, W4DEX, WD2XKO, WD2XSH/10
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

[MCH]

I wonder if he (N4CER) could have the plate nullified since it is HIS
Federal ID...

Joe M.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Likewise in Oregon. We were at a ham lunch several times and saw a
> plate with the letters N4CER. It was some Security company guy, who
> wanted it to be a cute version of "Enforcer" - we visited with him and
> he wasn't aware of what ham radio was and really seemed to care less.
> I guess if N4CER had moved to Oregon and wanted a Call Letter plate,
> he would have been out of luck since it was already taken.
> 
> LJ

Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[dmurman]

Funny, when I upgraded to Advanced I got WD4AYD. Dropped the WD4 call and 
changed to my secondary call (which we could have at the time) WA4ECM.


David
WA4ECM

=
From: Ron _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2007/09/26 Wed AM 10:32:58 CDT
To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

  
Don,
WD prefixes and WD#xxx formats are not reserved for experimental.  It is 
part of the former "novice" block of calls issued in the mid 70's.

Ron
WD4RBJ

 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:31:01 -0500
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

Don,

This is an "experimental" callsign. The reason I'm familiar with this is 
Itried to obtain a "WC9" callsign for my county's EMA Ham Club - that was
also denied since WC and WD prefixes are experimentals. (BTW - we ended up
with W9WIL.)

Which system was he on? SARA, CFMC? I'd be interested in listening to 
hearthis guy some time... Maybe I'd even query him on his callsign. Hehehehe

Moderator note: Sorry for the OT thread...

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:31 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

I found something interesting and Thought Would share, I heard a 
Ham talking as He was driving through the Chicago Metro area on a
large Repeater System , and when I am near the Computer , I Just
look up the Call to find more info about the person to see If We
might have something in common to talk about 

I looked up His call WD9XAD On http://www.qrz.com/ and 
http://hamcall.net/call nothing Found , Sure looks like a Older Call
and the Person talked like a Ham 

But now days who knows so I went to the FCC Site
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/reports7/ 

Top Search for Call sign Well it came up But NOT A Ham radio call, I
doubt very much if it was the Person with the Non ham lic using it,
But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We get
older, it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old Days
We just took people at their word , But with the Internet I find
things are not always what We think . 

73 De Don KA9QJG 



Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. 
It's easy! Try it!

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexers

[Mark Miller]

At 11:12 AM 9/26/2007, Steve wrote:
>A transmitter may have broadband noise with considerable noise content
>at the receive frequency. The notch in the transmit side removes
>transmitter noise that may impair your receiver's capability.


In my day job 99% of the problems I have with noise floor is related 
to transmitter noise that is in band on my RX freq.  Usually it is 
another transmitter at the site and we ask them to install a 
bandpass/notch filter to lower the noise floor on our receiver.  The 
notch is tuned to our receiver frequency.  That happened two weeks 
ago in Hawaii.

73,
Mark N5RFX

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[Dexter McIntyre W4DEX]

Fred Seamans wrote:
> Not all WD are experimental calls. My XYL had WD5DXK call as a 
> General until she let it expire in Oct. 2006.

All the experimental calls I know of with a WD prefix are 
WD2.  I hold WD2XKO authorized for 2200 meters (137 kHz) and 
am one of the WD2XSH 600 meter (505 kHz)  licensees. 
However no repeaters are authorized in those bands :)

Dex, W4DEX, WD2XKO, WD2XSH/10

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[Kenneth Hansen]

should read: but that does not exclude

Sorry


On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:07 -0400, Kenneth Hansen wrote:
> Same here in NJ, if you apply for a ham plate, but does exclude
> someone
> to apply for a personal plate that just happens to be a ham call
> 
> 73 de KB2SSE
> 
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 10:50 -0500, n9wys wrote:
> > At least they can’t do that in Illinois – IL requires a copy of your
> > ham license along with the application for the plate. And our plates
> > say “ham radio” down the left side…
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __
> > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > Likewise in Oregon. We were at a ham lunch several times and saw a
> > plate with the letters N4CER. It was some Security company guy, who
> > wanted it to be a cute version of "Enforcer" - we visited with him
> and
> > he wasn't aware of what ham radio was and really seemed to care
> less.
> > I guess if N4CER had moved to Oregon and wanted a Call Letter plate,
> > he would have been out of luck since it was already taken.
> > 
> > LJ
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: Tom Manning 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Don
> > 
> > 
> > You may also be surprised that Florida is issuing license
> > plates with ham calls on them to people who are not hams.
> > Several people have seen these plates with their ham calls on
> > them. Life is interesting. 73 de Tom Manning, AF4UG 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

[skipp025]

I've got one or two funny stories...   

