[Repeater-Builder] Dayton 2005
It was nice to see everyone that stopped by and said howdy at the Repeater Builder booth at Dayton this year. Many of folks who visited thanked us for having the website and repeater-builder email list for the benefit of the repeater builders abound; and for that, I say... Thank-You! Because MDM Ted couldn't make it to Dayton this year, we had good weather (for a change). 2005 was my 31st year of attendance at the Hamvention, and I can only remember a few other years that were as nice weather wise, (those other years Ted couldn't make it). I'll be taking up a collection to send to Ted, so as he don't attend next year... Sales were quite good all weekend. Repeater Builder sold out of many items by late afternoon Saturday. Remember Ted's slogan, "If it's in stock, we've got it!" Unfortunately, many who saved their money for Sunday buying missed out. If anyone wanted something we had on special, I'll offer to extend our show prices for a short time longer, but realize you'll have to pay for shipping as my feet are tired and I won't be able to deliver the stuff by hand. It was nice to have Ken from Arcom Communications with us at the Repeater Builder tent this year. Nothing like the Factory Rep. for answering important questions. Ken was showing off the radio card for the new RC-810 multi-port controller, and demonstrating the RC-210 on the dual band repeater we had running at the Hamvention. Here is a list of stuff: Arcom Dayton Specials: RC-210 controller in kit form, $235.00, plus shipping http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/rc210/rc210.html http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/presales.html RC-210 controller assembled, $335.00, plus shipping http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/rc210/rc210.html http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/presales.html Rack Mount Enclosure for the controller, $95.00, plus shipping. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/rc210/cabinet.html AP-1 Autopatch Module, $145.00, plus shipping http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/rc210/ap1.html Repeater Builder Products: Repeater Antennas Audio Processing Static Busting http://www.repeater-builder.com/products/ Scott has a few GE Mastr II VHF PLL "E" chassis mobiles left. Call Scott for pricing and shipping quotes. Repeater Builder - The company Kevin Custer W3KKC w3kkc at repeater dash builder dot com Scott Zimmerman N3XCC n3xcc at repeater dash builder dot com To order, or for more information, please contact us either via e-mail or by phone (814) 444-9460 during reasonable hours EST. Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX
Humpf ... new-comer ... Neil - WA6KLA "Mark A. Holman" wrote: > > Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were > discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam > probably. > > Mark AB8RU > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Original Message - > From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > > > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to > > Hertz transition. > > To all else, > > cycles-per-second = Hertz > > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz > > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz > > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. > > Gee, What kind of table do you need? > > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = > > Hertz" > > 73 > > AC0Y > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would > > be: > > > > > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. > > > > > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before > > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. > > > > > > Joe K5FOG > > > > > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > > > > > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: > > > > > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. > > > > > > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! > > > >> > > > >> Richard, N7TGB > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -Original Message- > > > >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM > > > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? > > > >> > > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >--- Original Message --- > > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM > > > >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > >> > >Cc : > > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Alexander, > > > >> > > > > > >> > >The > > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on > > a network > > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. > > It's only > > > >a > > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, > > so no > > > >amount > > > >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above > > its design > > > >> > >limit. > > > >> > > > > >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please > > realize that > > > >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M > > duplexer at > > > >500 > > > >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter > > repeaters > > > >> are > > > >> > operated. This added frequency separation allows for the > > duplexer to > > > >> > provide more than the stated isolation at the 500 kiloHertz > > > >specification. > > > >> > > > > >> > The Wacom WP-641 is specified at 85 dB of isolation at a 500 > > kiloHertz > > > >> > split, but provides 93 dB of isolation at 600 kiloHertz. The > > Sinclair > > > >> Q202G > > > >> > is similar in its factory specifications, and isolation > > provided. > > > >> > > > > >> > Kevin Custer > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ > > > >> > > > > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> > > > > >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel Products duplexer TDD7200A-C
TDD7200A is a Motorola part number. This duplexer is an option rather than a catalog item. Call Motorola Parts ID at 800-422-4210, and ask what this number crosses to in the Decibel Products catalog. Once you have the DP part number, contact DP Tech Support for assistance. If you don't get good answers, try making up jumpers that are two inches longer than the existing ones. Don't touch the loops until you have scoped the duplexer on a network analyzer (or a spectrum analyzer with an RLB) to see that the performance is about the same as in the original band. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY ka9fer wrote: > Does anyone have any info on Decibel Products duplexer model # > tdd7200a-c? > This is a six can pass reject device that was on the 155 MHz area. Does > this need to have the loops changed or the jumpers between the cans > lengthened to be optimized for better isolation between rx/tx? Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX
--- "Mark A. Holman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in > 1976 we were discussing the > KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. > was on the exam probably. > > Then the material was probably out of date. The CPS to Hz was made in 1967. Almost 10 years before your Novice class. Probably enough old timers around then that they still said KC or MC. I usually use that myself instead of Hz. I was not an old timer at that time but had been reading electronics magazines for about 6 or 7 years before that. de KU4PT __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Repeater-Builder] MRTI and MRTI 1000 help
