Re: [Repeater-Builder] GE MLS

[mch]

They are very durable radios - built like a tank. Never had one in a
repeater config, though.

Joe M.

Mike Reed wrote:
> 
>  I am looking for information, specs, etc on a GE MLS radio. I did a search
> on it, and there just isn't much on it. Are these good radios, how rugged
> are they, will they work in a repeater situation?
>  Wondering mind wants to know...
> 
>  73
>  Mike - N7ZEF

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[no6b]

At 2/16/2007 18:26, you wrote:
>I have a rubber duck that outperforms three different MFR's discones.

If I understand it correctly, the discone is nothing more than a ground 
plane-imaged 3D bowtie, IOW a very simple design.  What could go wrong?

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[no6b]

At 2/15/2007 19:10, you wrote:
>--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Barry C'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I would have to suggest any copper that has a huge bandwidth will
>have gain
> > on only one tuned area ,
>
>
>Well, actually no.  Resonance is not a requirement for an effective
>antenna with broadband gain.  The only requirement is that the RF be
>brought to and from the antenna by an effective matching system.

A fine example of broadband gain is the log periodic.

However, having said that I think you'll have a hard time finding a 
broadband antenna with high omnidirectional gain, or at least one that is 
reasonably space-efficient.

Bob NO6B

[Repeater-Builder] GE MLS

[Mike Reed]

 I am looking for information, specs, etc on a GE MLS radio. I did a search 
on it, and there just isn't much on it. Are these good radios, how rugged 
are they, will they work in a repeater situation?
 Wondering mind wants to know...

 73
 Mike - N7ZEF

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Barry C']

>From: "Laryn Lohman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and 
>amateur
>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:45:51 -
>
>
> >
> > it's also not a "stacked" so bear little relevence to the matter
>
>Trying to understand what "stacked" has to do with the discussion...


I am well aaware of what stacked means

assume etc.
>
>
> >
> > There is little or no
> > >automatic penalty for using a non-resonant antenna.
> >
> > just some efficiency
>
>Barry, try to understand that a resonant antenna is not automatically
>efficient.  And conversely that a non-resonant antenna is
>automatically inefficient.  There is much mis-information out there,
>and it dies very slowly.
why not have a read of some of the wiki material about broadcasting that we 
have made availible ?
I have a understand suffucuent to have managed a living for some years in 
the telecoms game .
>
> >
> > >
> > >Ask anyone on this list how well the DB420 works down into the 70cm
> > >ham gand.
> > >
> > > > claims  are like water (sic)
> > >
> > >Very true.  The  I make here (6dbd gain and 144-162 mc. at
> > >less than 1.5:1 VSWR) are quoted from reputable commercial two-way
> > >antenna manufacturer's data sheets and catalogs, not some ham-grade
> > >antenna gain claim.
> >
>
> > interesting comparison and I doubt you meant to insult hams as a group
>
>Whoa, insult??  The term ham-grade as used here simply separates the
>reputable and known-to-be-honest-about-gain manufacturers from those
>that are obviously not-so-honest.  'Nuff said.
>
>Apparently you've not read some of the incredible claims of ham-grade
>antennas.  They sometimes re-invent the laws of physics.  Amazing!
well there are geese in every area of life , I belive what my instrukents 
tell me on the range .
>
>Laryn K8TVZ
>
>
>
>
>

_
Join the millions of Australians using Live Search. Try live.com.au 
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=740&referral=million&URL=http://live.com.au

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Barry C']

>From: "Gary Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>To: 
>Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial 
>and amateur
>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:31:17 -0500
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry C'
> > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:15 PM
> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in 
>commercial
> > and amateur
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Laryn Lohman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial 
>and
> > >amateur
> > >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:33:49 -
> > >
> > >--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Barry C'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > I presume its some sort of stacked arrangment , in chich case it
> > >will make
> > > > that gain at resonance ,
> > > >
> > >
> > >Yes, the ASPB602 is four stacked dipoles, just like the DB224.  My
> > >point again is that resonance is NOT a requirement for an effective
> > >and efficient antenna.  The wider frequency coverage for this antenna
> > >is likely because the dipoles are fabricated from 3/4 in. OD tubing
> > >instead of 3/8 in. tubing.
> >
> > or as in many cases of commercial sticks its almost a dummy load in
> > reactance ( think about it)
> > I must admit brandishing model number does no good as I am not familiar 
>,
> > its been a long time since I was at broadcast school so I am unlikly to
> > change methodology now :)
> >
>
>A collinear antenna is not as wide band as a dipole antenna because each
>element of a collinear is fed from the previous element. When changing
>frequency there is a phase shift at the end of each element. That phase
>shift is cumulative and by the time it gets to the higher elements the 
>phase
>shift can be significant. That destroys the pattern of the antenna and thus
>the gain.
>
>With a dipole antenna all the elements are fed from the same source so you
>don't have that same kind of phase shift from element to element and the
>pattern remains more intact with a shift in frequency. Yes there is some
>phase shift in the phasing/feed lines to the dipole elements that 
>eventually
>disrupts the pattern of the antenna and thus the gain. But this type of
>antenna can be operated over a much wider range than a collinear type.
>Swr on the antenna only becomes a problem when it gets high enough that the
>transmitter can no longer be matched or it is excessive and caused 
>excessive
>feed line loss. By using fatter elements it provides for a broader Swr and
>makes matching easier.
>
>Does any of this fit with your "methodology"? :>)
>
>73
>Gary  K4FMX
>
>Thanks for trying to teach "how to suck eggs"
The dia of a radiator has to be incresed to a noticable portion of the 
wavelength in use to appreciably increas useable bandwidth , an excursion of 
2%/Frq does produce a noticable drop  in response and gain  , just because 
the swr is acceptable does not the thing a decent radiator , I suggest you 
spend a day on a rabge some time and do some tests , when I have some time I 
will pursue it further but atm I have to finsih sorting out the next $ 
generation project.
B

