Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Craig House]

Ferrite did the trick. Amazed at the results from everything I have heard. I 
was not on site but everyone is happy so I am happy. 

Craig 


- Original Message -

From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 7:48:22 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz 

Try switching all the ports to 10-BaseT and see fi noise goes away. 

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, George Skorup < george.sko...@cbcast.com > 
wrote: 



That's all fine and good, but I pointed out that the contractor tied their 
heliax to our conduit all the way up. That was about the dumbest possible thing 
they could've done. There's cable hanger bars that are about 3 feet wide and 
we're all the way to one side with our conduit. That's just fucking lazy. 

On 6/7/2017 11:31 PM, Brian Webster wrote: 





The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an 
unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will get you a 
visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. Because you have 
equipment that is unintentionally radiating in licensed spectrum, based on all 
FCC rules you lose and you get fined. This would be the case even if you had no 
RF equipment on the site. That is why gear has certifications for emissions for 
class a and b computing devices to assure they do not radiate any unintentional 
RF signals. Once you install any equipment like that outside the parameters the 
gear was certified under, you become liable for the fines. 



As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will be 
screwed plain and simple. 



The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an unlicensed 
system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your responsibility to eliminate 
that interference as soon as you are notified and it is shown to be your 
equipment causing the problem. 




Thank You, 

Brian Webster 

www.wirelessmapping.com 

www.Broadband-Mapping.com 





From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of George Skorup 
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz 




We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and they're 
complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them they're SOL 
until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an 1-1/4" PVC. So 
we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of the pipe and pull 
new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And we do have a couple 
cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer to pay for it, so too 
bad. 

They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. Obviously 
that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like a Sinclair. 
Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a smaller 
rack-mounted duplexer. 

So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are they 
using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too? 


On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 





I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some connectors 
correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the RF portions of 
all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless they modified the 
repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are the most likely source. 
I guess there could also be punctures or some such in the coax as well. 





On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza < losguyswirel...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 





Lewis. You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks do 
right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's 
opportunity to make some cash 





On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > wrote: 


Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points? Antenna 
to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater. 





Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with or 
interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case I have 
seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I doubt it 
has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I would assume 
it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the RX port on the 
duplexer and then the rest of the connectors. 





Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the antenna 
system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with both two way 
and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both POE and not. 

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Lewis Bergman]

Yea. That sucks. I hate when someone does that. We have our climbers
correct it and we invoice them. They don't always pay but sometimes they
do. If nothing else it seeds doubt in the end customers mind in their
vendor.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017, 12:25 AM George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
wrote:

> That's all fine and good, but I pointed out that the contractor tied their
> heliax to our conduit all the way up. That was about the dumbest possible
> thing they could've done. There's cable hanger bars that are about 3 feet
> wide and we're all the way to one side with our conduit. That's just
> fucking lazy.
>
>
> On 6/7/2017 11:31 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
>
> The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an
> unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will get
> you a visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. Because
> you have equipment that is unintentionally radiating in licensed spectrum,
> based on all FCC rules you lose and you get fined. This would be the case
> even if you had no RF equipment on the site. That is why gear has
> certifications for emissions for class a and b computing devices to assure
> they do not radiate any unintentional RF signals. Once you install any
> equipment like that outside the parameters the gear was certified under,
> you become liable for the fines.
>
>
>
> As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will be
> screwed plain and simple.
>
>
>
> The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an unlicensed
> system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your responsibility to
> eliminate that interference as soon as you are notified and it is shown to
> be your equipment causing the problem.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *George Skorup
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>
>
>
> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an
> 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of
> the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And
> we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer
> to pay for it, so too bad.
>
> They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U.
> Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like
> a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a
> smaller rack-mounted duplexer.
>
> So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are
> they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?
>
> On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>
> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless
> they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are
> the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such
> in the coax as well.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks
> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's
> opportunity to make some cash
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.
>
>
>
> Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with
> or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case
> I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I
> doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I
> would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the
> RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.
>
>
>
> Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the
> antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with
> both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both
> POE and not.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Lewis Bergman]

Yea, you have to have similar enough power to create a set of harmonics. If
one frequency is several multiples higher you won't get anything meaningful
on the 2nd through 7th order. I still think there is an antenna system
issue with the two way. It shouldn't hear anything your doing that far off.
If it has a really crappy wide open front end on that receiver I guess it
might. That is why any two way system on a tower with any other equipment
should always have a preselector. Costs a few hundred and prevents receive
muting by close high powered transmitters (which you are not). I think if
everything is correctly installed and maintained on the 2Way side you
should not interfere with it.
We had and still have dozens of sites with lots of 10/100 POE CAT5 installs
with no issues. I guess it isn't impossible, I just find it highly unlikely.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:12 AM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Could be.  But generally you need watts of power or tens or hundreds of
> watts.  Milliwatts would seem unlikely to generate too much intermod.
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:08 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
> What about intermod? I know in the 2-way radio world that two transmitters
> can mix with each other but I never knew if it could mix with the Ethernet
> or if that wasn't high enough power to be an intermod issue.
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> Forgot about that trick.  In the early days of canopy I solved a few TV
>> interference issues with that method.
>>
>> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:48 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>>
>> Try switching all the ports to 10-BaseT and see fi noise goes away.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's all fine and good, but I pointed out that the contractor tied
>>> their heliax to our conduit all the way up. That was about the dumbest
>>> possible thing they could've done. There's cable hanger bars that are about
>>> 3 feet wide and we're all the way to one side with our conduit. That's just
>>> fucking lazy.
>>>
>>> On 6/7/2017 11:31 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an
>>> unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will get
>>> you a visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. Because
>>> you have equipment that is unintentionally radiating in licensed spectrum,
>>> based on all FCC rules you lose and you get fined. This would be the case
>>> even if you had no RF equipment on the site. That is why gear has
>>> certifications for emissions for class a and b computing devices to assure
>>> they do not radiate any unintentional RF signals. Once you install any
>>> equipment like that outside the parameters the gear was certified under,
>>> you become liable for the fines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will be
>>> screwed plain and simple.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an
>>> unlicensed system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your
>>> responsibility to eliminate that interference as soon as you are notified
>>> and it is shown to be your equipment causing the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank You,
>>>
>>> Brian Webster
>>>
>>> www.wirelessmapping.com
>>>
>>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
>>> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
>>> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an
>>> 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of
>>> the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And
>>> we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer
>>> to pay for it, so too bad.
>>>
>>> They're r

