Re: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This?
Who owns it now? Joe M. Christopher Hodgdon wrote: I have a question that I would like to throw out to the group. I have read some items on this, but would like to gather opinions from members of the group. This is something that has been brought up to me. If you had the opportunity to install your repeater antenna on a former ATT Tower would you do it, if not why? Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] SSI 202 DTMF chips
Me, perhaps. I forgot to do SASE... Am I on the list?? Thanks! 73 john k5js -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 12:43 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] SSI 202 DTMF chips I thought I sent these chips to everyone that asked for them but I still have three left. Who did I miss? _ See what's free at AOL.com http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF0002000503 .
[Repeater-Builder] International Space Station
Did a little research after Hearing the International Space Station might have to temporally Shut down a Everyone Removed due to some Computer Problems , But Saw on CNN today that the Russian Commander FYODOR YURCHIKHIN Was able to fig out a way to Jumper Over a Power Supply switch on the Systems and Gets thing back to Normal, What makes this Noteworthy and will probably not even talked about in the Media Hey He is a Lic Amateur Radio Operator No wonder He figured it out and Fixed it. That's nice to Know. ISS Mission Manager Mike Suffredini says the problem turned out to be a faulty circuit inside the computers, which Russian technicians were able to bypass. They went to activate the four that they thought were still good, and all four of the computers came up, he said. http://voanews.com/english/2007-06-16-voa2.cfm http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/yurchikhin.html http://hamcall.net/call?callsign=RN3FI 73 De Don KA9QJG
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
Up until a few months ago, it was owned by ATT, then it was bought by a private individual that is using it mainly for a storage building and nothing else. But, we may be in a posistion to use the tower as our own, or possible be able to purchase it all. We are looking into all of our options. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who owns it now? Joe M. Christopher Hodgdon wrote: I have a question that I would like to throw out to the group. I have read some items on this, but would like to gather opinions from members of the group. This is something that has been brought up to me. If you had the opportunity to install your repeater antenna on a former ATT Tower would you do it, if not why? Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
I would like to be able to place equipment on a former ATT site if the new owner is agreeable and I do not become liable for lighting and painting, etc. AND if the site would serve an area that I would like to serve, and the condition of the tower were safe for use. Also things like tower registration come into play and FAA listing. Seems like ATT used some mighty big cornucopia antennas with quad diversity - serious bandwidth - in the old days longlines carried network television programming - imagine an NTSC video monitor in a transmission or toll office - 73, steve Christopher Hodgdon wrote: Up until a few months ago, it was owned by ATT, then it was bought by a private individual that is using it mainly for a storage building and nothing else. begin:vcard fn:Steve Bosshard n:Bosshard;Steve email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:254-773-1102 tel;fax:254-773-1174 tel;home:254-770-0111 tel;cell:254-624-4230 version:2.1 end:vcard
[Repeater-Builder] Help identifying GE uhf receiver
Can anyone identify the receiver in the photo section , UHF GE Repeater ? http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/photos There is no identification info stamped on or inside the receiver. The exciter board is 4EG21F1 Any info would be helpfull. Thanks. -- Rick ve3iqz
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Help identifying GE uhf receiver
Exec 1 series - don't think I have a book, but might have microfische. Steve. Rpage wrote: Can anyone identify the receiver in the photo section , UHF GE Repeater ? http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/photos There is no identification info stamped on or inside the receiver. The exciter board is 4EG21F1 Any info would be helpfull. Thanks. begin:vcard fn:Steve Bosshard n:Bosshard;Steve email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:254-773-1102 tel;fax:254-773-1174 tel;home:254-770-0111 tel;cell:254-624-4230 version:2.1 end:vcard
[Repeater-Builder] Crystals for peaking generator?
Anybody got a surplus 5350 KHz crystal (10.7 MHz out) crystal for a Motorola peaking generator that they'd be willing to part with? I'd also be interested in crystals in the 7700 to 7800 range, to cover roughly 462 - 468. George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This?