Once at a Radio Club Meeting a guy introduced himself as a WR6*** 
callsign.   Those of you with hair showing out of your ears remember 
the WR prefix for repeater stations. Almost lost my drink hearing 
that one... :-)

Now... 
I'm under the impression one or more persons actually have the WR 
prefix under a vanity callsign. 

One guy local to my area has a WN6*** callsign, which is/was his 
original Novice Call back in days of old. 

I remember hearing people calling newer N6*** bootleggers when they 
first arrived on the air. Same thing with the Bicentennial Extra 
Class callsigns. 

People can have callsigns not yet available in the QRZ & FCC database, 
but after a time they should show up... otherwise a simple phone call 
can track down the information. You can also reverse name search 
people to a ham call that might be their former ticket/call. 

cheers, 
s. 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[Kenneth Hansen]

Same here in NJ, if you apply for a ham plate, but does exclude someone
to apply for a personal plate that just happens to be a ham call

73 de KB2SSE


On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 10:50 -0500, n9wys wrote:
> At least they can’t do that in Illinois – IL requires a copy of your
> ham license along with the application for the plate.  And our plates
> say “ham radio” down the left side…
> 
>  
> 
>
> __
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Likewise in Oregon. We were at a ham lunch several times and saw a
> plate with the letters N4CER. It was some Security company guy, who
> wanted it to be a cute version of "Enforcer" - we visited with him and
> he wasn't aware of what ham radio was and really seemed to care less.
> I guess if N4CER had moved to Oregon and wanted a Call Letter plate,
> he would have been out of luck since it was already taken.
> 
> LJ
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Tom Manning 
> 
> 
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> You may also be surprised that Florida is issuing license
> plates with ham calls on them to people who are not hams.
> Several people have seen these plates with their ham calls on
> them.  Life is interesting. 73 de Tom Manning, AF4UG 
> 
> 
>  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexers

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

A transmitter may have broadband noise with considerable noise content 
at the receive frequency.  The notch in the transmit side removes 
transmitter noise that may impair your receiver's capability.  In an 
earlier post there was mention of a solid state transmitter.  
Traditionally tube transmitters have higher Q output circuits as opposed 
to wideband circuits in solid state transmitters, so a solid state 
transmitter may need more filtering.

There are also combination band pass / band reject duplexers and also 
band pass only.  Each has a characteristic suited for a particular job.  
Beware, a duplexer may pass an intended frequency PLUS unintended 
frequencies outside the normal band pass.  I found that 158.100 radio 
paging was being received by a dual band antenna, and passed right thru 
a 440 duplexer to cause overload in the receiver front end.  In this 
particular instance the best solution was to go to a monoband antenna.

Wishing you best success, Steve NU5D


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for the great info as soon as we get the service 
> monitor back we are going to try these things.
>
> I have already seperated the 2 sides and have seen much 
> improvement so I think that this is really my problem.
>
> I do have a question about duplexers in general.  I am 
> sure that this is a dumb question but
> What is the purpose of notching out the receive frequency 
> on the transmit side?  Since I have 6 cans couldn't I move 
> one of the cans from the transmit side to the receive side 
> to give me 4 on the receive and 2 on the transmit?
>
> Thanks,
> Vern
>
>   

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[n9wys]

At least they can't do that in Illinois - IL requires a copy of your ham
license along with the application for the plate.  And our plates say "ham
radio" down the left side.

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Likewise in Oregon. We were at a ham lunch several times and saw a plate
with the letters N4CER. It was some Security company guy, who wanted it to
be a cute version of "Enforcer" - we visited with him and he wasn't aware of
what ham radio was and really seemed to care less. I guess if N4CER had
moved to Oregon and wanted a Call Letter plate, he would have been out of
luck since it was already taken.