Howdy! Anyone got a source for documentation for Motorola MRTI and MRTI 1000? I've got 2 in service at work and no paperwork. They're both currently running on G.E. MastrII's primarily in use for in house paging but the bosses want to move them to Kenwood TKR840's. Any help would be appreciated. Jon Holder Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Repeater-Builder] decibel products duplexer tdd7200a-c
anyone have any info on decibel products duplexer model# tdd7200a-c this is a six can pass reject device that was on the 155mhz area does this need to have the loops changed or the jumpers between the cans lengthened to be optimized for better isolation between rx/txthanks Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] SSB Remote Base
Look for a copy of the August 1982 issue of 73 magazine which has an article called Smart squelch. I couldn't find a copy of the article but I did find it listed in an old "Radio kit" catalog in my file. I built two of the radio kit versions years ago and they have served me well for monitoring weak signal SSB on VHF. After Radio Kit quit selling them, there was another company that supposedly built a better smart squelch that I read about in a SWOT newsletter one time but I never saw that version advertised anywhere else other than that one review. I have no idea which issue of the SWOT newsletter. John Lock KF0M Wichita KS kf0m at arrl dot net > -Original Message- > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eric > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 12:11 AM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] SSB Remote Base > > > I was looking at using a MFJ-9406 6 Meter SSB radio for a 6 meter > remote base at my reapeater site. Any Ideas on how to get a COS/COR > signal out. I thought about using a CAT Tech SQ-1000 Squelch board but > didn't know how it would handle the pulsing nature of SSB. Has anyone > tried this or something similar ?? > > > Eric Kc5Fog > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Intermod Problem
If that is the issue, it seems the easiest way would be to replace the receiver with something that doesn't have a 10.7 MHz IF. Or, even with a higher quality receiver. Joe M. dgrapach wrote: > > I have a 440 repeater transmitting 442.850 and receiving on 447.850. > We are hearing interference on the repeater from 453.550 which we > confirmed on a scanner. This 453.550 frequency is not at the same > site as the repeater (it isn't extremely strong), however there are > many other transmitters on the same hill. We figured that maybe the > 453.550 frequency is mixing with the transmitter frequency of 442.850 > to give 10.7MHz, which is the first IF of the receiver. The receiver > is a Hamtronics R304. The duplexers are Wacom WP-678-R2. > > Originally, I was thinking of buying a bandpass filter such as one > from DCI, but it seems that this would not attenuate the 453MHz > frequency very much. Could the transmitter signal be getting into the > receiver and mixing there? > > What could be causing this problem and how would I correct it? > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise
At 08:40 PM 5/23/2005, Chuck Kelsey wrote: >A sledgehammer will correct it as well ;-) And the advantage is that you'll >never have to worry about tuning later on. Widlar optimization :) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Repeater-Builder] Repeater Intermod Problem
I have a 440 repeater transmitting 442.850 and receiving on 447.850. We are hearing interference on the repeater from 453.550 which we confirmed on a scanner. This 453.550 frequency is not at the same site as the repeater (it isn't extremely strong), however there are many other transmitters on the same hill. We figured that maybe the 453.550 frequency is mixing with the transmitter frequency of 442.850 to give 10.7MHz, which is the first IF of the receiver. The receiver is a Hamtronics R304. The duplexers are Wacom WP-678-R2. Originally, I was thinking of buying a bandpass filter such as one from DCI, but it seems that this would not attenuate the 453MHz frequency very much. Could the transmitter signal be getting into the receiver and mixing there? What could be causing this problem and how would I correct it? Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise
I prefer target practice,it prolongs the fun for a few more minutes. Their receivers for 220 arent much better,the TCXO model makes a great microphone but a lousy receiver... Chuck Kelsey wrote: >A sledgehammer will correct it as well ;-) And the advantage is that you'll >never have to worry about tuning later on. > >Chuck >WB2EDV > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Eric Lemmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:30 PM >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise > > > > >>>Don, >>> >>> >>You have it right; the correct term is "microphonics." The IEEE Standard >>Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics >>Terms defines microphonics as "The noise caused by mechanical shock or >>vibration of elements in a system." >> >>Tube-type amplifiers are extremely prone to microphonics, since they have >>grids and plates that can be vibrated >>easily. Solid-state devices are much less prone. >> >>IMHO, the most frequent culprit of microphonics in recent radio equipment >>is the thin aluminum shield can over a >>frequency-determining coil/capacitor combination. Vibration at an audio >>rate- such as a human voice- may vibrate the >>thin shield enough to affect the capacitance to ground of the enclosed >>tuned circuit and lead to modulation of the RF >>within. Total encapsulation with wax or epoxy usually corrects this >>effect, but it makes it difficult to tune the >>circuit later. >> >>73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY >> >> >> >>> >>> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise
A sledgehammer will correct it as well ;-) And the advantage is that you'll never have to worry about tuning later on. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: "Eric Lemmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise >> Don, > > You have it right; the correct term is "microphonics." The IEEE Standard > Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics > Terms defines microphonics as "The noise caused by mechanical shock or > vibration of elements in a system." > > Tube-type amplifiers are extremely prone to microphonics, since they have > grids and plates that can be vibrated > easily. Solid-state devices are much less prone. > > IMHO, the most frequent culprit of microphonics in recent radio equipment > is the thin aluminum shield can over a > frequency-determining coil/capacitor combination. Vibration at an audio > rate- such as a human voice- may vibrate the > thin shield enough to affect the capacitance to ground of the enclosed > tuned circuit and lead to modulation of the RF > within. Total encapsulation with wax or epoxy usually corrects this > effect, but it makes it difficult to tune the > circuit later. > > 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise
> Don, You have it right; the correct term is "microphonics." The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms defines microphonics as "The noise caused by mechanical shock or vibration of elements in a system." Tube-type amplifiers are extremely prone to microphonics, since they have grids and plates that can be vibrated easily. Solid-state devices are much less prone. IMHO, the most frequent culprit of microphonics in recent radio equipment is the thin aluminum shield can over a frequency-determining coil/capacitor combination. Vibration at an audio rate- such as a human voice- may vibrate the thin shield enough to affect the capacitance to ground of the enclosed tuned circuit and lead to modulation of the RF within. Total encapsulation with wax or epoxy usually corrects this effect, but it makes it difficult to tune the circuit later. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > > - Original Message - > From: "Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What is the best way to try and eliminate exciter micro phonics? it is > a Hamtronics T-301 220 exciter, enclosed in a tight aluminum case. If you > touch the case, etc., and even the > little muffin fan, vib will generate noise > heard on the transmit audio. Also, this is the exciter that I'm trying to > get a data sheet on the Philips BFQ-43S > transistor with no luck yet > > P. S. What is the technical term for micro phonics? > > Thanks Don KA9QJG Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise
Hey Don - I wish you good luck on this piece, and I feel that somewhere there is a person that can help you. I had a new one and had the exact same problem. Attempted to get Mr. Vogt to repair it - it was new- He suggested I cut a trace on the board and try it. - did that - No luck so he says send it in. Ok I did - There is a trace cut on this board - your warranty is void. I am aware there is a trace cut - you told me to do it. Oh No! - you should have sent it direct back to us - We cannot duplicate your problem so we are sending it back to you ( although there were more traces cut when received ) (( would that not revoid the already voided warranty?) You could hook mine to a dummy load, go to the next room and have another person talk to the aluminum box the transmitter was in. You could understand every word that was said perfectly- with NO Microphone! I brought mention of it on this group and feel like I must have disturbed some of Mr. Vogt's close friends. I wrote it off as a bad investment ( Hamtronics would not support their product ) and gave it to an experimenter friend of mine. Invested half as much in a GE Mastr II and have never looked back. I am not sure of the electronic term but it should start with JU and end with the letters NK. Oh, while I'm thinking of it - You should probably check and see how wide the thing is - Seriously - with audio it will get very! Extremely wide ( Mucho Mhz. ) Dave / NØATH - Original Message - From: "Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:55 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise What is the Best way to try and Eliminate Exciter Micro phonics, it is a Hamtronics T-301 220 Exciter, Enclosed in a Tight Aluminum case, If You touch the case Etc and Even the little Ext Muffin fan Vib will generate Noise heard on the transmit audio. Also this is the Exciter that I' am trying to get a Data Sheet on the Philips BFQ-43S Transistor with no luck yet Ps What is the Technical Term for Micro phonics? Thanks Don KA9QJG Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor problem
Steve, My first guess is that the IDer has a low-impedance output, and is connected at a high-impedance point in the audio chain. Just try lifting the IDer's audio lead, to see if the repeated audio level comes back up. If so, you might be able to correct the problem by putting a high-value resistor in series with the IDer output. My second guess is that the point where your IDer is connected may have a DC voltage on it as bias for a following stage, but the IDer is not AC-coupled. The IDer output may be DC coupled and is either upsetting the bias, or is injecting a voltage that is charging a coupling capacitor and cutting off an amplifier. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY Steve wrote: > We have installed a Micor mobile repeater . This is what is > happening...When first turned on, our Identifier is transmitted out > over the air with no problemWhen someone tries to use the > repeater it goes into transmit but the audio doesn't get sent with the > carrier. We can hear the receiving signal on the speaker in the shack > but it is weak. We have tried 3 different radios and 2 different > controllers with the same problem > > To sum up the problem > 1. Transmits Voice Identifier with no problem > 2. When receiver gets signal transmitter goes into transmit but no > audio out the transmit side. > 3. Receive audio is hearable but weak on shack speaker > Any help would be appreciated Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX
Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam probably. Mark AB8RU [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to > Hertz transition. > To all else, > cycles-per-second = Hertz > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. > Gee, What kind of table do you need? > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = > Hertz" > 73 > AC0Y > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would > be: > > > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. > > > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. > > > > Joe K5FOG > > > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > > > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: > > > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. > > > > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! > > >> > > >> Richard, N7TGB > > >> > > >> > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM > > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > >> > > >> > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? > > >> > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >--- Original Message --- > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM > > >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > >> > >Cc : > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > >> > > > > >> > >Alexander, > > >> > > > > >> > >The > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on > a network > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. > It's only > > >a > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, > so no > > >amount > > >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above > its design > > >> > >limit. > > >> > > > >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please > realize that > > >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M > duplexer at > > >500 > > >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter > repeaters > > >> are > > >> > operated. This added frequency separation allows for the > duplexer to > > >> > provide more than the stated isolation at the 500 kiloHertz > > >specification. > > >> > > > >> > The Wacom WP-641 is specified at 85 dB of isolation at a 500 > kiloHertz > > >> > split, but provides 93 dB of isolation at 600 kiloHertz. The > Sinclair > > >> Q202G > > >> > is similar in its factory specifications, and isolation > provided. > > >> > > > >> > Kevin Custer > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ > > >> > > > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > > >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] SSC Decoder model number 224BY
Tom, I may have something in my old RCC setup notebook. I may have one of those things some ware also. I will dig around and see what I can find. Kevin King SCSA BSCIS ARS KC6OVD GMRS KAG0378 EIEIO 2722 Acworth Georgia -Original Message-From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Thomas OliverSent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:01 AMTo: repeater-builderCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Repeater-Builder] SSC Decoder model number 224BY This is a little off topic but is repeater related so here it goes. I bought some what I believe are two tone sequenchial decoders made by Solid State Comunications Inc. out of Hayward California from the smasher in Dayton last weekend. I have done a search for info on them but can not find anything. They are about the size of a pack of ciggeretts and have two push buttons on the front and a led in the middle. Left button function is monitor reset / mute and right is horn blow / off Does anyone know where I can get a manual or a copy for these? tom n8ies . Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX
Jeff's excellent dissertation on adding attenuators ahead and behind preamps has been added to the following page: http://www.repeater-builder.com/rbtip/preamps.html Kevin Custer Not trying to be a smart A$$, but why would you put a preamp in line and then an attenuator? Jeff DePolo WN3A wrote: To prevent receiver overload. Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX
Alexander, That is a good start. Now you have some more work to do (sorry I didn't have a chance to comment before your trip to the site!) With the preamp OUT and repeater transmitter DISABLED, get someone to give you a weak signal (something that is far from full quieting). Now put the preamp back in line. Does the signal quieting improve substantially? If not, then you have a bad preamp, or the noise floor at your site is too high for a preamp to help you, or the preamp is being overloaded by other RF at (near) the site, or possibly the preamp is overloading your receiver. Try a bandpass cavity before the preamp and see if there is any improvement. If it passes the above test (signal is better with the preamp), then do the desense test again. Do you have more desense with the preamp in? If so, some attenuation after the preamp might help. Or it might not, depending on exactly what the problem is. As Jeff explained, some attenuation before the preamp may be helpful too, if you have a high noise floor at the site. If you have substantially more desense with the preamp than without it and adding attenuation doesn't help, your duplexer probably isn't providing adequate isolation to run with a preamp. In this case there are a number of possible configurations involving added cavities that may help. Try these tests and see what you come up with To answer your question below, the bandpass cavity will probably do more good if placed before the preamp: duplexer > bandpass cavity > preamp > receiver. Paul N1BUG On Monday 23 May 2005 04:34 pm, Alexander Tubonjic wrote: >Hey Guys, > Well few of us played with the repeater today. We took > the preamp out of line and then did the "desense test". > We shut the transmitter of, opened the squelch and > listened to a weak station on input of the repeater, when > the transmitter was enabled I was the only one to notice > any desense. It was a very minute amount. I think I am > going to try the preamp route with an attenuator in line. > Just thinking, what if we ran the setup like this: > repeater, then band pass filter on the rx side, then > preamp, then duplexer. Would that help alleviate some of > the desense from the preamp? Thanks for the help. > Alexander > KG4OGN Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX
> > Not trying to be a smart A$$, > but why would you put a preamp in line and then an attenuator? To prevent receiver overload. If the noise level received by the antenna is sufficiently high (i.e. higher than the natural thermal noise floor of the receiver/preamp), an attenuator ahead of the preamp will lower the risk of overload from strong off-channel signals *without* degrading the S/N performance of the system. Any attenuation ahead of the preamp adds directly to the noise figure of the system, so you want to keep the combined noise figure of the attenuator+preamp lower than that of the receiver would otherwise have without them if any improvement is to be realized. Or in other words, if the amount of attenuation inserted results in a noise figure that is too high, the received signal will end up having a lower S/N than it would at lower attenuation values. An attenuator after the preamp has its place too, and is often a better place to put it if the preamplifier has excessive gain, the background noise (as received by the antenna) is naturally low, and/or if there aren't any strong off-channel signals to contend with. In some cases, the best scenario is attenuation both before and after the preamp. The value of the attenuator before the preamp is chosen based on the ambient noise floor, and the one after based on how much gain is really necessary to realize any S/N improvement (i.e. to negate excessive preamp gain). Maximizing both of those to point where S/N just starts to degrade would give you the best overload protection. Noise levels will vary at a given site depending on what other emitters are keyed up, weather-related effects, "unintentional radiators" generating RFI perodically, etc., will all affect the noise floor over time. Bench tests for receiver performance with a high-gain, low-NF preamp don't give a good indication of how the system will perform when hooked up to an antenna. Selectivity (e.g. pass cavities) ahead of the preamp is almost always preferable to after it unless you're blessed with being at a site with a very low noise floor, no other strong off-channel signals to contend with, and sufficient Tx/Rx isolation to prevent overloading the preamp. Also, some preamps that aren't unconditionally stable may oscillate or act squirrelly with a high-Q filter after them. --- Jeff Jeff DePolo WN3A - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Broadcast and Communications Consultant -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Repeater-Builder] Transmit Noise
What is the Best way to try and Eliminate Exciter Micro phonics, it is a Hamtronics T-301 220 Exciter, Enclosed in a Tight Aluminum case, If You touch the case Etc and Even the little Ext Muffin fan Vib will generate Noise heard on the transmit audio. Also this is the Exciter that I' am trying to get a Data Sheet on the Philips BFQ-43S Transistor with no luck yet Ps What is the Technical Term for Micro phonics? Thanks Don KA9QJG Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX
Alexander, Not trying to be a smart A$$, but why would you put a preamp in line and then an attenuator? Kind of defeats the purpose of the preamp. What make of preamp are you using and how much gain does it have? Might want to try one with a lot less gain, I think I saw a couple postings stating that they could be had for 15 - 25 dollars. Sounds like your repeater was working great without the preamp. Also are your duplexers BpBr ? Don KI0EO Alexander Tubonjic wrote: > Hey Guys, > Well few of us played with the repeater today. We took the preamp >out of line and then did the "desense test". We shut the transmitter >of, opened the squelch and listened to a weak station on input of the >repeater, when the transmitter was enabled I was the only one to >notice any desense. It was a very minute amount. I think I am going to >try the preamp route with an attenuator in line. > Just thinking, what if we ran the setup like this: repeater, then >band pass filter on the rx side, then preamp, then duplexer. Would >that help alleviate some of the desense from the preamp? > Thanks for the help. > Alexander KG4OGN > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX
At 01:34 PM 5/23/05, you wrote: >Hey Guys, > Well few of us played with the repeater today. We took the preamp >out of line and then did the "desense test". We shut the transmitter >of, opened the squelch and listened to a weak station on input of the >repeater, when the transmitter was enabled I was the only one to >notice any desense. It was a very minute amount. I think I am going to >try the preamp route with an attenuator in line. You need to put a test meter on the first limiter, and use that as your desense detector. The second limiter is also interesting to look at with weak signals. Hard numbers are always better than guessing with an uncalibrated ear. An analog VOM plugged into the test jack is all that is needed. >Just thinking, what if we ran the setup like this: repeater, then >band pass filter on the rx side, then preamp, then duplexer. Would >that help alleviate some of the desense from the preamp? you might try the sequence of antenna-duplexer-cavity-preamp-attenuator-receiver. Mike Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX
Hey Guys, Well few of us played with the repeater today. We took the preamp out of line and then did the "desense test". We shut the transmitter of, opened the squelch and listened to a weak station on input of the repeater, when the transmitter was enabled I was the only one to notice any desense. It was a very minute amount. I think I am going to try the preamp route with an attenuator in line. Just thinking, what if we ran the setup like this: repeater, then band pass filter on the rx side, then preamp, then duplexer. Would that help alleviate some of the desense from the preamp? Thanks for the help. Alexander KG4OGN Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR
At one time they did go to trucking here and now they are going back to the Med freg's. I think it has to do with all the storms we have here in Florida and to move help into areas and to be able to talk. I know when they did the trucking it just did not work. - Original Message - From: "Steve Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR >I am in SW Ohio and everyone here in my part of the country has abandoned > MEDCOM based on what I stated before. The hospitals in my area that the > squads communicate to are getting encrypted radios on the trunked system. > I > just attended a radio training class for one of the newest digital trunked > systems to go on line and the legal eagles were very specific about NOT > communicating patient info on clear channels. Their legal opinion was that > it violated HIPPA. I am not aware of anyone in my part of the country that > still uses MEDCOM for that reason. I was an active field paramedic for > over > 15 years and we used MEDCOM exclusively for communications to the > hospitals > including the EKG transmit function but that was way back in the 70's, > 80's > and early 90's. We had the mobile repeater in our vehicles and the MEDCOM > clamshell radio that we took to the patient. We covered a 4 county area so > the mobile repeater was critical. > > > > Steve Helton, N8RTY > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -Original Message- > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Riley Frazee > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 16:00 > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR > > HIPPA only deals with patient specific information examples are, SOC. SEC > number birth date, name, pts address, pts phone number etc. not their > medical information. you are still allowed to give your medical report > over > the radio, an 85 y.o. female that is complaining of severe abdominal pain > etc. etc. as long as you do not say her name ex: ms. Jones is > complaining of severe abdomincal pain today etc. etc. and son on with > your medical.. If you have information about eht federal law on medical > privacy please do email it to me as i would like to see it if there is > such > a law our service would need to update... soon than we had planned thanks > Riley. (Asst. EMS Director) > >>From: "Steve Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>To: >>Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR >>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:45:41 -0400 >> >>The reason these radios are now coming on the market is that the Federal >>law >>on medical privacy (HIPPA) is requiring the encryption of any medical >>information between the field units and the hospitals. Squads that >>transmit >>patient info in the clear face severe penalties. Some of the squads have >>gone to digital cell phones and some are now going to encrypted radios on >>their trunked public safety radio system as more areas switch to trunking >>system. All of the MEDCOM UHF frequencies are being abandoned since >>encryption is not a provision of the APCOR radios. The only frequencies >>that >>we are still hearing activity on is the two MEDCOM "dispatch" channels >>which >>are being used by the medical helicopters for actual dispatch only >>(location >>coordinates, etc.) but not patient information. >> >> >> >>Steve Helton, N8RTY >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coy Hilton >>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 00:24 >>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR >> >>Eric, Wasn't the MX500 at one time, Motorolas Cadilac HT? Did they >>have the same conector problems? We had only one in our entire Fire >>dept. It seemed to have few but weard problems. That goes back 25 >>years. >>73 >>AC0Y >> >> >> >>--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>wrote: >> > Al, >> > >> > I picked up a 12 watt APCOR unit a year ago, but have not found >>the time or >> > patience to repair it, let alone try to modify it. The Coronary >>Observation >> > Radios act as vehicular repeaters, and operate on the UHF "Med" >>channels in >> > reverse- that is receive low, transmit high. They are based upon >>the MX300 >> > modules, and use a separate channel element for each frequency. >> > >> > The service manual for the 1 watt models P24ESN3150A and >>P24ESN3151A is >> > 6881021C05, which costs just $ 3.06- an incredible price. The >>service manual >> > for the 12 watt model P44ESN3191A is 6881021C10, which costs $ >>35.37. >> > >> > One of the reasons the APCOR units are plentiful on the surplus >>market is >> > because the MX300 system is plagued with connector problems, sort >>of the Edsel >> > of radio designs. The unit I have was removed from service only a >>few months >> > before I bought it. W
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR
I am in SW Ohio and everyone here in my part of the country has abandoned MEDCOM based on what I stated before. The hospitals in my area that the squads communicate to are getting encrypted radios on the trunked system. I just attended a radio training class for one of the newest digital trunked systems to go on line and the legal eagles were very specific about NOT communicating patient info on clear channels. Their legal opinion was that it violated HIPPA. I am not aware of anyone in my part of the country that still uses MEDCOM for that reason. I was an active field paramedic for over 15 years and we used MEDCOM exclusively for communications to the hospitals including the EKG transmit function but that was way back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's. We had the mobile repeater in our vehicles and the MEDCOM clamshell radio that we took to the patient. We covered a 4 county area so the mobile repeater was critical. Steve Helton, N8RTY [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Riley Frazee Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 16:00 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR HIPPA only deals with patient specific information examples are, SOC. SEC number birth date, name, pts address, pts phone number etc. not their medical information. you are still allowed to give your medical report over the radio, an 85 y.o. female that is complaining of severe abdominal pain etc. etc. as long as you do not say