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Chuck McCown]

Could be.  But generally you need watts of power or tens or hundreds of watts.  
Milliwatts would seem unlikely to generate too much intermod.  

From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

What about intermod? I know in the 2-way radio world that two transmitters can 
mix with each other but I never knew if it could mix with the Ethernet or if 
that wasn't high enough power to be an intermod issue.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Forgot about that trick.  In the early days of canopy I solved a few TV 
interference issues with that method.  

  From: Kurt Fankhauser 
  Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:48 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

  Try switching all the ports to 10-BaseT and see fi noise goes away.

  On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> 
wrote:

That's all fine and good, but I pointed out that the contractor tied their 
heliax to our conduit all the way up. That was about the dumbest possible thing 
they could've done. There's cable hanger bars that are about 3 feet wide and 
we're all the way to one side with our conduit. That's just fucking lazy.


On 6/7/2017 11:31 PM, Brian Webster wrote:

  The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an 
unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will get you a 
visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. Because you have 
equipment that is unintentionally radiating in licensed spectrum, based on all 
FCC rules you lose and you get fined. This would be the case even if you had no 
RF equipment on the site. That is why gear has certifications for emissions for 
class a and b computing devices to assure they do not radiate any unintentional 
RF signals. Once you install any equipment like that outside the parameters the 
gear was certified under, you become liable for the fines.



  As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will be 
screwed plain and simple.



  The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an 
unlicensed system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your responsibility to 
eliminate that interference as soon as you are notified and it is shown to be 
your equipment causing the problem. 



  Thank You,

  Brian Webster

  www.wirelessmapping.com

  www.Broadband-Mapping.com



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
  Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
      Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz



  We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and 
they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them they're 
SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an 1-1/4" PVC. 
So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of the pipe and 
pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And we do have a 
couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer to pay for it, so 
too bad.

  They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. 
Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like a 
Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a smaller 
rack-mounted duplexer.

  So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are 
they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?

  On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some 
connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the RF 
portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless they 
modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are the most 
likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such in the coax 
as well.



On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few 
folks do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is 
another's opportunity to make some cash 



  On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

  Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF 
points? Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater. 



  Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered 
with or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other 
case I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I 
doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I 
would assume it is the RX side so I would 

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Kurt Fankhauser]

What about intermod? I know in the 2-way radio world that two transmitters
can mix with each other but I never knew if it could mix with the Ethernet
or if that wasn't high enough power to be an intermod issue.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Forgot about that trick.  In the early days of canopy I solved a few TV
> interference issues with that method.
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:48 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>
> Try switching all the ports to 10-BaseT and see fi noise goes away.
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That's all fine and good, but I pointed out that the contractor tied
>> their heliax to our conduit all the way up. That was about the dumbest
>> possible thing they could've done. There's cable hanger bars that are about
>> 3 feet wide and we're all the way to one side with our conduit. That's just
>> fucking lazy.
>>
>> On 6/7/2017 11:31 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
>>
>> The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an
>> unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will get
>> you a visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. Because
>> you have equipment that is unintentionally radiating in licensed spectrum,
>> based on all FCC rules you lose and you get fined. This would be the case
>> even if you had no RF equipment on the site. That is why gear has
>> certifications for emissions for class a and b computing devices to assure
>> they do not radiate any unintentional RF signals. Once you install any
>> equipment like that outside the parameters the gear was certified under,
>> you become liable for the fines.
>>
>>
>>
>> As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will be
>> screwed plain and simple.
>>
>>
>>
>> The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an
>> unlicensed system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your
>> responsibility to eliminate that interference as soon as you are notified
>> and it is shown to be your equipment causing the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank You,
>>
>> Brian Webster
>>
>> www.wirelessmapping.com
>>
>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
>> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
>> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an
>> 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of
>> the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And
>> we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer
>> to pay for it, so too bad.
>>
>> They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U.
>> Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like
>> a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a
>> smaller rack-mounted duplexer.
>>
>> So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are
>> they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?
>>
>> On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>
>> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
>> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
>> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless
>> they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are
>> the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such
>> in the coax as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks
>> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's
>> opportunity to make some cash
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
>> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repea

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Chuck McCown]

Forgot about that trick.  In the early days of canopy I solved a few TV 
interference issues with that method.  