LJ

-Original Message- 
From: Tom Manning 



Don

You may also be surprised that Florida is issuing license plates with
ham calls on them to people who are not hams.  Several people have seen
these plates with their ham calls on them.  Life is interesting. 73 de Tom
Manning, AF4UG 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

[Chuck Kelsey]

Drop in a Com Spec Board in the repeater and solve your problem.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: "Al Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:09 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL


> Eric,
>   Thanks for your quick response. It's true that most of the ham grade
> portables have far too much tone deviation as delivered. The issue here is
> only with VX6's so far. Of the VX6's actually measured one was only 200 Hz
> deviation and all seemed low, that is, none were up to 500 Hz. Have not
> measured tone accuracy or distortion.
>
>I doubt if these radios have been modified as the owners aren't
> particularly technically inclined. One is blind.
>
>So the questions remain: Is the Quantar PL sensitivity adjustable? Is 
> it
> a good thing to make it more sensitive? How do I convince some users that
> there may be a problem with their radio?
>
>"My radio worked before you guys messed with the repeater. Now it
> doesn't. So fix the repeater." is the attitude. I would hate to compromise
> an otherwise great repeater.
>
> Al, K9SI
>
>
>>Re: Quantar and PL
>>Posted by: "Eric Lemmon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wb6fly
>>Date: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:53 pm ((PDT))
>>
>> Al,
>>
>> Something doesn't sound right here... most Yaesu portables- including my
>> own
>> VX7- have far too much tone deviation as delivered.  This is common with
>> many Amateur-grade radios, and Alinco is the worst.  The CTCSS deviation
>> is
>> usually not adjustable in the small portables, so the manufacturers
>> apparently think that more is always better.
>>
>> I don't have experience with the VX6, but I would be surprised if the
>> CTCSS
>> deviation wasn't close to 900 Hz.  Perhaps these users modified all of 
>> the
>> radios to pad down the tone deviation, but I think that 500 Hz is ideal.
>> I
>> will check my Quantar service manuals at work for confirmation, but I
>> suspect that the tone sensitivity is fixed.
>>
>> I wonder if there is another factor at work here, such as the purity of
>> tone
>> coming from the VX6 radios, and the tone accuracy.  Does the Quantar work
>> with other radio brands/models?  Maybe it doesn't like raspy tones.
>>
>> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Wolfe
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:24 PM
>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Quantar and PL
>>
>> We recently replaced an aging UHF machine with a Quantar for a local ham
>> repeater. Now it seems that some users are not able to key up the system.
>> Turns out their radios (all VX6's) have fairly low tone deviation. Tests
>> on
>> the Quantar show that it needs at least 300 htz to key it. This seems
>> reasonable to me but the users all say "Well, my radio used to work with
>> the
>> old repeater. So fix the new one."
>>
>> Is there a way to increase the sensitivity to PL tones in a UHF Quantar?
>> Is this desirable?
>>
>> Al, K9SI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[Fred Seamans]

Not all WD are experimental calls. My XYL had WD5DXK call as a General 
until she let it expire in Oct. 2006. She is a quadriplegic with MS and felt 
that there was no reason to keep her license as she has not been on the air for 
a long time. Age and illness gets to all of us eventually.
Fred W5VAY Extra class
  - Original Message - 
  From: Ron _ 
  To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:32 AM
  Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT


  Don,
  WD prefixes and WD#xxx formats are not reserved for experimental.  It is part 
of the former "novice" block of calls issued in the mid 70's.

  Ron
  WD4RBJ

   




To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:31:01 -0500
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT


Don,

This is an "experimental" callsign. The reason I'm familiar with this is I
tried to obtain a "WC9" callsign for my county's EMA Ham Club - that was
also denied since WC and WD prefixes are experimentals. (BTW - we ended up
with W9WIL.)

Which system was he on? SARA, CFMC? I'd be interested in listening to hear
this guy some time... Maybe I'd even query him on his callsign. Hehehehe

Moderator note: Sorry for the OT thread...

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:31 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

I found something interesting and Thought Would share, I heard a 
Ham talking as He was driving through the Chicago Metro area on a
large Repeater System , and when I am near the Computer , I Just
look up the Call to find more info about the person to see If We
might have something in common to talk about 

I looked up His call WD9XAD On http://www.qrz.com/ and 
http://hamcall.net/call nothing Found , Sure looks like a Older Call
and the Person talked like a Ham 

But now days who knows so I went to the FCC Site
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/reports7/ 

Top Search for Call sign Well it came up But NOT A Ham radio call, I
doubt very much if it was the Person with the Non ham lic using it,
But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We get
older, it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old Days
We just took people at their word , But with the Internet I find
things are not always what We think .! 

73 De Don KA9QJG 





--
  Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. 
It's easy! Try it! 

   

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[n9wys]

Well, I guess there ARE still some old WD calls around... but don't try to
get that one now.  Oh well.  I stand corrected.