_
Advertisement: Fresh jobs daily. Stop waiting for the newspaper. Search Now! 
www.seek.com.au 
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=757263760&_r=Hotmail_EndText_Dec06&_m=EXT

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[mch]

I have a rubber duck that outperforms three different MFR's discones.

Joe M.

> Rod Lane wrote:
> 
> Hi Jed.
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re not interested in a lot of gain, try a discone.  They’re
> about as broadbanded as you can get, and not too expensive.   I bought
> one from the local ham shop in Newington for less than $100.   It’s
> good for 2 meters and up.  I’ve seen some discones designed for
> scanners that have a loaded whip out the top to resonate down to low
> bands.  It’s not too broadbanded at this low band frequency, since
> it’s almost like a regular hamstick or other loaded antenna.  Still.
> The discone part work pretty well at the frequencies it’s designed
> for.
> 
> 
> 
> Discones are like high pass filters.  A discone built for 2 meters
> will work up to almost microwave frequencies.  Great for a test
> antenna.
> 
> 
> 
> 73 de N1FNE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maxwell D Pratt
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:13 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial
> and amateur
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "skipp025" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> If you are going to use this Antenna to work on and test radio's &
> need a split of 135 to 174 I don't that will be possible, Most
> antenna will cover that range but you have to trim them for a certain
> Freq some are trimmed at Factory & some user has to trim .
> As per the difference between Commercial and ham antennas usually
> the commercial antennas are better built & will withstand more wind
> load & last longer with less service , But I don't think would have
> any better signal . I use both for ham Have a chushcraft 26-b2 has
> been in use for 9 years works as good as day I put up . Also have a
> commercial Dipole stacked 4 which has been in use for same amount of
> time . Both are on 30' tower if I was going to put on tower above
> 100' would want the best antenna I could find or Buy would be a whole
> lot cheaper than having to replace often .
> 
> > > "Jed Barton"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey guys,
> > > I need some suggestions. I need a vhf and a uhf antena.
> > > Here's the requirement. I'm planning to operate both amateur and
> > commercial
> > > stuff from the house.
> > > I'd rather not use a ham antenna in the commercial bands.
> > > Are there some that'll do the 136 to 174 split, and some UHF
> that'll
> > do like
> > > 439 to 490?
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jed
> > >
> >
> 
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Laryn Lohman]

> 
> it's also not a "stacked" so bear little relevence to the matter

Trying to understand what "stacked" has to do with the discussion...  

 
> 
> There is little or no
> >automatic penalty for using a non-resonant antenna.
> 
> just some efficiency

Barry, try to understand that a resonant antenna is not automatically
efficient.  And conversely that a non-resonant antenna is
automatically inefficient.  There is much mis-information out there,
and it dies very slowly.

> 
> >
> >Ask anyone on this list how well the DB420 works down into the 70cm
> >ham gand.
> >
> > > claims  are like water (sic)
> >
> >Very true.  The  I make here (6dbd gain and 144-162 mc. at
> >less than 1.5:1 VSWR) are quoted from reputable commercial two-way
> >antenna manufacturer's data sheets and catalogs, not some ham-grade
> >antenna gain claim.
> 

> interesting comparison and I doubt you meant to insult hams as a group

Whoa, insult??  The term ham-grade as used here simply separates the
reputable and known-to-be-honest-about-gain manufacturers from those
that are obviously not-so-honest.  'Nuff said.  

Apparently you've not read some of the incredible claims of ham-grade
antennas.  They sometimes re-invent the laws of physics.  Amazing!

Laryn K8TVZ

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Rod Lane]

Hi Jed.

 

If you're not interested in a lot of gain, try a discone.  They're about as
broadbanded as you can get, and not too expensive.   I bought one from the
local ham shop in Newington for less than $100.   It's good for 2 meters and
up.  I've seen some discones designed for scanners that have a loaded whip
out the top to resonate down to low bands.  It's not too broadbanded at this
low band frequency, since it's almost like a regular hamstick or other
loaded antenna.  Still. The discone part work pretty well at the frequencies
it's designed for.

 

Discones are like high pass filters.  A discone built for 2 meters will work
up to almost microwave frequencies.  Great for a test antenna.

 

73 de N1FNE

 

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maxwell D Pratt
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:13 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and
amateur

 

--- In Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com, "skipp025" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
>
If you are going to use this Antenna to work on and test radio's & 
need a split of 135 to 174 I don't that will be possible, Most 
antenna will cover that range but you have to trim them for a certain 
Freq some are trimmed at Factory & some user has to trim .
As per the difference between Commercial and ham antennas usually 
the commercial antennas are better built & will withstand more wind 
load & last longer with less service , But I don't think would have 
any better signal . I use both for ham Have a chushcraft 26-b2 has 
been in use for 9 years works as good as day I put up . Also have a 
commercial Dipole stacked 4 which has been in use for same amount of 
time . Both are on 30' tower if I was going to put on tower above 
100' would want the best antenna I could find or Buy would be a whole 
lot cheaper than having to replace often . 