The answer to that really depends on who owns the site. And what you negotiate with them. I know many hams who occupy such towers and some who own them. 73 de na6m -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hodgdon Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:11 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This? I have a question that I would like to throw out to the group. I have read some items on this, but would like to gather opinions from members of the group. This is something that has been brought up to me. If you had the opportunity to install your repeater antenna on a former ATT Tower would you do it, if not why? Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
I wondered who read that new Carnegie book, How to Lose Friends and Alienate Acquaintances and now I guess I know. I'd heard rumors they were making rude and obnoxious pills and I guess that's true too. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Bill Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh come on! Do you have something against ATT. If you do - don't do it! What a stupid question! Is it going to sting you? Do you think it has some high voltage on it that might tickle you? Why would you ask such a stupid question? A moron is born every day. W6CBS _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hodgdon Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:11 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This? I have a question that I would like to throw out to the group. I have read some items on this, but would like to gather opinions from members of the group. This is something that has been brought up to me. If you had the opportunity to install your repeater antenna on a former ATT Tower would you do it, if not why?
[Repeater-Builder] PM1500
I'm looking for technical documentation regarding interfacing the PM1500 to external equipment. Specifically, I need to know where the COR and mic audio input connections are on J600 and any radio mods necessary to make this work. Thanks, Carey
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This?
The answer to that really depends on who owns the site. And what you negotiate with them. I know many hams who occupy such towers and some who own them. 73 de na6m -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Hodgdon Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:11 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This? I have a question that I would like to throw out to the group. I have read some items on this, but would like to gather opinions from members of the group. This is something that has been brought up to me. If you had the opportunity to install your repeater antenna on a former ATT Tower would you do it, if not why? Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Baby Monitor Picks UP NASA Video
It was probably somebody with a video sender unit hooked to their satellite receviver so they could watch it in another room without moving the receiver. They use the same frequencies as baby monitors. This was on shortnews.com and I posted the same info there. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting... PALATINE, Ill. (June 15) - An elementary school science teacher in this Chicago suburb doesn't have to turn on the news for an update on NASA's space mission. She just turns on her video baby monitor. Since Sunday, one of the two channels on Natalie Meilinger's baby monitor has been picking up black-and-white video from inside the space shuttle Atlantis. The other still lets her keep an eye on her baby. Whoever has a baby monitor knows what you'll usually see, Meilinger said. No one would ever expect this. Live video of the mission is available on NASA's Web site, so it's possible the monitor is picking up a signal from somewhere. It's not coming straight from the shuttle, NASA spokeswoman Brandi Dean said. People here think this is very interesting and you don't hear of it often, if at all. Doug Phelps, a member of an amateur radio club in neighboring Schaumburg, has an explanation. His organization, the Illinois chapter of the Motorola Amateur Radio Club, rebroadcasts NASA video as a public service. It is likely the monitor is picking up the video because amateur radio operates on the same frequency as baby monitors. Members of Phelps' club have picked up audio from baby monitors in the past. If you had a receiver in the right frequency, anybody in the public can pick up this signal, he said. Meilinger silenced disbelieving co-workers by bringing in a video of the monitor to show her class on Tuesday, her students' last day of school. At home, 3-month-old Jack and 2-year-old Rachel don't quite understand what their parents are watching. I've been addicted to it and keep waiting to see what's next, Meilinger said. Summer Infant, the monitor's manufacturer, is investigating what could be causing the transmission, communications director Cindy Barlow said. She said she's never heard of anything similar happening. Not even close, she said. Gotta love technology. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink QA. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545367
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
At 11:40 PM 6/15/2007, you wrote: Having spoken with some builders that build facilities similar to this, was informed to build such a location (exact standards) would cost will close to a million dollars. But here is an opportunity to purchase a ready made facility for less than $200,000.00. OK - here's what I would say ... I know that one similar site near here was sold to the local fire association (and is now being used by an amateur club) for $5,000. Larry Wagoner N5WLW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