 

The reason I know this though, is from my attempts to obtain a vanity
callsign for Will County EMA's (WCEMA) ham club - we looked at WC9EMA and
others. That's when I found out about the experimental callsign block.

 

That being said, the callsign Don wrote about IS an experimental callsign -
I looked it up myself on the FCC's database.

 

Mark - N9WYS

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Ron _



Don,
WD prefixes and WD#xxx formats are not reserved for experimental.  It is
part of the former "novice" block of calls issued in the mid 70's.

Ron
WD4RBJ

 

  _  

To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:31:01 -0500
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

Don,

This is an "experimental" callsign. The reason I'm familiar with this is I
tried to obtain a "WC9" callsign for my county's EMA Ham Club - that was
also denied since WC and WD prefixes are experimentals. (BTW - we ended up
with W9WIL.)

Which system was he on? SARA, CFMC? I'd be interested in listening to hear
this guy some time... Maybe I'd even query him on his callsign. Hehehehe

Moderator note: Sorry for the OT thread...

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:31 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

I found something interesting and Thought Would share, I heard a 
Ham talking as He was driving through the Chicago Metro area on a
large Repeater System , and when I am near the Computer , I Just
look up the Call to find more info about the person to see If We
might have something in common to talk about 

I looked up His call WD9XAD On http://www.qrz.  com/
and 
http://hamcall.  net/call nothing Found , Sure
looks like a Older Call
and the Person talked like a Ham 

But now days who knows so I went to the FCC Site
http://fjallfoss.  fcc.gov/reports7/ 

Top Search for Call sign Well it came up But NOT A Ham radio call, I
doubt very much if it was the Person with the Non ham lic using it,
But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We get
older, it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old Days
We just took people at their word , But with the Internet I find
things are not always what We think . 
73 De Don KA9QJG 



 

  _  

Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
Spaces. It's easy! Try it!
   

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for Midland Manual

[skipp025]

Hello back, 

Do you know about the Yahoo Midland Group?  

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MidlandLMR/ 

You might check the files section of the Midland Group for some 
Service Manual information.  the 342 is similar to the 340 and 
341 so you might be able to use some basic information from those 
manuals. 

cheers, 
skipp 

> "Naber, Benjamin L. SPC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Greetings
> 
> Does anyone have a manual for a Midland 70-342 BXL or AXL(?) mobile
radios? 
> 
> ~Benjamin, KB9LFZ
> 
> Moderator Central
> 
> Get answers to


> 
> your questions about
> 
> running Y! Groups.
> 
> .
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[Ron _]

Don,
WD prefixes and WD#xxx formats are not reserved for experimental.  It is part 
of the former "novice" block of calls issued in the mid 70's.
Ron
WD4RBJ
 


To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:31:01 
-0500Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT




Don,This is an "experimental" callsign. The reason I'm familiar with this is 
Itried to obtain a "WC9" callsign for my county's EMA Ham Club - that wasalso 
denied since WC and WD prefixes are experimentals. (BTW - we ended upwith 
W9WIL.)Which system was he on? SARA, CFMC? I'd be interested in listening to 
hearthis guy some time... Maybe I'd even query him on his callsign. 
HeheheheModerator note: Sorry for the OT thread...Mark - N9WYS-Original 
Message-From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of DonSent: 
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:31 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Repeater-Builder] 
Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOTI found something interesting and Thought 
Would share, I heard a Ham talking as He was driving through the Chicago Metro 
area on alarge Repeater System , and when I am near the Computer , I Justlook 
up the Call to find more info about the person to see If Wemight have something 
in common to talk about I looked up His call WD9XAD On http://www.qrz.com/ and 
http://hamcall.net/call nothing Found , Sure looks like a Older Calland the 
Person talked like a Ham But now days who knows so I went to the FCC 
Sitehttp://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/reports7/ Top Search for Call sign Well it came up 
But NOT A Ham radio call, Idoubt very much if it was the Person with the Non 
ham lic using it,But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We 
getolder, it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old DaysWe just 
took people at their word , But with the Internet I findthings are not always 
what We think . 73 De Don KA9QJG  






_
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. 
It's easy!
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

[Tom Manning]

Don
You may also be surprised that Florida is issuing license plates with ham 
calls on them to people who are not hams.  Several people have seen these 
plates with their ham calls on them.  Life is interesting. 73 de Tom Manning, 
AF4UG
  - Original Message - 
  From: Don 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:31 AM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT


  I found something interesting and Thought Would share, I heard a 
  Ham talking as He was driving through the Chicago Metro area on a
  large Repeater System , and when I am near the Computer , I Just
  look up the Call to find more info about the person to see If We
  might have something in common to talk about 

  I looked up His call WD9XAD On http://www.qrz.com/ and 
  http://hamcall.net/call nothing Found , Sure looks like a Older Call
  and the Person talked like a Ham 

  But now days who knows so I went to the FCC Site
  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/reports7/

  Top Search for Call sign Well it came up But NOT A Ham radio call, I
  doubt very much if it was the Person with the Non ham lic using it,
  But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We get
  older, it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old Days
  We just took people at their word , But with the Internet I find
  things are not always what We think . 

  73 De Don KA9QJG 



   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexers

[mung]

Thanks for the great info as soon as we get the service 
monitor back we are going to try these things.

I have already seperated the 2 sides and have seen much 
improvement so I think that this is really my problem.

I do have a question about duplexers in general.  I am 
sure that this is a dumb question but
What is the purpose of notching out the receive frequency 
on the transmit side?  Since I have 6 cans couldn't I move 
one of the cans from the transmit side to the receive side 
to give me 4 on the receive and 2 on the transmit?

Thanks,
Vern

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:46:12 -0600
  Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I had them tuned because I had just bought them and 
>>didn't 
>> really trust that they were right.  They were very far 
>>out 
>> so it's good that I got them tuned.  I was having the 
>>same 
>> problem as now though very poor receive.  Right now I 
>>have 
>> a radio on there for receive that was getting about 30 
>> miles of coverage as an Echolink link node with home 
>>made 
>> antenna and now hooked up to the repeater using a big 
>>Tram 
>> Dualband antenna through the duplexer I am lucky if I am 
>> getting 3 miles.
>> 
>> So I don't think the repeater's built in receiver is the 
>> problem which leads me to either desense or a bad 
>>antenna 
>> cable.  Transmit is getting out very well and the swr is 
>> almost 1 to 1 so I think the cable is OK.  I am running 
>> LMR 400 up the tower 95% of the way.  I just have a 
>>short 
>> coax jumper that goes into the antenna.
>> 
>> I am going to try to split them and see what I get.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Vern
>> KI4ONW
> 
> Before you do that.  Have someone transmit a weak signal 
>(or use an 
> iso-T and transmit it in yourself, as someone else 
>mentioned) into the 
> repeater while you're at the site, listening to the 
>receiver while the 
> transmitter is on.
> 
> Turn the transmitter off.  If their signal gets better, 
>you're fighting 
> desense.  It's that simple to find out.
> 
> To find out exactly how bad it is, feeding a weak signal 
>into the 
> receiver with an iso-T and measuring the audio coming 
>from the repeater 
> receiver with a SINAD meter is the "next level" of 
>knowing what's going 
> on.  (I've seen people do this by ear with practice and 
>get close, but 
> you need to see it on a meter first or have someone 
>demonstrate to even 
> try it.  Hey... sometimes when you're starting out you 
>don't have the 
> gear, we understand...)
> 
>Feed a weak signal (usually 12 dB SINAD for these tests, 
>as a standard 
> starting point) and then turn the transmitter on.  The 
>weak signal will 
> disappear or be noisier if you have a desense problem, 
>as mentione above.
> 
> Increase the signal generator to the point where the 
>weak signal is the 
> same as before (usually 12 dB SINAD is used when you 
>have a meter).
> 
> The difference between where the signal generator was 
>level-wise when 
> you started, and where you end up, is how MUCH desense 
>you're fighting, 
> and how much more isolation you need in the overall 
>system to make it 
> work.  Plus if gather numbers like this, folks here can 
>tell you 
> "ballpark" numbers to expect from your particular radio 
>and setup.
> 
> Also be forewarned, some antennas simply don't "duplex" 
>well... it's 
> difficult to explain, but you'll find antennas that 
>throw all sorts of 
> crap around when used in duplex operation, that are fine 
>for simplex.  I 
> know nothing about the Tram antennas, but "dual-band" 
>antennas for 
> repeater operation, sets off warning bells for me.
> 
> Use the best cables for interconnect you can possibly 
>buy!  Having nice 
> double-shielded stuff built onto the duplexer by the 
>manufacturer, only 
> to run lossy/leaky crud from the repeater to the 
>duplexer, is just 
> asking for trouble.  If you used your LMR 400 for that, 
>good... it'll 
> work in most cases, just fine.  Many people do have 
>problems with LMR 
> 400 in duplexed service, other's don't.  There's a long 
>thread about it 
> around here somewhere in the archives...
> 
> If you can afford/get hardline - always do it. 1/2" will 
>work fine at 
> VHF unless you have an enormous run, and you might want 
>7/8" for UHF, 
> depending on the length of your run.  Keep an ear to the 
>ground and 
> scrounge hardline any which way you can.  Hardline 
>connectors too. 
> They're not cheap.
> 
> You can test your "inside" setup by replacing the 
>antenna with a GOOD 
> dummy load rated for the power you're pushing, and that 
>is a solid 50 
> ohm load.  (Don't use a cheap one for this.  Find 
>something big and 
> stable.  I found a 500W Bird load at a hamfest once for 
>$12, best 
> purchase that year.)  See if the system desenses itself 
>when not hooked 
> to the outside antenna.  If it does, you have something 
>wrong right 
> there in the repeater itself.  Stop and figure that out.
> 
> I could go on and on, but will stop and give the 
>admon