> > "Jed Barton"  wrote:
> >
> > Hey guys,
> > I need some suggestions. I need a vhf and a uhf antena.
> > Here's the requirement. I'm planning to operate both amateur and
> commercial
> > stuff from the house.
> > I'd rather not use a ham antenna in the commercial bands.
> > Are there some that'll do the 136 to 174 split, and some UHF 
that'll
> do like
> > 439 to 490?
> > Any ideas?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jed
> >
>

 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Gary Schafer]

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry C'
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial
> and amateur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Laryn Lohman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and
> >amateur
> >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:33:49 -
> >
> >--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Barry C'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> >wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > I presume its some sort of stacked arrangment , in chich case it
> >will make
> > > that gain at resonance ,
> > >
> >
> >Yes, the ASPB602 is four stacked dipoles, just like the DB224.  My
> >point again is that resonance is NOT a requirement for an effective
> >and efficient antenna.  The wider frequency coverage for this antenna
> >is likely because the dipoles are fabricated from 3/4 in. OD tubing
> >instead of 3/8 in. tubing.
> 
> or as in many cases of commercial sticks its almost a dummy load in
> reactance ( think about it)
> I must admit brandishing model number does no good as I am not familiar ,
> its been a long time since I was at broadcast school so I am unlikly to
> change methodology now :)
> 

A collinear antenna is not as wide band as a dipole antenna because each
element of a collinear is fed from the previous element. When changing
frequency there is a phase shift at the end of each element. That phase
shift is cumulative and by the time it gets to the higher elements the phase
shift can be significant. That destroys the pattern of the antenna and thus
the gain.

With a dipole antenna all the elements are fed from the same source so you
don't have that same kind of phase shift from element to element and the
pattern remains more intact with a shift in frequency. Yes there is some
phase shift in the phasing/feed lines to the dipole elements that eventually
disrupts the pattern of the antenna and thus the gain. But this type of
antenna can be operated over a much wider range than a collinear type.
Swr on the antenna only becomes a problem when it gets high enough that the
transmitter can no longer be matched or it is excessive and caused excessive
feed line loss. By using fatter elements it provides for a broader Swr and
makes matching easier.

Does any of this fit with your "methodology"? :>)

73
Gary  K4FMX

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Joe Montierth]

--- Barry C' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> > >
> >
> >Yes, the ASPB602 is four stacked dipoles, just like the DB224.  My
> >point again is that resonance is NOT a requirement for an effective
> >and efficient antenna.  The wider frequency coverage for this
> antenna
> >is likely because the dipoles are fabricated from 3/4 in. OD tubing
> >instead of 3/8 in. tubing.
> 
> or as in many cases of commercial sticks its almost a dummy load in 
> reactance ( think about it)
> I must admit brandishing model number does no good as I am not
> familiar , 
> its been a long time since I was at broadcast school so I am unlikly
> to 
> change methodology now :)
> 


Here is a link to the data sheet on the antenna I'm talking about.

http://www.telewave.com/pdf/TWDS-7045.pdf

These are wideband and high gain.

Joe


 

Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Barry C']

>From: "Laryn Lohman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and 
>amateur
>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:33:49 -
>
>--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Barry C'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > I presume its some sort of stacked arrangment , in chich case it
>will make
> > that gain at resonance ,
> >
>
>Yes, the ASPB602 is four stacked dipoles, just like the DB224.  My
>point again is that resonance is NOT a requirement for an effective
>and efficient antenna.  The wider frequency coverage for this antenna
>is likely because the dipoles are fabricated from 3/4 in. OD tubing
>instead of 3/8 in. tubing.

or as in many cases of commercial sticks its almost a dummy load in 
reactance ( think about it)
I must admit brandishing model number does no good as I am not familiar , 
its been a long time since I was at broadcast school so I am unlikly to 
change methodology now :)

For example, most AM broadcast antennas
>(towers) are not resonant at their operating frequency.  In fact, more
>and more AM broadcasters are diplexing, and even occasionally
>triplexing.  So stations on 820 kc. and 1290 kc. might use the same
>antenna.  Is the antenna resonant?  No.

it's also not a "stacked" so bear little relevence to the matter

There is little or no
>automatic penalty for using a non-resonant antenna.

just some efficiency

>
>Ask anyone on this list how well the DB420 works down into the 70cm
>ham gand.
>
> > claims  are like water (sic)
>
>Very true.  The  I make here (6dbd gain and 144-162 mc. at
>less than 1.5:1 VSWR) are quoted from reputable commercial two-way
>antenna manufacturer's data sheets and catalogs, not some ham-grade
>antenna gain claim.

interesting comparison and I doubt you meant to insult hams as a group
>
>Laryn K8TVZ
>
>
>
>

_
Advertisement: 50% off on Xbox 360, PS and Nintendo Wii titles! 
http://www.play-asia.com/SOap-23-83-4lab-71-bn-49-en-84-k-40-extended.html

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Barry C']