From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:48 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

Try switching all the ports to 10-BaseT and see fi noise goes away.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:

  That's all fine and good, but I pointed out that the contractor tied their 
heliax to our conduit all the way up. That was about the dumbest possible thing 
they could've done. There's cable hanger bars that are about 3 feet wide and 
we're all the way to one side with our conduit. That's just fucking lazy.


  On 6/7/2017 11:31 PM, Brian Webster wrote:

The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an 
unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will get you a 
visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. Because you have 
equipment that is unintentionally radiating in licensed spectrum, based on all 
FCC rules you lose and you get fined. This would be the case even if you had no 
RF equipment on the site. That is why gear has certifications for emissions for 
class a and b computing devices to assure they do not radiate any unintentional 
RF signals. Once you install any equipment like that outside the parameters the 
gear was certified under, you become liable for the fines.



As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will be 
screwed plain and simple.



The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an unlicensed 
system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your responsibility to eliminate 
that interference as soon as you are notified and it is shown to be your 
equipment causing the problem. 



Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz



We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and 
they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them they're 
SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an 1-1/4" PVC. 
So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of the pipe and 
pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And we do have a 
couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer to pay for it, so 
too bad.

They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. 
Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like a 
Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a smaller 
rack-mounted duplexer.

So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are 
they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?

On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

  I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some 
connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the RF 
portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless they 
modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are the most 
likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such in the coax 
as well.



  On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few 
folks do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is 
another's opportunity to make some cash 



On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points? 
Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater. 



Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered 
with or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other 
case I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I 
doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I 
would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the RX 
port on the duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.



Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the 
antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with both 
two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both POE and 
not.

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Kurt Fankhauser]

Try switching all the ports to 10-BaseT and see fi noise goes away.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
wrote:

> That's all fine and good, but I pointed out that the contractor tied their
> heliax to our conduit all the way up. That was about the dumbest possible
> thing they could've done. There's cable hanger bars that are about 3 feet
> wide and we're all the way to one side with our conduit. That's just
> fucking lazy.
>
> On 6/7/2017 11:31 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
>
> The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an
> unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will get
> you a visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. Because
> you have equipment that is unintentionally radiating in licensed spectrum,
> based on all FCC rules you lose and you get fined. This would be the case
> even if you had no RF equipment on the site. That is why gear has
> certifications for emissions for class a and b computing devices to assure
> they do not radiate any unintentional RF signals. Once you install any
> equipment like that outside the parameters the gear was certified under,
> you become liable for the fines.
>
>
>
> As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will be
> screwed plain and simple.
>
>
>
> The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an unlicensed
> system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your responsibility to
> eliminate that interference as soon as you are notified and it is shown to
> be your equipment causing the problem.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *George Skorup
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>
>
>
> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an
> 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of
> the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And
> we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer
> to pay for it, so too bad.
>
> They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U.
> Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like
> a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a
> smaller rack-mounted duplexer.
>
> So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are
> they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?
>
> On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>
> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless
> they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are
> the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such
> in the coax as well.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks
> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's
> opportunity to make some cash
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.
>
>
>
> Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with
> or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case
> I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I
> doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I
> would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the
> RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.
>
>
>
> Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the
> antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with
> both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both
> POE and not.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[George Skorup]

That's all fine and good, but I pointed out that the contractor tied 
their heliax to our conduit all the way up. That was about the dumbest 
possible thing they could've done. There's cable hanger bars that are 
about 3 feet wide and we're all the way to one side with our conduit. 
That's just fucking lazy.


On 6/7/2017 11:31 PM, Brian Webster wrote:


The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an 
unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will 
get you a visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. 
Because you have equipment that is unintentionally radiating in 
licensed spectrum, based on all FCC rules you lose and you get fined. 
This would be the case even if you had no RF equipment on the site. 
That is why gear has certifications for emissions for class a and b 
computing devices to assure they do not radiate any unintentional RF 
signals. Once you install any equipment like that outside the 
parameters the gear was certified under, you become liable for the fines.


As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will 
be screwed plain and simple.


The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an 
unlicensed system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your 
responsibility to eliminate that interference as soon as you are 
notified and it is shown to be your equipment causing the problem.


Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower 
and they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told 
them they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're 
all in an 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the 
cables out of the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to 
be in conduit. And we do have a couple cables in use that aren't 
shielded. They didn't offer to pay for it, so too bad.


They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. 
Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer 
like a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let 
them use a smaller rack-mounted duplexer.


So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. 
Are they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?


On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy
gear the RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded
very well. Unless they modified the repeater leaving some
shielding off the connectors are the most likely source. I guess
there could also be punctures or some such in the coax as well.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com <mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Lewis. You are assuming the VHF gear was properly
installed...few folks do right first time... someones laziness
or lack of knowledge is another's opportunity to make some cash

On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman"
<lewis.berg...@gmail.com <mailto:lewis.berg...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF
points? Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to
repeater.

Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be
interfered with or interfere with someone else it is a
connector issue. The only other case I have seen issues should
be able to be determined by an intermod study. I doubt it has
anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I
would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX
Repeater port to the RX port on the duplexer and then the rest
of the connectors.

Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good
on the antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have
a lot of sites with both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz
operating on all kinds of speeds both POE and not.