[Repeater-Builder] Motorola CDR500 link radio

[wpp3]

Does anyone know if it is possible to connect a link radio directly to
a CDR500 or will an external controller be needed.

Thanks,
   Bill - W4RVN

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[DCFluX]

Reminds me of 'W6JJ4'.

On 9/26/07, n9wys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don,
>
> This is an "experimental" callsign.  The reason I'm familiar with this is I
> tried to obtain a "WC9" callsign for my county's EMA Ham Club - that was
> also denied since WC and WD prefixes are experimentals.  (BTW - we ended up
> with W9WIL.)
>
> Which system was he on?  SARA, CFMC?  I'd be interested in listening to hear
> this guy some time...  Maybe I'd even query him on his callsign.  Hehehehe
>
> Moderator note: Sorry for the OT thread...
>
> Mark - N9WYS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Don
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:31 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT
>
> I found something interesting and Thought Would share,   I heard a
> Ham  talking as He was driving  through the Chicago Metro area on  a
> large Repeater System  , and when I am near the Computer , I  Just
> look  up the Call to find more info about the person to see If  We
> might have something in common to talk about
>
> I looked up His call   WD9XAD Onhttp://www.qrz.com/  and
> http://hamcall.net/call  nothing Found , Sure looks like a Older Call
> and the Person talked like a Ham
>
>  But now days who knows so I went to the FCC Site
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/reports7/
>
> Top Search for Call sign Well it came up But NOT A Ham radio call, I
> doubt very much if it was the Person with the Non ham lic using it,
> But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We get
> older,  it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old Days
> We just took people at their word , But with the Internet I find
> things are not always what We think .
>
> 73 De Don KA9QJG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham, NOT

[n9wys]

Don,

This is an "experimental" callsign.  The reason I'm familiar with this is I
tried to obtain a "WC9" callsign for my county's EMA Ham Club - that was
also denied since WC and WD prefixes are experimentals.  (BTW - we ended up
with W9WIL.)

Which system was he on?  SARA, CFMC?  I'd be interested in listening to hear
this guy some time...  Maybe I'd even query him on his callsign.  Hehehehe

Moderator note: Sorry for the OT thread...

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:31 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

I found something interesting and Thought Would share,   I heard a 
Ham  talking as He was driving  through the Chicago Metro area on  a
large Repeater System  , and when I am near the Computer , I  Just
look  up the Call to find more info about the person to see If  We
might have something in common to talk about 

I looked up His call   WD9XAD Onhttp://www.qrz.com/  and  
http://hamcall.net/call  nothing Found , Sure looks like a Older Call
and the Person talked like a Ham 

 But now days who knows so I went to the FCC Site
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/reports7/ 

Top Search for Call sign Well it came up But NOT A Ham radio call, I
doubt very much if it was the Person with the Non ham lic using it,
But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We get
older,  it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old Days
We just took people at their word , But with the Internet I find
things are not always what We think . 

73 De Don KA9QJG 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

[Milt]

Al,

As far as I know the Quantar PL sensitivity is fixed.  Do verify the 
programming of the repeater, but then verify the frequency and deviation of 
the user radios and fix the user radios; that's where the problem lies.