>From: "Gary Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>To: 
>Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial 
>and amateur
>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:40:47 -0500
>
>
>
>
> > Well lets look at the riddle , swinging a radiator acree 20 or 30 megs 
>of
> > bandwidth it will tune and still radiate but will it have appreciable 
>gain
> > away from certain design points?
> > I think not .
> > >Laryn K8TVZ
> > where did I mention resonance ?
> > resonance of course being point normally considered highest gain  so
> > matching 30 ft of wire and 1.85 megs wont work terribly well will it ?
> > >
> >
>
>Resonance has nothing to do with the amount of gain an antenna has.
>Resonance only means that capacitive and inductive reactance are equal.
I see we subscribe to differing methodologys , I dont agree but no matter .
>
>Yes 30 feet of wire on 1.85 megs will radiate nearly as well as 240 feet
>will. The problem with 30 feet of wire will be getting power to it as the
>impedance is so low the loss in the matching network will be quite high.
>
>An antenna having to be resonant in order to be efficient is a common
>misconception by many.
see above
>
>73
>Gary  K4FMX
>
>

_
Advertisement: Fresh jobs daily. Stop waiting for the newspaper. Search Now! 
www.seek.com.au 
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=757263760&_r=Hotmail_EndText_Dec06&_m=EXT

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[Gary Schafer]

Lots of the small mobile duplexers (notch type) have fixed capacitors inside
and you can only adjust the cavity tuning, which tunes the notch.

This type duplexer is limited in how far from the design frequency you can
tune it as the capacitors are fixed. The cavities will tune but the loss
goes.

73
Gary  K4FMX

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of fxbuilder
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:09 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Band Pass Duplexer Tuning
> 
> I emailed the place I bought it from and that is what I was told.
> Band Pass. No caps on it for notch tuning as on celwave.  Am I missing
> something here?
> Craig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > At 01:53 PM 2/16/2007, you wrote:
> >
> > >There is a great article on this site about tuning a notch duplexer by
> > >Kevin. Can similar methods be used for tuning a mobile 6 can band
> > >pass duplexer? Is there an article that I missed that explains it as
> > >easily? I need to re-tune and could use the help. I think I know how
> > >but thought I'd check.
> >
> >  >
> > Ken
> >
> --
> 
> > President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> > Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories.
> > http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
> > Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> > we offer complete repeater packages!
> > AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> > http://www.irlp.net
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[Gary Schafer]

Are  you sure it's not a notch type duplexer? It takes large cavities for a
bandpass duplexer unless the spacing is quite wide.

73
Gary K4FMX

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of fxbuilder
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:53 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Band Pass Duplexer Tuning
> 
> There is a great article on this site about tuning a notch duplexer by
> Kevin.  Can similar methods be used for tuning a mobile 6 can band
> pass duplexer?  Is there an article that I missed that explains it as
> easily?  I need to re-tune and could use the help.  I think I know how
> but thought I'd check.
> Craig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[Ken Arck]

At 02:09 PM 2/16/2007, you wrote:

>I emailed the place I bought it from and that is what I was told.
>Band Pass. No caps on it for notch tuning as on celwave. Am I missing
>something here?

<---As Skipp pointed out, most the so-called "mobile duplexers" are 
notch only. You have a make and model #?

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[Ken Arck]

At 02:14 PM 2/16/2007, you wrote:


Yes, this is a flat pack. The place I bought it from told me it was a
band pass. Thanks Scott, I'll try your method.
Craig


Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, 
"Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> If you are talking about a "flat pak" duplexer, they are easy.
>
> Hook a receiver (or scope) to the "high" side and set the monitor
> frequency to the "low" frequency. Inject the "high" freqency into the
> antenna port. Tune for the deepest null.
>
> Then hook the monitor to the "low" side set for the "high" frequency
> and inject the high frequency, and again, tune for the deepest null.
> You will have to keep readjusting your signal generator. It helps to
> inject the 1000Hz tone if you are doing it "by ear".
>
> Scott NA4IT
>
> --- In 
Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, 
"fxbuilder" 

> wrote:
> >
> > There is a great article on this site about tuning a notch duplexer by
> > Kevin. Can similar methods be used for tuning a mobile 6 can band
> > pass duplexer? Is there an article that I missed that explains it as
> > easily? I need to re-tune and could use the help. I think I know how
> > but thought I'd check.
> > Craig
> >
>




--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[fxbuilder]

Yes, this is a flat pack.  The place I bought it from told me it was a
band pass.  Thanks Scott, I'll try your method.
Craig




--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you are talking about a "flat pak" duplexer, they are easy. 
> 
> Hook a receiver (or scope) to the "high" side and set the monitor
> frequency to the "low" frequency. Inject the "high" freqency into the
> antenna port. Tune for the deepest null. 
> 
> Then hook the monitor to the "low" side set for the "high" frequency
> and inject the high frequency, and again, tune for the deepest null.
> You will have to keep readjusting your signal generator. It helps to
> inject the 1000Hz tone if you are doing it "by ear".
> 
> Scott NA4IT
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "fxbuilder" 
> wrote:
> >
> > There is a great article on this site about tuning a notch duplexer by
> > Kevin.  Can similar methods be used for tuning a mobile 6 can band
> > pass duplexer?  Is there an article that I missed that explains it as
> > easily?  I need to re-tune and could use the help.  I think I know how
> > but thought I'd check.
> > Craig
> >
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[Scott]

If you are talking about a "flat pak" duplexer, they are easy. 