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Brian Webster]

The problem with this attitude to the fix, you as the WISP are now an 
unintentional radiator interfering with a licensed service. This will get you a 
visit from the FCC and you will be at fault no matter what. Because you have 
equipment that is unintentionally radiating in licensed spectrum, based on all 
FCC rules you lose and you get fined. This would be the case even if you had no 
RF equipment on the site. That is why gear has certifications for emissions for 
class a and b computing devices to assure they do not radiate any unintentional 
RF signals. Once you install any equipment like that outside the parameters the 
gear was certified under, you become liable for the fines.

 

As mentioned by others fix the problem, if they call the FCC you will be 
screwed plain and simple.

 

The school is not SOL because of your gear, you are. You are an unlicensed 
system radiating on their frequencies…… it is your responsibility to eliminate 
that interference as soon as you are notified and it is shown to be your 
equipment causing the problem. 

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

 

We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and they're 
complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them they're SOL 
until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an 1-1/4" PVC. So 
we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of the pipe and pull 
new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And we do have a couple 
cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer to pay for it, so too bad.

They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. Obviously 
that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like a Sinclair. 
Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a smaller 
rack-mounted duplexer.

So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are they 
using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?

On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some connectors 
correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the RF portions of 
all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless they modified the 
repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are the most likely source. 
I guess there could also be punctures or some such in the coax as well.

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks do 
right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's 
opportunity to make some cash 

 

On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points? Antenna 
to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater. 

 

Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with or 
interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case I have 
seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I doubt it 
has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I would assume 
it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the RX port on the 
duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.

 

Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the antenna 
system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with both two way 
and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both POE and not.

 

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Chuck McCown]

That's what she said

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 7, 2017, at 8:26 PM, Lewis Bergman <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Normally size is not a good determinate for quality. It just limits the input 
> power. There are some good sub 50 watt out there. If you use those you should 
> at least use a preselector. Really,  if you are colocated at all you should.
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017, 7:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Be the hero dude...fix it and move on..
>> 
>>> On Jun 7, 2017 6:42 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>> Helical resonator duplexers can be almost as good as quarter wave duplexers 
>>> and much smaller.
>>>  
>>> From: George Skorup
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:56 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>>>  
>>> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and 
>>> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them 
>>> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an 
>>> 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of 
>>> the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And 
>>> we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer 
>>> to pay for it, so too bad.
>>> 
>>> They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. 
>>> Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like 
>>> a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a 
>>> smaller rack-mounted duplexer.
>>> 
>>> So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are 
>>> they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?
>>> 
>>>> On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>>> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some 
>>>> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the 
>>>> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless 
>>>> they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are 
>>>> the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such 
>>>> in the coax as well.
>>>>  
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks 
>>>>> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is 
>>>>> another's opportunity to make some cash
>>>>>  
>>>>>> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points? 
>>>>>> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with 
>>>>>> or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other 
>>>>>> case I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod 
>>>>>> study. I doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty 
>>>>>> connector. I would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX 
>>>>>> Repeater port to the RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the 
>>>>>> connectors.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the 
>>>>>> antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites 
>>>>>> with both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of 
>>>>>> speeds both POE and not.
>>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Lewis Bergman]

Normally size is not a good determinate for quality. It just limits the
input power. There are some good sub 50 watt out there. If you use those
you should at least use a preselector. Really,  if you are colocated at all
you should.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017, 7:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Be the hero dude...fix it and move on..
>
> On Jun 7, 2017 6:42 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> Helical resonator duplexers can be almost as good as quarter wave
>> duplexers and much smaller.
>>
>> *From:* George Skorup
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:56 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>>
>> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
>> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
>> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an
>> 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of
>> the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And
>> we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer
>> to pay for it, so too bad.
>>
>> They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U.
>> Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like
>> a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a
>> smaller rack-mounted duplexer.
>>
>> So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are
>> they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?
>>
>> On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>
>> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
>> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
>> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless
>> they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are
>> the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such
>> in the coax as well.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks
>>> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's
>>> opportunity to make some cash
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
>>>> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered
>>>> with or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other
>>>> case I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod
>>>> study. I doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty
>>>> connector. I would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX
>>>> Repeater port to the RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the
>>>> connectors.
>>>>
>>>> Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the
>>>> antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with
>>>> both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both
>>>> POE and not.
>>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Jaime Solorza]

Be the hero dude...fix it and move on..

On Jun 7, 2017 6:42 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Helical resonator duplexers can be almost as good as quarter wave
> duplexers and much smaller.
>
> *From:* George Skorup
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:56 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>
> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an
> 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of
> the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And
> we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer
> to pay for it, so too bad.
>
> They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U.
> Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like
> a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a
> smaller rack-mounted duplexer.
>
> So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are
> they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?
>
> On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>
> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless
> they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are
> the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such
> in the coax as well.
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks
>> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's
>> opportunity to make some cash
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
>>> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.
>>>
>>> Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with
>>> or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case
>>> I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I
>>> doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I
>>> would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the
>>> RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.
>>>
>>> Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the
>>> antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with
>>> both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both
>>> POE and not.
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Chuck McCown]

Helical resonator duplexers can be almost as good as quarter wave duplexers and 
much smaller.

From: George Skorup 
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and they're 
complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them they're SOL 
until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an 1-1/4" PVC. So 
we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of the pipe and pull 
new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And we do have a couple 
cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer to pay for it, so too bad.