Milt
N3LTQ



- Original Message - 
From: "Al Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:09 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL


> Eric,
>   Thanks for your quick response. It's true that most of the ham grade
> portables have far too much tone deviation as delivered. The issue here is
> only with VX6's so far. Of the VX6's actually measured one was only 200 Hz
> deviation and all seemed low, that is, none were up to 500 Hz. Have not
> measured tone accuracy or distortion.
>
>I doubt if these radios have been modified as the owners aren't
> particularly technically inclined. One is blind.
>
>So the questions remain: Is the Quantar PL sensitivity adjustable? Is 
> it
> a good thing to make it more sensitive? How do I convince some users that
> there may be a problem with their radio?
>
>"My radio worked before you guys messed with the repeater. Now it
> doesn't. So fix the repeater." is the attitude. I would hate to compromise
> an otherwise great repeater.
>
> Al, K9SI
>
>
>>Re: Quantar and PL
>>Posted by: "Eric Lemmon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wb6fly
>>Date: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:53 pm ((PDT))
>>
>> Al,
>>
>> Something doesn't sound right here... most Yaesu portables- including my
>> own
>> VX7- have far too much tone deviation as delivered.  This is common with
>> many Amateur-grade radios, and Alinco is the worst.  The CTCSS deviation
>> is
>> usually not adjustable in the small portables, so the manufacturers
>> apparently think that more is always better.
>>
>> I don't have experience with the VX6, but I would be surprised if the
>> CTCSS
>> deviation wasn't close to 900 Hz.  Perhaps these users modified all of 
>> the
>> radios to pad down the tone deviation, but I think that 500 Hz is ideal.
>> I
>> will check my Quantar service manuals at work for confirmation, but I
>> suspect that the tone sensitivity is fixed.
>>
>> I wonder if there is another factor at work here, such as the purity of
>> tone
>> coming from the VX6 radios, and the tone accuracy.  Does the Quantar work
>> with other radio brands/models?  Maybe it doesn't like raspy tones.
>>
>> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Wolfe
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:24 PM
>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Quantar and PL
>>
>> We recently replaced an aging UHF machine with a Quantar for a local ham
>> repeater. Now it seems that some users are not able to key up the system.
>> Turns out their radios (all VX6's) have fairly low tone deviation. Tests
>> on
>> the Quantar show that it needs at least 300 htz to key it. This seems
>> reasonable to me but the users all say "Well, my radio used to work with
>> the
>> old repeater. So fix the new one."
>>
>> Is there a way to increase the sensitivity to PL tones in a UHF Quantar?
>> Is this desirable?
>>
>> Al, K9SI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar and PL

[Al Wolfe]

Eric,
   Thanks for your quick response. It's true that most of the ham grade 
portables have far too much tone deviation as delivered. The issue here is 
only with VX6's so far. Of the VX6's actually measured one was only 200 Hz 
deviation and all seemed low, that is, none were up to 500 Hz. Have not 
measured tone accuracy or distortion.

I doubt if these radios have been modified as the owners aren't 
particularly technically inclined. One is blind.

So the questions remain: Is the Quantar PL sensitivity adjustable? Is it 
a good thing to make it more sensitive? How do I convince some users that 
there may be a problem with their radio?

"My radio worked before you guys messed with the repeater. Now it 
doesn't. So fix the repeater." is the attitude. I would hate to compromise 
an otherwise great repeater.

Al, K9SI


>Re: Quantar and PL
>Posted by: "Eric Lemmon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wb6fly
>Date: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:53 pm ((PDT))
>
> Al,
>
> Something doesn't sound right here... most Yaesu portables- including my 
> own
> VX7- have far too much tone deviation as delivered.  This is common with
> many Amateur-grade radios, and Alinco is the worst.  The CTCSS deviation 
> is
> usually not adjustable in the small portables, so the manufacturers
> apparently think that more is always better.
>
> I don't have experience with the VX6, but I would be surprised if the 
> CTCSS
> deviation wasn't close to 900 Hz.  Perhaps these users modified all of the
> radios to pad down the tone deviation, but I think that 500 Hz is ideal. 
> I
> will check my Quantar service manuals at work for confirmation, but I
> suspect that the tone sensitivity is fixed.
>
> I wonder if there is another factor at work here, such as the purity of 
> tone
> coming from the VX6 radios, and the tone accuracy.  Does the Quantar work
> with other radio brands/models?  Maybe it doesn't like raspy tones.
>
> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Wolfe
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:24 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Quantar and PL
>
> We recently replaced an aging UHF machine with a Quantar for a local ham
> repeater. Now it seems that some users are not able to key up the system.
> Turns out their radios (all VX6's) have fairly low tone deviation. Tests 
> on
> the Quantar show that it needs at least 300 htz to key it. This seems
> reasonable to me but the users all say "Well, my radio used to work with 
> the
> old repeater. So fix the new one."
>
> Is there a way to increase the sensitivity to PL tones in a UHF Quantar?
> Is this desirable?
>
> Al, K9SI
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Quantar and PL

[Bob M.]