Hook a receiver (or scope) to the "high" side and set the monitor
frequency to the "low" frequency. Inject the "high" freqency into the
antenna port. Tune for the deepest null. 

Then hook the monitor to the "low" side set for the "high" frequency
and inject the high frequency, and again, tune for the deepest null.
You will have to keep readjusting your signal generator. It helps to
inject the 1000Hz tone if you are doing it "by ear".

Scott NA4IT

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "fxbuilder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> There is a great article on this site about tuning a notch duplexer by
> Kevin.  Can similar methods be used for tuning a mobile 6 can band
> pass duplexer?  Is there an article that I missed that explains it as
> easily?  I need to re-tune and could use the help.  I think I know how
> but thought I'd check.
> Craig
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[fxbuilder]

I emailed the place I bought it from and that is what I was told. 
Band Pass. No caps on it for notch tuning as on celwave.  Am I missing
something here?
Craig




--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 01:53 PM 2/16/2007, you wrote:
> 
> >There is a great article on this site about tuning a notch duplexer by
> >Kevin. Can similar methods be used for tuning a mobile 6 can band
> >pass duplexer? Is there an article that I missed that explains it as
> >easily? I need to re-tune and could use the help. I think I know how
> >but thought I'd check.
> 
>  
> Ken
>
--
> President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories.
> http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
> Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> we offer complete repeater packages!
> AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> http://www.irlp.net
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[skipp025]

Yes there is... but it's really big even for UHF. Phelps Dodge Made 
one and I've seen a number of odd ball units around with Harris labels 
on them. Normally the "smaller" mobile duplexer are notch-pass (aka
notch-notch).  But everything is possible... and probably tried at 
least once. 

cheers, 
skipp 


>  > There is a great article on this site about tuning a 
> > notch duplexer by Kevin. Can similar methods be used 
> > for tuning a mobile 6 can band pass duplexer? Is there 
> > an article that I missed that explains it as easily? I 
> > need to re-tune and could use the help. I think I know 
> > how but thought I'd check.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: MSR2000 PL board questions

[skipp025]

> Re: PL board for an MSR2000 and have a few questions: 
> I want to use the card for decode as well as tx  encode out. 
> Do I also need to continue to use two vibrasponder reeds, or 
> do I need to use one 'sponder and one 'sender reed in the two 
> slots (sounds more logical)?  

You can do both the above in a base station configuration or you 
will need both reeds if the card is for duplex (repeater) operation. 

The TRN5073A is Duplex (TA-RB) 
TRN5074A is Simplex (TA-RA) 
The TRN5075A is Simplex (TA-RB) 

> 2. Which socket is the tx and which is the rx socket?

You or I would simply have to look it up in the manual... 

Since it's friday... decoding reed Z1 (for TA-RA) and Z2 (for TA-RB) 
on duplex applications. 

So you probably want Z1 as the encode reed and Z2 as the Decode reed. 

> 3. Does anyone have a scanned image of the PL board schematic and/or 
> jumper listings?  Unfortunately I don't have a audio&control manual 
> around.

> Anyone have any experience with effect on receiver audio quality 
> with  the PL filter inline versus out of line?  Reason I ask is 
> that I originally set up the repeater with a TS64 board (which 
> failed), and left JU1 on the audio card in place. The receiver 
> audio has excellent freq response. I was planning on removing the 
> JU1 once I install the OEM PL card and remove the TS64, thus 
> inserting the PL filter in line with the rx audio feeding the 
> controller. I'm hoping the freq response remains the same. My 
> experience with Micor base receivers is that the PL filter changes 
> the audio response, thus the extra cap tht is jumpered in when the 
> filter is not present. Hence the question
> Thanks
> Eric
> KE2D
> www.w2njr.org

The MSR ctcss filter is about as good as it gets. It's a real well 
designed high pass filter with a trailing ctcss notch filter. You'll 
like it a lot... 

good luck
skipp 


Jumpers as follows 

 Simple/Duplex 
Jmpr TARA TARB TARB 
JU1   IN   IN  OUT 
JU2   IN   IN  OUT 
JU3   IN  OUT  OUT 
JU4   IN  OUT   IN 
JU5  OUT  OUT   IN 
JU6   IN   IN  OUT 
JU7   IN   IN  OUT 

JU8  Normally in, out when using 67 Hz reed. 


[boy some of the things I do for people... ]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[Ken Arck]

At 01:53 PM 2/16/2007, you wrote:

>There is a great article on this site about tuning a notch duplexer by
>Kevin. Can similar methods be used for tuning a mobile 6 can band
>pass duplexer? Is there an article that I missed that explains it as
>easily? I need to re-tune and could use the help. I think I know how
>but thought I'd check.

[Repeater-Builder] Band Pass Duplexer Tuning

[fxbuilder]

There is a great article on this site about tuning a notch duplexer by
Kevin.  Can similar methods be used for tuning a mobile 6 can band
pass duplexer?  Is there an article that I missed that explains it as
easily?  I need to re-tune and could use the help.  I think I know how
but thought I'd check.
Craig

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Kenwood Power cable

[skipp025]

Hi Mike, 

I keep new Kenwood, Pyramid, Midland, EF Johnson and some Motorola 
power cables in stock.  I also keep the kenwood mobile accessory 
cables in stock ... along the lines of kct-19 and kct-36 

Email me direct if you can't find one second hand/source and ebay 
doesn't pan out. I might not be the cheapest per some second source 
ebay after market stuff but I do keep a good supply of original "oem" 
stuff in stock. 

cheers, 
skipp 

skipp025 at yahoo.com 
www.radiowrench.com 

> "Mike Lyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyone have one they are willing to part with?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Paul Finch]

And does not turn into toothpicks when struck by lightning!