They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. Obviously 
that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like a Sinclair. 
Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a smaller 
rack-mounted duplexer.

So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are they 
using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?


On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

  I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some connectors 
correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the RF portions of 
all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless they modified the 
repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are the most likely source. 
I guess there could also be punctures or some such in the coax as well.

  On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks do 
right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's 
opportunity to make some cash 

On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points? 
Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater. 

  Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with 
or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case I 
have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I doubt 
it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I would 
assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the RX port 
on the duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.

  Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the 
antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with both 
two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both POE and 
not.

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[George Skorup]

We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and 
they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them 
they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in 
an 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables 
out of the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in 
conduit. And we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. 
They didn't offer to pay for it, so too bad.


They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. 
Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer 
like a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them 
use a smaller rack-mounted duplexer.


So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are 
they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too?


On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some 
connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear 
the RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. 
Unless they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the 
connectors are the most likely source. I guess there could also be 
punctures or some such in the coax as well.


On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:


Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few
folks do right first time... someones laziness or lack of
knowledge is another's opportunity to make some cash

On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" > wrote:

Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF
points? Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to
repeater.

Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be
interfered with or interfere with someone else it is a
connector issue. The only other case I have seen issues should
be able to be determined by an intermod study. I doubt it has
anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I
would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX
Repeater port to the RX port on the duplexer and then the rest
of the connectors.

Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good
on the antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have
a lot of sites with both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz
operating on all kinds of speeds both POE and not.

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Jaime Solorza]

Or they used RG8  still a Heliax guy... shoot me

On Jun 7, 2017 4:55 PM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:

> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless
> they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are
> the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such
> in the coax as well.
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
>> Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks
>> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's
>> opportunity to make some cash
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
>>> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.
>>>
>>> Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with
>>> or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case
>>> I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I
>>> doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I
>>> would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the
>>> RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.
>>>
>>> Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the
>>> antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with
>>> both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both
>>> POE and not.
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[chuck]

If I had a VHF repeater with a high gain omni and a very low noise pre-amp, I 
would hate to have any digital equipment on the same hill.  But those years 
have long since passed.  

From: Lewis Bergman 
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 4:55 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some connectors 
correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the RF portions of 
all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless they modified the 
repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are the most likely source. 
I guess there could also be punctures or some such in the coax as well.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks do 
right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's 
opportunity to make some cash 

  On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points? 
Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater. 

Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with or 
interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case I have 
seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I doubt it 
has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I would assume 
it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the RX port on the 
duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.

Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the 
antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with both 
two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both POE and 
not.

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Lewis Bergman]

I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless
they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are
the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such
in the coax as well.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Lewis.  You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks
> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's
> opportunity to make some cash
>
> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:
>
>> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
>> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.
>>
>> Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with
>> or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case
>> I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I
>> doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I
>> would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the
>> RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.
>>
>> Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the
>> antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with
>> both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both
>> POE and not.
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Lewis Bergman]

Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.

Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with or
interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case I
have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod study. I
doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty connector. I
would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX Repeater port to the
RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the connectors.

Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the
antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites with
both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of speeds both
POE and not.

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[chuck]

The problem is the permeability of air is very low compared to a metallic 
core.

It would help a bit.

-Original Message- 
From: George Skorup

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 12:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

Could you not put a couple turns on the cat5's at both ends to choke it?

On 6/7/2017 9:31 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
You put ferrite close to the source of the noise, so close to the radios 
and if that does not do it, close to any switch or router on the other end 
of the run.  Clamps or rings will both work.  I prefer clamps.


-Original Message- From: Craig House
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 8:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables   If you mean in conduit though no 
they are not in conduit.


If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do you 
use.  Clamps or rings?  One end of the cable or both?  If rings, how many 
loops of cable through them?


Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 7, 2017, at 09:10, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can radiate in
the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.

bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:
We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is 
a guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters 
located on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears 
to be our equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the 
two towers are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on 
top of the tower at one point and we have since moved all of our 
backhauls down to the catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower 
from the two-way repeater attempting to put some distance between our 
equipment and the repeater but has not solve the problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some 
ubiquity air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all 
running off of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The 
other Tower has only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air 
fiber 5X amount of lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this 
Tower has ethernet cable's running to the base where our equipment is 
running from an old CMM micro or their own power supplies in the case of 
the air fiber. Everything at this Tower is located inside of a metal 
communications cabinet at the base. In both locations we have removed 
old 900 FSK radios which were a source of interference but the problem 
seems to have come back. I'm looking for ideas on what others have found 
may be the source of interference or solution because I'm tired of 
throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find the right Target.


Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[George Skorup]

Could you not put a couple turns on the cat5's at both ends to choke it?

On 6/7/2017 9:31 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
You put ferrite close to the source of the noise, so close to the 
radios and if that does not do it, close to any switch or router on 
the other end of the run.  Clamps or rings will both work.  I prefer 
clamps.


-Original Message- From: Craig House
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 8:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables   If you mean in conduit though no 
they are not in conduit.


If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do 
you use.  Clamps or rings?  One end of the cable or both?  If rings, 
how many loops of cable through them?


Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 7, 2017, at 09:10, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can radiate in
the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.

bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:
We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the 
other is a guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way 
repeaters located on the towers that are receiving interference from 
what appears to be our equipment. Nothing is substantially common 
between the way the two towers are built out. The water tower had 
all of the equipment on top of the tower at one point and we have 
since moved all of our backhauls down to the catwalk railing on the 
opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater attempting to 
put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but has not 
solve the problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some 
ubiquity air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower 
all running off of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik 
router. The other Tower has only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It 
also has an air fiber 5X amount of lower on the Tower around 55 
feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet cable's running to the 
base where our equipment is running from an old CMM micro or their 
own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything at this 
Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the 
base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which 
were a source of interference but the problem seems to have come 
back. I'm looking for ideas on what others have found may be the 
source of interference or solution because I'm tired of throwing 
darts blindfolded and hoping I find the right Target.


Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Bill Prince]

We got ones like these: 
http://www.fair-rite.com/product/round-cable-snap-its-475164281/


We put one at the radio, and one at the surge suppressor at the bottom. 
Solved our problems immediately.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 6/7/2017 7:42 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Is the shield still good?  If the foil corrodes it becomes a lot less 
conductive.  You'd have to cut off a piece of cable and peel it apart 
to see.  The foil turns from shiny to dull, and if you check 
resistance between shiny parts it's 0, but between the dull parts 
it'll be meg ohms.


For ferrites look at fair-rite.com for one with high impedance near 
149mhz.  Clamp is easier to install.  A ring you can loop through 
multiple times. The impedance increases by the square of the number of 
loops, so you could get a better result that way. It might end up 
needing some trial and error to get it right.




-- Original Message --
From: "Craig House" <cr...@totalhighspeed.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 6/7/2017 10:27:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables   If you mean in conduit though 
no they are not in conduit.


If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do 
you use.  Clamps or rings?  One end of the cable or both?  If rings, 
how many loops of cable through them?


Sent from my iPhone


 On Jun 7, 2017, at 09:10, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can 
radiate in

 the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.

 bp
 <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


 On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:
 We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the 
other is a guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way 
repeaters located on the towers that are receiving interference 
from what appears to be our equipment. Nothing is substantially 
common between the way the two towers are built out. The water 
tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower at one point and 
we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the catwalk 
railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater 
attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the 
repeater but has not solve the problem.
 We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some 
ubiquity air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower 
all running off of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik 
router. The other Tower has only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. 
It also has an air fiber 5X amount of lower on the Tower around 55 
feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet cable's running to the 
base where our equipment is running from an old CMM micro or their 
own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything at this 
Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the 
base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which 
were a source of interference but the problem seems to have come 
back. I'm looking for ideas on what others have found may be the 
source of interference or solution because I'm tired of throwing 
darts blindfolded and hoping I find the right Target.


 Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Adam Moffett]

Is the shield still good?  If the foil corrodes it becomes a lot less 
conductive.  You'd have to cut off a piece of cable and peel it apart to 
see.  The foil turns from shiny to dull, and if you check resistance 
between shiny parts it's 0, but between the dull parts it'll be meg 
ohms.


For ferrites look at fair-rite.com for one with high impedance near 
149mhz.  Clamp is easier to install.  A ring you can loop through 
multiple times. The impedance increases by the square of the number of 
loops, so you could get a better result that way.  It might end up 
needing some trial and error to get it right.




-- Original Message --
From: "Craig House" <cr...@totalhighspeed.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 6/7/2017 10:27:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables   If you mean in conduit though no 
they are not in conduit.


If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do 
you use.  Clamps or rings?  One end of the cable or both?  If rings, 
how many loops of cable through them?


Sent from my iPhone


 On Jun 7, 2017, at 09:10, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can radiate 
in

 the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.

 bp
 <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


 On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:
 We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the 
other is a guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way 
repeaters located on the towers that are receiving interference from 
what appears to be our equipment. Nothing is substantially common 
between the way the two towers are built out. The water tower had all 
of the equipment on top of the tower at one point and we have since 
moved all of our backhauls down to the catwalk railing on the 
opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater attempting to 
put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but has not 
solve the problem.
 We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some 
ubiquity air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower 
all running off of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. 
The other Tower has only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has 
an air fiber 5X amount of lower on the Tower around 55 feet. 
Everything on this Tower has ethernet cable's running to the base 
where our equipment is running from an old CMM micro or their own 
power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything at this Tower 
is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the base. In 
both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a source 
of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm looking 
for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference 
or solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and 
hoping I find the right Target.


 Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Bill Prince]

Back when we had this kind of problem, I got a bunch of torroids from 
Fair-Rite (http://www.fair-rite.com/). I got the snap-on variety that 
closely fit the OD of the cable we were using. I selected ones that 
would block up to 500 MHz (you can filter by frequency you want to block).



bp


On 6/7/2017 7:27 AM, Craig House wrote:

They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables   If you mean in conduit though no they are 
not in conduit.

If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do you use.  
Clamps or rings?  One end of the cable or both?  If rings, how many loops of 
cable through them?

Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 7, 2017, at 09:10, Bill Prince  wrote:

Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can radiate in
the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.

bp



On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:
We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a 
guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located on 
the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our 
equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers are 
built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower at one 
point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the catwalk railing 
on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater attempting to put 
some distance between our equipment and the repeater but has not solve the 
problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity air 
fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off of net 
tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has only a few 
m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount of lower on the 
Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet cable's running to 
the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM micro or their own 
power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything at this Tower is 
located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the base. In both locations 
we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a source of interference but the 
problem seems to have come back. I'm looking for ideas on what others have 
found may be the source of interference or solution because I'm tired of 
throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find the right Target.

Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[chuck]

You put ferrite close to the source of the noise, so close to the radios and 
if that does not do it, close to any switch or router on the other end of 
the run.  Clamps or rings will both work.  I prefer clamps.


-Original Message- 
From: Craig House

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 8:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables   If you mean in conduit though no they 
are not in conduit.


If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do you 
use.  Clamps or rings?  One end of the cable or both?  If rings, how many 
loops of cable through them?


Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 7, 2017, at 09:10, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can radiate in
the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.

bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:
We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is 
a guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters 
located on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears 
to be our equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the 
two towers are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top 
of the tower at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls 
down to the catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the 
two-way repeater attempting to put some distance between our equipment 
and the repeater but has not solve the problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity 
air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running 
off of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower 
has only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X 
amount of lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has 
ethernet cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from 
an old CMM micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air 
fiber. Everything at this Tower is located inside of a metal 
communications cabinet at the base. In both locations we have removed old 
900 FSK radios which were a source of interference but the problem seems 
to have come back. I'm looking for ideas on what others have found may be 
the source of interference or solution because I'm tired of throwing 
darts blindfolded and hoping I find the right Target.


Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Craig House]

They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables   If you mean in conduit though no they are 
not in conduit.   

If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do you use.  
Clamps or rings?  One end of the cable or both?  If rings, how many loops of 
cable through them?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 7, 2017, at 09:10, Bill Prince  wrote:
> 
> Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can radiate in 
> the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.
> 
> bp
> 
> 
>> On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:
>> We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a 
>> guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located 
>> on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our 
>> equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers 
>> are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower 
>> at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the 
>> catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater 
>> attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but 
>> has not solve the problem.
>> We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity 
>> air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off 
>> of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has 
>> only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount of 
>> lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet 
>> cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM 
>> micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything 
>> at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the 
>> base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a 
>> source of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm looking 
>> for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference or 
>> solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find 
>> the right Target.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Bill Prince]

Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can radiate in 
the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.


bp


On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:

We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a 
guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located on 
the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our 
equipment.   Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers are 
built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower at one 
point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the catwalk railing 
on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater attempting to put 
some distance between our equipment and the repeater but has not solve the 
problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity air 
fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off of net 
tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has only a few 
m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount of lower on the 
Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet cable's running to 
the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM micro or their own 
power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything at this Tower is 
located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the base.  In both 
locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a source of 
interference but the problem seems to have come back.  I'm looking for ideas on 
what others have found may be the source of interference or solution because 
I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find the right Target.

Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Mike Hammett]

SFPs? :-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Craig House" <cr...@totalhighspeed.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 3:21:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz 

I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of the devices one at a 
time and it appears the noise detected drops by a couple of DB with each device 
we unplug. But since the devices are POE is there even a solution to this?? 

Sent from my iPhone 

> On Jun 6, 2017, at 15:19, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: 
> 
> Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a 
> device? 
> I would suspect ethernet noise. 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Craig House 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM 
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz 
> 
> We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a 
> guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located 
> on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our 
> equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers 
> are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower 
> at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the 
> catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater 
> attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but 
> has not solve the problem. 
> We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity 
> air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off 
> of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has 
> only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount of 
> lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet 
> cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM 
> micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything 
> at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the 
> base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a 
> source of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm looking 
> for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference or 
> solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find 
> the right Target. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Try forcing to 10Mb/s and see if that helps as well   If it does, then
I concur with everyone else - ferrites and/or shielding.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Craig House 
wrote:

> I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of the devices one at
> a time and it appears the noise detected drops by a couple of DB with each
> device we unplug. But since the devices are POE is there even a solution to
> this??
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 6, 2017, at 15:19, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> >
> > Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a
> > device?
> > I would suspect ethernet noise.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Craig House
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
> >
> > We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is
> a
> > guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters
> located
> > on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our
> > equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers
> > are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the
> tower
> > at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the
> > catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way
> repeater
> > attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater
> but
> > has not solve the problem.
> > We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity
> > air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running
> off
> > of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has
> > only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount
> of
> > lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet
> > cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old
> CMM
> > micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber.
> Everything
> > at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the
> > base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a
> > source of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm
> looking
> > for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference or
> > solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I
> find
> > the right Target.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
>



-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Jaime Solorza]

100mbps FDD link is the worse...not sure if 1000Mbps affects two way
Systems in VHF bands...shielded cabling and ferrite is one
solutionconduit and isolation is anotheryou should also be on
different power and grounding sources.  Isolators can help if you can't
separate power.

On Jun 6, 2017 2:33 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

Ferrite and shielding.


-Original Message- From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz


I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of the devices one at a
time and it appears the noise detected drops by a couple of DB with each
device we unplug. But since the devices are POE is there even a solution to
this??