Some of the Yaesu dual-band mobiles have no filtering
in the audio chain. They tout the fact that the audio
is very "hi-fi" sounding. In fact, almost anything
from 50 Hz to 10 kHz will make it through the MIC
audio circuit. After that, they mix in the CTCSS. I
have one user on my repeater that drives GM vehicles,
and for some reason, the tire noise at certain speeds
comes through the microphone and beats with the CTCSS
tone. He drops out like crazy and it frustrates us
all. Several other Yaesu users got rid of their radios
because they wouldn't work with Motorola repeater PL
decoders. One cure was to turn deviation way up so the
CTCSS came out at over 1 kHz deviation, but then the
user had to remember to speak softer because the radio
waw now capable of over 7 kHz deviation. Not the right
way to go.

Many radios have bandpass or highpass filters in the
MIC audio stages so the low frequency audio doesn't
interfere with the CTCSS or DCS signals, but not
Yaesu. So I'm not surprised that this "feature" is
present in a lot of their products. Strangely, the
Yaesu quad-band mobile radio doesn't suffer from this
problem.

I've had this problem using MSF5000 and MaxTrac
receivers. I know both units are capable of decoding
PL down to less than 100 Hz of deviation, and
everything works fine with a Yaesu if you can key it
up but not pass any MIC audio through the transmitter.
Of course, while that's a fix, it's not what the users
want. It'll be hard to convince all those people that
their radios are the cause of the trouble, not the
repeater.

Bob M.
==
--- Eric Lemmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Al,
> 
> Something doesn't sound right here... most Yaesu
> portables- including my own
> VX7- have far too much tone deviation as delivered. 
> This is common with
> many Amateur-grade radios, and Alinco is the worst. 
> The CTCSS deviation is
> usually not adjustable in the small portables, so
> the manufacturers
> apparently think that more is always better.
> 
> I don't have experience with the VX6, but I would be
> surprised if the CTCSS
> deviation wasn't close to 900 Hz.  Perhaps these
> users modified all of the
> radios to pad down the tone deviation, but I think
> that 500 Hz is ideal.  I
> will check my Quantar service manuals at work for
> confirmation, but I
> suspect that the tone sensitivity is fixed.
> 
> I wonder if there is another factor at work here,
> such as the purity of tone
> coming from the VX6 radios, and the tone accuracy. 
> Does the Quantar work
> with other radio brands/models?  Maybe it doesn't
> like raspy tones.
> 
> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Al Wolfe
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:24 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Quantar and PL
> 
> We recently replaced an aging UHF machine with a
> Quantar for a local ham 
> repeater. Now it seems that some users are not able
> to key up the system. 
> Turns out their radios (all VX6's) have fairly low
> tone deviation. Tests on 
> the Quantar show that it needs at least 300 htz to
> key it. This seems 
> reasonable to me but the users all say "Well, my
> radio used to work with the
> 
> old repeater. So fix the new one."
> 
> Is there a way to increase the sensitivity to PL
> tones in a UHF Quantar? 
> Is this desirable?
> 
> Al, K9SI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> (Yahoo! ID required)
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



   

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. 
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

[Repeater-Builder] Call Sign and Sounds like a Ham , NOT

[Don]

I found something interesting and Thought Would share,   I heard a 
Ham  talking as He was driving  through the Chicago Metro area on  a
large Repeater System  , and when I am near the Computer , I  Just
look  up the Call to find more info about the person to see If  We
might have something in common to talk about 

I looked up His call   WD9XAD Onhttp://www.qrz.com/  and  
http://hamcall.net/call  nothing Found , Sure looks like a Older Call
and the Person talked like a Ham 

 But now days who knows so I went to the FCC Site
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/reports7/

Top Search for Call sign Well it came up But NOT A Ham radio call, I
doubt very much if it was the Person with the Non ham lic using it,
But I found it interesting and Nice to learn something as We get
older,  it's just remembering it is the Problem Back in the Old Days
We just took people at their word , But with the Internet I find
things are not always what We think . 

73 De Don KA9QJG