Paul

 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laryn Lohman
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and
amateur


> 
>  I've been watching this topic and cannot recommend the half 
> wave dipole bay antennas as not really efficient gain wise for what 
> one gets for the effort..
> 
> The Station Master series has been mentioned, which has good 
> omnidirectional gain, in the order of some 10 db, and which is equal 
> to having a 10 element beam in all directions!! Far above a 4
section dipole arrangment!

You are comparing totally different antennas.  If you are going to talk
about the Stationmaster with 10 dbd of omni gain, you are referring to a UHF
antenna.  The comparably-sized exposed-dipole antenna is a DB420 with 9.2
dbd gain.  It has eight (basically), stacked dipoles, not four.  Same basic
length, same basic gain, and
the 420 covers far more bandwidth.   


> 
> The Station Master series is made of stacked coaxial sections inside 
> the fiberglass.  Unsolder the wire from the top metal cap and unscrew 
> the cap and look inside.  First you will find that there is a quarter 
> wave element at the top, then phased half wave coax sections below 
> that.  Research staked Coaxial vertal antennas on the Internet, 
> they're well covered.  I favor them as out performing most anythinb 
> else.

What are you basing your  claim on?  

> 
> Gonset discovered back in the 1960's era that the bandwidth aspect of 
> a halfwave antenna was the results of the ratio of the thickness of 
> the half wave antenna to the half wave length, and reinvented the "bow 
> tie" antenna, typically used for broadband TV!!!
> Hahahahaha!!!
> 
> It also depends on the radiation pattern, where it goes and how narrow 
> it is.  I've had a single section coaxial vertical antenna, basically 
> a half wave vertical, mounted at ground level, out perform a mobile 
> 5/8th wave 3 db gain vertical, mounted on my vehicle out in the 
> driveway, with the same radio, but a few feet higher!!  The mobile 
> 5/8th wave puts out a very narrow pattern at horizon level, and the 
> coaxial a wider donut shaped pattern also at the horizon..

It is very misleading to compare two antennas in a multipath-laden area such
the typical driveway, especially if not mounted in the same EXACT place.
Move an antenna to a new position a foot or two or ten away and you'll find
completely new signal readings.  You've experienced mobile flutter I'm sure.
Same thing.

> 
> While I think it said that the proposed antenna is to be on top of a 
> building, the same antenna on a mountain top repeater has to do the 
> same job in the weather, and over time, whether it's an Amateur Radio 
> or Commercial installation..!!!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dick
>

Laryn K8TVZ






 
Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.0/689 - Release Date: 2/15/2007
5:40 PM
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.0/689 - Release Date: 2/15/2007
5:40 PM
 



Visit http://www.ourphonelist.com";>OurPhonelist.comIt's free and you'll 
never lose track of a phone number again! 






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> 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] MSR2000 PL board questions

[kk2ed]

Just picked up a used PL board for an MSR2000 and have a few 
questions:

1. I need to replace the reeds for my desired PL freq. The unit came 
supplied with two vibrasponder reeds (same PL). I want to use the 
card for decode as well as tx encode out.  Do I also need to continue 
to use two vibrasponder reeds, or do I need to use one 'sponder and 
one 'sender reed in the two slots (sounds more logical)?  

2. Which socket is the tx and which is the rx socket?

3. Does anyone have a scanned image of the PL board schematic and/or 
jumper listings?  Unfortunately I don't have a audio&control manual 
around.

Anyone have any experience with effect on receiver audio quality with 
the PL filter inline versus out of line?  Reason I ask is that I 
originally set up the repeater with a TS64 board (which failed), and 
left JU1 on the audio card in place. The receiver audio has excellent 
freq response. I was planning on removing the JU1 once I install the 
OEM PL card and remove the TS64, thus inserting the PL filter in line 
with the rx audio feeding the controller. I'm hoping the freq 
response remains the same. My experience with Micor base receivers is 
that the PL filter changes the audio response, thus the extra cap tht 
is jumpered in when the filter is not present. Hence the question

Thanks
Eric
KE2D
www.w2njr.org

 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Laryn Lohman]

> 
>  I've been watching this topic and cannot recommend the half 
> wave dipole bay antennas as not really efficient gain wise for what 
> one gets for the effort..
> 
> The Station Master series has been mentioned, which has good 
> omnidirectional gain, in the order of some 10 db, and which is equal 
> to having a 10 element beam in all directions!! Far above a 4
section dipole arrangment!

You are comparing totally different antennas.  If you are going to
talk about the Stationmaster with 10 dbd of omni gain, you are
referring to a UHF antenna.  The comparably-sized exposed-dipole
antenna is a DB420 with 9.2 dbd gain.  It has eight (basically),
stacked dipoles, not four.  Same basic length, same basic gain, and
the 420 covers far more bandwidth.   


> 
> The Station Master series is made of stacked coaxial sections inside 
> the fiberglass.  Unsolder the wire from the top metal cap and 
> unscrew the cap and look inside.  First you will find that there is 
> a quarter wave element at the top, then phased half wave coax 
> sections below that.  Research staked Coaxial vertal antennas on the 
> Internet, they're well covered.  I favor them as out performing most 
> anythinb else.