her name ex: ms. Jones is complaining of severe abdomincal pain today etc. etc. and son on with your medical.. If you have information about eht federal law on medical privacy please do email it to me as i would like to see it if there is such a law our service would need to update... soon than we had planned thanks Riley. (Asst. EMS Director) >From: "Steve Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR >Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:45:41 -0400 > >The reason these radios are now coming on the market is that the Federal >law >on medical privacy (HIPPA) is requiring the encryption of any medical >information between the field units and the hospitals. Squads that transmit >patient info in the clear face severe penalties. Some of the squads have >gone to digital cell phones and some are now going to encrypted radios on >their trunked public safety radio system as more areas switch to trunking >system. All of the MEDCOM UHF frequencies are being abandoned since >encryption is not a provision of the APCOR radios. The only frequencies >that >we are still hearing activity on is the two MEDCOM "dispatch" channels >which >are being used by the medical helicopters for actual dispatch only >(location >coordinates, etc.) but not patient information. > > > >Steve Helton, N8RTY >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-Original Message- >From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coy Hilton >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 00:24 >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR > >Eric, Wasn't the MX500 at one time, Motorolas Cadilac HT? Did they >have the same conector problems? We had only one in our entire Fire >dept. It seemed to have few but weard problems. That goes back 25 >years. >73 >AC0Y > > > >--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > Al, > > > > I picked up a 12 watt APCOR unit a year ago, but have not found >the time or > > patience to repair it, let alone try to modify it. The Coronary >Observation > > Radios act as vehicular repeaters, and operate on the UHF "Med" >channels in > > reverse- that is receive low, transmit high. They are based upon >the MX300 > > modules, and use a separate channel element for each frequency. > > > > The service manual for the 1 watt models P24ESN3150A and >P24ESN3151A is > > 6881021C05, which costs just $ 3.06- an incredible price. The >service manual > > for the 12 watt model P44ESN3191A is 6881021C10, which costs $ >35.37. > > > > One of the reasons the APCOR units are plentiful on the surplus >market is > > because the MX300 system is plagued with connector problems, sort >of the Edsel > > of radio designs. The unit I have was removed from service only a >few months > > before I bought it. What's really scary is that it was junk, but >was being > > carried on an ambulance in Huntington Beach, CA! > > > > I have read a few articles about converting the APCOR into a Ham >repeater, but > > none of them spent a lot of print space to extol its virtues. > > > > 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > > > > Al Wolfe wrote: > > > > > Hi, all, > > > One of the few Dayton acquisitions this year was a Motorola >APCOR unit. > > > Apparently it was designed for medical/EMT use and is supposed >to be able to > > > do full duplex. Does anyone have any technical info on this unit >t
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR
The Privacy issues is a real valid point, But here in the Chicago Metro area Every Ambulance still use 155.340 in the Clear to relay personal info to the Local Hospital while transporting the patient. I Have a friend who a few yrs back did Convert one of the units to a Low power Emergency 440 Repeater Don KA9QJG Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR
Steve Helton wrote: > The reason these radios are now coming on the market is that the Federal law > on medical privacy (HIPPA) is requiring the encryption of any medical > information between the field units and the hospitals. Squads that transmit > patient info in the clear face severe penalties. Some of the squads have > gone to digital cell phones and some are now going to encrypted radios on > their trunked public safety radio system as more areas switch to trunking > system. All of the MEDCOM UHF frequencies are being abandoned since > encryption is not a provision of the APCOR radios. The only frequencies that > we are still hearing activity on is the two MEDCOM "dispatch" channels which > are being used by the medical helicopters for actual dispatch only (location > coordinates, etc.) but not patient information. Actually, the reason they got rid of the Apcor's and Biocom's is that they were 3-lead ECG, and hospitals went to 5-lead. Nobody was able to do 5-lead ECG in a normal 25Khz bandwidth FM channel. So it all just went away. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR
HIPPA only deals with patient specific information examples are, SOC. SEC number birth date, name, pts address, pts phone number etc. not their medical information. you are still allowed to give your medical report over the radio, an 85 y.o. female that is complaining of severe abdominal pain etc. etc. as long as you do not say her name ex: ms. Jones is complaining of severe abdomincal pain today etc. etc. and son on with your medical.. If you have information about eht federal law on medical privacy please do email it to me as i would like to see it if there is such a law our service would need to update... soon than we had planned thanks Riley. (Asst. EMS Director) >From: "Steve Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR >Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:45:41 -0400 > >The reason these radios are now coming on the market is that the Federal >law >on medical privacy (HIPPA) is requiring the encryption of any medical >information between the field units and the hospitals. Squads that transmit >patient info in the clear face severe penalties. Some of the squads have >gone to digital cell phones and some are now going to encrypted radios on >their trunked public safety radio system as more areas switch to trunking >system. All of the MEDCOM UHF frequencies are being abandoned since >encryption is not a provision of the APCOR radios. The only frequencies >that >we are still hearing activity on is the two MEDCOM "dispatch" channels >which >are being used by the medical helicopters for actual dispatch only >(location >coordinates, etc.) but not patient information. > > > >Steve Helton, N8RTY >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-Original Message- >From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coy Hilton >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 00:24 >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR > >Eric, Wasn't the MX500 at one time, Motorolas Cadilac HT? Did they >have the same conector problems? We had only one in our entire Fire >dept. It seemed to have few but weard problems. That goes back 25 >years. >73 >AC0Y > > > >--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > Al, > > > > I picked up a 12 watt APCOR unit a year ago, but have not found >the time or > > patience to repair it, let alone try to modify it. The Coronary >Observation > > Radios act as vehicular repeaters, and operate on the UHF "Med" >channels in > > reverse- that is receive low, transmit high. They are based upon >the MX300 > > modules, and use a separate channel element for each frequency. > > > > The service manual for the 1 watt models P24ESN3150A and >P24ESN3151A is > > 6881021C05, which costs just $ 3.06- an incredible price. The >service manual > > for the 12 watt model P44ESN3191A is 6881021C10, which costs $ >35.37. > > > > One of the reasons the APCOR units are plentiful on the surplus >market is > > because the MX300 system is plagued with connector problems, sort >of the Edsel > > of radio designs. The unit I have was removed from service only a >few months > > before I bought it. What's really scary is that it was junk, but >was being > > carried on an ambulance in Huntington Beach, CA! > > > > I have read a few articles about converting the APCOR into a Ham >repeater, but > > none of them spent a lot of print space to extol its virtues. > > > > 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > > > > Al Wolfe wrote: > > > > > Hi, all, > > > One of the few Dayton acquisitions this year was a Motorola >APCOR unit. > > > Apparently it was designed for medical/EMT use and is supposed >to be able to > > > do full duplex. Does anyone have any technical info on this unit >they would > > > care to share? It looks like it might make a decent >field/temporary/portable > > > repeater. > > > > > > Al, K9SI > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR
I don't know what state you are in but, Florida is doing a big overhaul of the Med Freg and getting ALL the health care people back on them. They have switched them all to 12.5 freg's. with a plan on what PL tone they must use. Just had on center install a Vertex VXR-7000 with a 2nd one on hot standby. - Original Message - From: "Steve Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 3:45 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR > The reason these radios are now coming on the market is that the Federal > law > on medical privacy (HIPPA) is requiring the encryption of any medical > information between the field units and the hospitals. Squads that > transmit > patient info in the clear face severe penalties. Some of the squads have > gone to digital cell phones and some are now going to encrypted radios on > their trunked public safety radio system as more areas switch to trunking > system. All of the MEDCOM UHF frequencies are being abandoned since > encryption is not a provision of the APCOR radios. The only frequencies > that > we are still hearing activity on is the two MEDCOM "dispatch" channels > which > are being used by the medical helicopters for actual dispatch only > (location > coordinates, etc.) but not patient information. > > > > Steve Helton, N8RTY > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -Original Message- > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coy Hilton > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 00:24 > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR > > Eric, Wasn't the MX500 at one time, Motorolas Cadilac HT? Did they > have the same conector problems? We had only one in our entire Fire > dept. It seemed to have few but weard problems. That goes back 25 > years. > 73 > AC0Y > > > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Al, >> >> I picked up a 12 watt APCOR unit a year ago, but have not found > the time or >> patience to repair it, let alone try to modify it. The Coronary > Observation >> Radios act as vehicular repeaters, and operate on the UHF "Med" > channels in >> reverse- that is receive low, transmit high. They are based upon > the MX300 >> modules, and use a separate channel element for each frequency. >> >> The service manual for the 1 watt models P24ESN3150A and > P24ESN3151A is >> 6881021C05, which costs just $ 3.06- an incredible price. The > service manual >> for the 12 watt model P44ESN3191A is 6881021C10, which costs $ > 35.37. >> >> One of the reasons the APCOR units are plentiful on the surplus > market is >> because the MX300 system is plagued with connector problems, sort > of the Edsel >> of radio designs. The unit I have was removed from service only a > few months >> before I bought it. What's really scary is that it was junk, but > was being >> carried on an ambulance in Huntington Beach, CA! >> >> I have read a few articles about converting the APCOR into a Ham > repeater, but >> none of them spent a lot of print space to extol its virtues. >> >> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY >> >> Al Wolfe wrote: >> >> > Hi, all, >> > One of the few Dayton acquisitions this year was a Motorola > APCOR unit. >> > Apparently it was designed for medical/EMT use and is supposed > to be able to >> > do full duplex. Does anyone have any technical info on this unit > they would >> > care to share? It looks like it might make a decent > field/temporary/portable >> > repeater. >> > >> > Al, K9SI > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR
The reason these radios are now coming on the market is that the Federal law on medical privacy (HIPPA) is requiring the encryption of any medical information between the field units and the hospitals. Squads that transmit patient info in the clear face severe penalties. Some of the squads have gone to digital cell phones and some are now going to encrypted radios on their trunked public safety radio system as more areas switch to trunking system. All of the MEDCOM UHF frequencies are being abandoned since encryption is not a provision of the APCOR radios. The only frequencies that we are still hearing activity on is the two MEDCOM "dispatch" channels which are being used by the medical helicopters for actual dispatch only (location coordinates, etc.) but not patient information. Steve Helton, N8RTY [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coy Hilton Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 00:24 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola APCOR Eric, Wasn't the MX500 at one time, Motorolas Cadilac HT? Did they have the same conector problems? We had only one in our entire Fire dept. It seemed to have few but weard problems. That goes back 25 years. 73 AC0Y --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Al, > > I picked up a 12 watt APCOR unit a year ago, but have not found the time or > patience to repair it, let alone try to modify it. The Coronary Observation > Radios act as vehicular repeaters, and operate on the UHF "Med" channels in > reverse- that is receive low, transmit high. They are based upon the MX300 > modules, and use a separate channel element for each frequency. > > The service manual for the 1 watt models P24ESN3150A and P24ESN3151A is > 6881021C05, which costs just $ 3.06- an incredible price. The service manual > for the 12 watt model P44ESN3191A is 6881021C10, which costs $ 35.37. > > One of the reasons the APCOR units are plentiful on the surplus market is > because the MX300 system is plagued with connector problems, sort of the Edsel > of radio designs. The unit I have was removed from service only a few months > before I bought it. What's really scary is that it was junk, but was being > carried on an ambulance in Huntington Beach, CA! > > I have read a few articles about converting the APCOR into a Ham repeater, but > none of them spent a lot of print space to extol its virtues. > > 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > > Al Wolfe wrote: > > > Hi, all, > > One of the few Dayton acquisitions this year was a Motorola APCOR unit. > > Apparently it was designed for medical/EMT use and is supposed to be able to > > do full duplex. Does anyone have any technical info on this unit they would > > care to share? It looks like it might make a decent field/temporary/portable > > repeater. > > > > Al, K9SI Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SSB Remote Base