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 6, 2017, at 15:19, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
> Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a
> device?
> I would suspect ethernet noise.
>
> -Original Message- From: Craig House
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>
> We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a
> guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located
> on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our
> equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers
> are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower
> at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the
> catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater
> attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but
> has not solve the problem.
> We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity
> air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off
> of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has
> only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount of
> lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet
> cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM
> micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything
> at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the
> base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a
> source of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm looking
> for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference or
> solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find
> the right Target.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[George Skorup]

It's most likely not the POE circuits, but 100Mbps ethernet = 125MHz. 
Not uncommon to see noise up into the 144 amateur and 150 service bands.


We're co-located with our local public safety dispatch org at a couple 
sites. And we both have ethernet running up the towers. All of our 
grounding is tied together and neither of us has any issues. So that's 
the first thing I would look at. Are you properly single-point grounded? 
They use a lot of Motorola MTR2000's, so I don't know if the receiver on 
those is better or something.


On 6/6/2017 3:21 PM, Craig House wrote:

I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of the devices one at a 
time and it appears the noise detected drops by a couple of DB with each device 
we unplug. But since the devices are POE is there even a solution to this??

Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 6, 2017, at 15:19, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a
device?
I would suspect ethernet noise.

-Original Message-
From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a
guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located
on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our
equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers
are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower
at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the
catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater
attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but
has not solve the problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity
air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off
of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has
only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount of
lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet
cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM
micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything
at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the
base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a
source of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm looking
for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference or
solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find
the right Target.

Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Adam Moffett]

I remember interfering with somebody's 2-way setup and switching to 
shielded cables helped.but only after we grounded the shield.  I 
think I just peeled out extra drain wire and wrapped it around the 
ground lug on an SS.  We can imagine it was McCown Tech SS if we want.


You can also run fiber to a box at the top, and just have a 10' POE 
jumper from the box to the equipment.  Not saying that's the easiest 
solution, but it would certainly reduce the amount of ethernet on the 
tower.



-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 6/6/2017 4:32:59 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz


Ferrite and shielding.

-Original Message- From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of the devices one 
at a time and it appears the noise detected drops by a couple of DB 
with each device we unplug. But since the devices are POE is there even 
a solution to this??


Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 6, 2017, at 15:19, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a
device?
I would suspect ethernet noise.

-Original Message- From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other 
is a
guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters 
located
on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be 
our
equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two 
towers
are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the 
tower

at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the
catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way 
repeater
attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater 
but

has not solve the problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some 
ubiquity
air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running 
off
of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower 
has
only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X 
amount of
lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has 
ethernet
cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old 
CMM
micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. 
Everything
at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at 
the
base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were 
a
source of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm 
looking
for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference 
or
solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I 
find

the right Target.

Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Chuck McCown]

Ferrite and shielding.

-Original Message- 
From: Craig House

Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of the devices one at a 
time and it appears the noise detected drops by a couple of DB with each 
device we unplug. But since the devices are POE is there even a solution to 
this??


Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 6, 2017, at 15:19, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a
device?
I would suspect ethernet noise.

-Original Message- 
From: Craig House

Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a
guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located
on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our
equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers
are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the 
tower

at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the
catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way 
repeater

attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but
has not solve the problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity
air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off
of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has
only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount 
of

lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet
cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM
micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything
at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the
base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a
source of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm 
looking

for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference or
solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find
the right Target.

Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Craig House]

I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of the devices one at a 
time and it appears the noise detected drops by a couple of DB with each device 
we unplug. But since the devices are POE is there even a solution to this??

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 6, 2017, at 15:19, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> 
> Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a 
> device?
> I would suspect ethernet noise.
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Craig House
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
> 
> We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a 
> guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located 
> on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our 
> equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers 
> are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower 
> at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the 
> catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater 
> attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but 
> has not solve the problem.
> We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity 
> air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off 
> of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has 
> only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount of 
> lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet 
> cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM 
> micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything 
> at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the 
> base. In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a 
> source of interference but the problem seems to have come back. I'm looking 
> for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference or 
> solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find 
> the right Target.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

[Chuck McCown]

Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a 
device?

I would suspect ethernet noise.

-Original Message- 
From: Craig House

Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz

We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a 
guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located 
on the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our 
equipment.   Nothing is substantially common between the way the two towers 
are built out. The water tower had all of the equipment on top of the tower 
at one point and we have since moved all of our backhauls down to the 
catwalk railing on the opposite side of the tower from the two-way repeater 
attempting to put some distance between our equipment and the repeater but 
has not solve the problem.
We have ePMP both 2.4 sectors and the 5 GHz Omni as well as some ubiquity 
air fiber five and Power beam M5 radios on the water tower all running off 
of net tonics 24 port switch and the microtik router. The other Tower has 
only a few m5 radios and and M2 Omni. It also has an air fiber 5X amount of 
lower on the Tower around 55 feet. Everything on this Tower has ethernet 
cable's running to the base where our equipment is running from an old CMM 
micro or their own power supplies in the case of the air fiber. Everything 
at this Tower is located inside of a metal communications cabinet at the 
base.  In both locations we have removed old 900 FSK radios which were a 
source of interference but the problem seems to have come back.  I'm looking 
for ideas on what others have found may be the source of interference or 
solution because I'm tired of throwing darts blindfolded and hoping I find 
the right Target.


Sent from my iPhone