What are you basing your  claim on?  

> 
> Gonset discovered back in the 1960's era that the bandwidth aspect 
> of a halfwave antenna was the results of the ratio of the thickness 
> of the half wave antenna to the half wave length, and reinvented 
> the "bow tie" antenna, typically used for broadband TV!!!  
> Hahahahaha!!!
> 
> It also depends on the radiation pattern, where it goes and how 
> narrow it is.  I've had a single section coaxial vertical antenna, 
> basically a half wave vertical, mounted at ground level, out perform 
> a mobile 5/8th wave 3 db gain vertical, mounted on my vehicle out in 
> the driveway, with the same radio, but a few feet higher!!  The  
> mobile 5/8th wave puts out a very narrow pattern at horizon level, 
> and the coaxial a wider donut shaped pattern also at the horizon..

It is very misleading to compare two antennas in a multipath-laden
area such the typical driveway, especially if not mounted in the same
EXACT place.  Move an antenna to a new position a foot or two or ten
away and you'll find completely new signal readings.  You've
experienced mobile flutter I'm sure.  Same thing.

> 
> While I think it said that the proposed antenna is to be on top of a 
> building, the same antenna on a mountain top repeater has to do the 
> same job in the weather, and over time, whether it's an Amateur 
> Radio or Commercial installation..!!!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dick
>

Laryn K8TVZ

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Laryn Lohman]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Barry C'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >
> I presume its some sort of stacked arrangment , in chich case it
will make 
> that gain at resonance ,
> 

Yes, the ASPB602 is four stacked dipoles, just like the DB224.  My
point again is that resonance is NOT a requirement for an effective
and efficient antenna.  The wider frequency coverage for this antenna
is likely because the dipoles are fabricated from 3/4 in. OD tubing
instead of 3/8 in. tubing.  For example, most AM broadcast antennas
(towers) are not resonant at their operating frequency.  In fact, more
and more AM broadcasters are diplexing, and even occasionally
triplexing.  So stations on 820 kc. and 1290 kc. might use the same
antenna.  Is the antenna resonant?  No.  There is little or no
automatic penalty for using a non-resonant antenna.

Ask anyone on this list how well the DB420 works down into the 70cm
ham gand.  

> claims  are like water (sic)

Very true.  The  I make here (6dbd gain and 144-162 mc. at
less than 1.5:1 VSWR) are quoted from reputable commercial two-way
antenna manufacturer's data sheets and catalogs, not some ham-grade
antenna gain claim.  

Laryn K8TVZ

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[ocwarren2000]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Yahoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are a number of old post on this subject. Take a look at the 
4 bay
> dipole antennas from Antenex (made by Bluewave). VERY broadband. 
As for
> whether or not they are expensive is a matter of personal opinion. 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jed Barton
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Antennas that work both in commercial 
and
> amateur
> 
> Hey guys,
> I need some suggestions.  I need a vhf and a uhf antena.
> Here's the requirement.  I'm planning to operate both amateur and 
commercial
> stuff from the house.
> I'd rather not use a ham antenna in the commercial bands.
> Are there some that'll do the 136 to 174 split, and some UHF 
that'll do like
> 439 to 490?
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jed
>



 I've been watching this topic and cannot recommend the half 
wave dipole bay antennas as not really efficient gain wise for what 
one gets for the effort..

The Station Master series has been mentioned, which has good 
omnidirectional gain, in the order of some 10 db, and which is equal 
to having a 10 element beam in all directions!!  Far above a 4 
section dipole arrangment!

The Station Master series is made of stacked coaxial sections inside 
the fiberglass.  Unsolder the wire from the top metal cap and 
unscrew the cap and look inside.  First you will find that there is 
a quarter wave element at the top, then phased half wave coax 
sections below that.  Research staked Coaxial vertal antennas on the 
Internet, they're well covered.  I favor them as out performing most 
anythinb else.

Gonset discovered back in the 1960's era that the bandwidth aspect 
of a halfwave antenna was the results of the ratio of the thickness 
of the half wave antenna to the half wave length, and reinvented 
the "bow tie" antenna, typically used for broadband TV!!!  
Hahahahaha!!!

It also depends on the radiation pattern, where it goes and how 
narrow it is.  I've had a single section coaxial vertical antenna, 
basically a half wave vertical, mounted at ground level, out perform 
a mobile 5/8th wave 3 db gain vertical, mounted on my vehicle out in 
the driveway, with the same radio, but a few feet higher!!  The  
mobile 5/8th wave puts out a very narrow pattern at horizon level, 
and the coaxial a wider donut shaped pattern also at the horizon..

While I think it said that the proposed antenna is to be on top of a 
building, the same antenna on a mountain top repeater has to do the 
same job in the weather, and over time, whether it's an Amateur 
Radio or Commercial installation..!!!

Best,

Dick

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Gary Schafer]

 
> Well lets look at the riddle , swinging a radiator acree 20 or 30 megs of
> bandwidth it will tune and still radiate but will it have appreciable gain
> away from certain design points?
> I think not .
> >Laryn K8TVZ
> where did I mention resonance ?
> resonance of course being point normally considered highest gain  so
> matching 30 ft of wire and 1.85 megs wont work terribly well will it ?
> >
> 

Resonance has nothing to do with the amount of gain an antenna has.
Resonance only means that capacitive and inductive reactance are equal. 