At 09:47 AM 5/23/2005 -0700, you wrote: > > Motorola made a voice sensitive squelch circuit for the HF Micom > 2-way a number of years ago. In those days, was all separate > components - the diagram is available if you are interested. <---Yep they did! The one I built was patterned after the Micom one (I believe this is mentioned on my webpage?). When I was researching SSB squelch circuits, I also found a company who markets a module (based on DSP) to do the same thing. Everything I've heard about it is good but it does cost over $150 for it. My goal was to build one that worked but do it for a lot less. Anyway, the commercial one available can be found: www.naval.com/vos.htm Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of state-of-the-art repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html It was great to meet many of you at Dayton 2005! We offer complete Kenwood TKR repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SSB Remote Base
Motorola made a voice sensitive squelch circuit for the HF Micom 2-way a number of years ago. In those days, was all separate components - the diagram is available if you are interested. Perhaps Mike / Kevin would be interested too? Neil Ken Arck wrote: > > At 05:10 AM 5/23/2005 -, you wrote: > >I was looking at using a MFJ-9406 6 Meter SSB radio for a 6 meter > >remote base at my reapeater site. Any Ideas on how to get a COS/COR > >signal out. I thought about using a CAT Tech SQ-1000 Squelch board but > >didn't know how it would handle the pulsing nature of SSB. Has anyone > >tried this or something similar ?? > > <---Most HF squelchs simply suck! A few years back, I built a syllabic > squelch to generate a fairly reliable COS signal on an HF circuit. It > actually works surprisingly well! > > You might want to have a look (no, I have no pc boards for it - never had > any made but it's not a big deal to perfboard the thing either! :-) > > http://www.ah6le.net/hf_squelch.html > > Ken > (I survived Dayton!) > > -- > President and CTO - Arcom Communications > Makers of state-of-the-art repeater controllers and accessories. > http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html > Come see us at Dayton 2005! We'll be In the Repeater Builder Tent > in spaces 707-710 in the Flea Market area! > We now offer complete Kenwood TKR repeater packages! > AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 > http://www.irlp.net > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SSB Remote Base
At 09:26 AM 5/23/2005 -0700, you wrote: >Can you direct me to the schematic for the squelch circut? <---Sorry about that! This was a project I did many years ago and haven't looked at for a while (hence the lack of a link to the schematic on the webpage!) http://www.ah6le.net/hfsquelch.bmp Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of state-of-the-art repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html Come see us at Dayton 2005! We'll be In the Repeater Builder Tent in spaces 707-710 in the Flea Market area! We now offer complete Kenwood TKR repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SSB Remote Base
Hey Ken, Can you direct me to the schematic for the squelch circut? Regards, -Steve - Original Message - From: "Ken Arck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] SSB Remote Base > At 05:10 AM 5/23/2005 -, you wrote: >>I was looking at using a MFJ-9406 6 Meter SSB radio for a 6 meter >>remote base at my reapeater site. Any Ideas on how to get a COS/COR >>signal out. I thought about using a CAT Tech SQ-1000 Squelch board but >>didn't know how it would handle the pulsing nature of SSB. Has anyone >>tried this or something similar ?? > > <---Most HF squelchs simply suck! A few years back, I built a syllabic > squelch to generate a fairly reliable COS signal on an HF circuit. It > actually works surprisingly well! > > You might want to have a look (no, I have no pc boards for it - never had > any made but it's not a big deal to perfboard the thing either! :-) > > http://www.ah6le.net/hf_squelch.html > > Ken > (I survived Dayton!) > > -- > President and CTO - Arcom Communications > Makers of state-of-the-art repeater controllers and accessories. > http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html > Come see us at Dayton 2005! We'll be In the Repeater Builder Tent > in spaces 707-710 in the Flea Market area! > We now offer complete Kenwood TKR repeater packages! > AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 > http://www.irlp.net > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Repeater-Builder] Micor problem
Hello We have installed a Micor mobile repeater . This is what is happening...When first turned on our Identifier is transmitted out over the air with no problemWhen someone tries to use the repeater it goes into transmit but the audio doesn't get sent with the carrier. We can hear the recieving signal on the speaker in the shack but it is weak. We have tried 3 different radios and 2 different controllers with the same problem To sum up the problem 1. Transmits Voice Identifier with no problem 2. When reciever gets signal transmitter goes into transmit but no audio out the transmit side. 3. Recieve audio is hearable but weak on shack speaker Any help would be appriceated Thanks in Advance VE6IVN ncaarc.ca Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Foxbat [harris]Repeater Info Needed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Greetings, All > I have acquired a portable repeater made by Harris Law Enforcement > Products out of Melbourne, FL. It has a Icom IC-R1 > Receiver, along with a Icom IC-2SAT VHF radio. I'm looking for any info on > this unit. I think the model# is: HLE-FB-2601 > any info greatly appreciated!! Thanks, Mike > > Mike Johnson > Kd4HLH > They're not using the 2SAT for a transmitter are they If it's for law enforcement, it's not type-accepted, and therefore illegal!!! Not to mention it won't handle the duty cycle. Yikes! -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SSB Remote Base
At 05:10 AM 5/23/2005 -, you wrote: >I was looking at using a MFJ-9406 6 Meter SSB radio for a 6 meter >remote base at my reapeater site. Any Ideas on how to get a COS/COR >signal out. I thought about using a CAT Tech SQ-1000 Squelch board but >didn't know how it would handle the pulsing nature of SSB. Has anyone >tried this or something similar ?? <---Most HF squelchs simply suck! A few years back, I built a syllabic squelch to generate a fairly reliable COS signal on an HF circuit. It actually works surprisingly well! You might want to have a look (no, I have no pc boards for it - never had any made but it's not a big deal to perfboard the thing either! :-) http://www.ah6le.net/hf_squelch.html Ken (I survived Dayton!) -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of state-of-the-art repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html Come see us at Dayton 2005! We'll be In the Repeater Builder Tent in spaces 707-710 in the Flea Market area! We now offer complete Kenwood TKR repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Repeater-Builder] SSC Decoder model number 224BY
This is a little off topic but is repeater related so here it goes. I bought some what I believe are two tone sequenchial decoders made by Solid State Comunications Inc. out of Hayward California from the smasher in Dayton last weekend. I have done a search for info on them but can not find anything. They are about the size of a pack of ciggeretts and have two push buttons on the front and a led in the middle. Left button function is monitor reset / mute and right is horn blow / off Does anyone know where I can get a manual or a copy for these? tom n8ies . Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