Yes 30 feet of wire on 1.85 megs will radiate nearly as well as 240 feet
will. The problem with 30 feet of wire will be getting power to it as the
impedance is so low the loss in the matching network will be quite high.

An antenna having to be resonant in order to be efficient is a common
misconception by many.

73
Gary  K4FMX

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Effects of doubling RF output on UHF repeater?

[Fred Flowers]

Interesting, I actually sent this out on the 5th.  Between Yahoo &
Bellsouth, who knows what bucket it was stuck in?

Fred N4GER

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Flowers
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:00 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Effects of doubling RF output on UHF
repeater?

1) No
2) Yes
3) Probably not.

Fred N4GER

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony L.
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:48 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Effects of doubling RF output on UHF repeater?

One of our 70cm Amateur Radio repeaters is currently outputting 50 
watts into the duplexer.  We're considering replacing the existing RF 
power amp with a 100 watt model.

Current draw on the 50 watt unit is 8 amps.  The 100 watt unit will 
draw 20 amps.  Our power supply is rated at 36 amps continuous, and 
the duplexer is rated at 250 watts.

Half of our users believe that the repeater's output power is 
perfectly matched to its receiver.  That is, users of high powered 
mobile radios generally lose repeater reception at about the same 
time the repeater's receiver loses them.

However, the other half of our users believe doubling the repeater's 
power output would generate increased activity since the repeater 
could be heard more "comfortably."

We could upgrade without changing any of our other infrastructure.  
However, these questions arise:  1) Will the hundreds we pay to 
upgrade actually translate into significantly increased range?  2) 
Will we risk generating additional receiver noise by doubling our 
output power, thus losing coverage in the process?  3) Will using a 
higher power level shorten the life of other system components over 
time (e.g., power supply)?

By the way, our frequency coordination would be valid even if we 
doubled our output power.






 
Yahoo! Groups Links








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur

[Maxwell D Pratt]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "skipp025" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
>
If you are going to use this Antenna to work on and test radio's & 
need a split of 135 to 174 I don't that will be possible, Most 
antenna will cover that range but you have to trim them for a certain 
Freq some are trimmed at Factory & some user has to trim .
 As per the difference between Commercial and ham antennas usually 
the commercial antennas are better built & will withstand more wind 
load & last longer with less service , But I don't think would have 
any better signal . I use both for ham Have a chushcraft 26-b2 has 
been in use for 9 years works as good as day I put up . Also have a 
commercial Dipole stacked 4 which has been in use for same amount of 
time . Both are on 30' tower if I was going to put on tower above 
100' would want the best antenna I could find or Buy would be a whole 
lot cheaper than having to replace often .  






> > "Jed Barton"  wrote:
> >
> > Hey guys,
> > I need some suggestions.  I need a vhf and a uhf antena.
> > Here's the requirement.  I'm planning to operate both amateur and
> commercial
> > stuff from the house.
> > I'd rather not use a ham antenna in the commercial bands.
> > Are there some that'll do the 136 to 174 split, and some UHF 
that'll
> do like
> > 439 to 490?
> > Any ideas?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jed
> >
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Statistics

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

And it's REALLY annoying when a Yahoo email account
HARD BOUNCES a YhaooGroups email message!!!

I have a POP proxy draining my Yahoo email accounts , and my Gmail
accounts set up fro direct POP access, and that along with a couple of
other POP boxes all feeding into my copy of Eudora Pro.
I have never been able to get Yahoo to give me a cogent answer to how
one Yahoo server can bounce a message from another one.

Mike

At 10:21 PM 02/15/07, you wrote:
>I prefer the traditional mode of receiving e-mails from my various Yahoo
>Groups.  All that extra "garbage" they add on does nothing for me, other
>than grate on my nerves...  ;-)
>
>I just wish there was a way to KEEP my settings after an e-mail address
>bounce occurs.  Seems that I get them every so often, and with having
>subscriptions to over 40 groups, it's a real PITA to go in and reset each
>one after "un-bouncing" my address.
>
>Mark - N9WYS
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Mike Morris WA6ILQ
>
>Recently I did some research on the membership statistics for this group.
>
>Here's some interesting info:
>
>We have 3,393 members.
>
>556 are in "Daily Digest" mode.
>
>883 are in "Individual Emails" mode
>
>275 are in "Special Notices" mode - i.e. they read the mail via the
>YahooGroups web site, and if the owner or moderators send out a
>special notice they will get it in their normal email (note that this
>feature is almost never used here, in fact I can't remember the last
>time it was used).
>
>1,679 are on "No Email" - i.e. they read the mail via the YahooGroups
>web site and they have locked themselves out of special notices.
>
>That last tidbit is very surprising to me.  I would have thought that
>maybe 1/10 that many would go to the hassle of reading the mail
>through a web browser.
>
>1694 are in "Fully Featured" mode, the rest are either in "Default"
>or "Traditional" mode.  The "Default" mode ones haven't made a choice
>yet.  Yahoo may make one for them at some point.
>
>The above is from a quick look at the Excel spreadsheet.
>I'm not a guru in Excel number crunching, and I didn't have a reason
>to go poking around any further.
>
>Mike WA6ILQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>