Tower ownership can be very costly. Does the tower require lights? If so the tower owner must ensure that the lights are maintained and operating properly. I think FCC rules part 73 cover tower lights. IIRC, an outage must be repaired within 30 minutes or be reported to the FAA. The clock starts here. You have a short period of time to fix the lights, something like 30 days. The painting of the tower is important, if required. The FAA has paint fade charts to ensure that the paint is the proper shade. The proper use of these charts ensures that the tower is painted at the proper intervals. I was an engineer for a company that made tower site monitoring equipment and got to know the rules pretty good, but that was a few years ago. 73 Glenn WB4UIV At 03:27 PM 06/16/07, you wrote: Up until a few months ago, it was owned by ATT, then it was bought by a private individual that is using it mainly for a storage building and nothing else. But, we may be in a posistion to use the tower as our own, or possible be able to purchase it all. We are looking into all of our options. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who owns it now? Joe M. Christopher Hodgdon wrote: I have a question that I would like to throw out to the group. I have read some items on this, but would like to gather opinions from members of the group. This is something that has been brought up to me. If you had the opportunity to install your repeater antenna on a former ATT Tower would you do it, if not why? Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
While this is true, ANYONE at the site can be fined for non-compliance - even a ham radio group who is prohibited from climbing the tower or making repairs. It doesn't matter who owns the tower anymore. It used to be that only the tower owner was responsible. Now, everyone at the site is. Joe M. Glenn Little WB4UIV wrote: If so the tower owner must ensure that the lights are maintained and operating properly.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
Yep. And I can't imagine how much it would cost to paint some of those old microwave towers. They were big structures. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This? While this is true, ANYONE at the site can be fined for non-compliance - even a ham radio group who is prohibited from climbing the tower or making repairs. It doesn't matter who owns the tower anymore. It used to be that only the tower owner was responsible. Now, everyone at the site is. Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
In a message dated 6/16/2007 5:38:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While this is true, ANYONE at the site can be fined for non-compliance - even a ham radio group who is prohibited from climbing the tower or making repairs. It doesn't matter who owns the tower anymore. It used to be that only the tower owner was responsible. Now, everyone at the site is. What FCC or CFR regulatory language holds a site tenant responsible any site owner's deficiency that doesn't involve the tenant's equipment? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
I could see this one coming for miles, as I'm sure many did. Jim-WA9FPT - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This? In a message dated 6/16/2007 5:38:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While this is true, ANYONE at the site can be fined for non-compliance - even a ham radio group who is prohibited from climbing the tower or making repairs. It doesn't matter who owns the tower anymore. It used to be that only the tower owner was responsible. Now, everyone at the site is. What FCC or CFR regulatory language holds a site tenant responsible any site owner's deficiency that doesn't involve the tenant's equipment? -- See what's free at AOL.com.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
That is correct. Part 17 of the FCC Rules covers marking and lighting of Antenna Structures. FAA Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K covers the specifics. It might be a good idea to first determine if an Aeronautical Study has been performed on the subject tower. The FCC requires that the 7-digit Antenna Structure Registration number be posted at the base of the tower. You can look up that number at the FCC ASR Web site to see what studies have been documented. Unlighted towers that are required to be lighted can earn a $10,000 fine for each day of non-compliance, and that fine will be collected from the tenants if the tower owner can't be found or refuses to pay. Bottom Line: Be absolutely certain that you're not going to be saddled with breathtaking fines and/or expenses if the owner bails. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mch Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 5:27 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This? While this is true, ANYONE at the site can be fined for non-compliance - even a ham radio group who is prohibited from climbing the tower or making repairs. It doesn't matter who owns the tower anymore. It used to be that only the tower owner was responsible. Now, everyone at the site is. Joe M. Glenn Little WB4UIV wrote: If so the tower owner must ensure that the lights are maintained and operating properly.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
Steve, Had a question from one of the guys, does D-star have NAC codes? or use IP? Do we need to stress the need to coordinate or organize the NAC and access codes. Paul _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 8:36 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This? You can't imagine the COSTS Chuck. Ever been up 150 ft or so with a mitt painting aviation orange with the 1 gal bucket supported by a shoulder harness and spill 1/2 gal of aviation orange under your belt into your underweartook a little while to get down on a hot summer day - latex paint dries FAST !!! Hey Honey, I'm home - guess what ! Steve NU5D (not quite as bad as that under water welder in a wet suit with warm water being pumped into his suit, when the suction picked up a jelly fish - couldn't use the bathroom for 3 days...) :-( Chuck Kelsey wrote: Yep. And I can't imagine how much it would cost to paint some of those old microwave towers. They were big structures. Chuck WB2EDV HYPERLINK http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-1751-2978-238/1?aid=10356774pid=2316294; You can find it on ebaY No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 6/15/2007 11:31 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 6/15/2007 11:31 AM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
The reason for tower registration by the tower owner is to have someone responsible for the vertical real estate. A fine was imposed on Motorola due to a dark tower a year or so after a Hurricane Andrew destroyed Southern Florida. Motorola attempted to push the fine off on the tenants. The FCC said no (Motorola's under the table insurance policy had expired), that Motorola was responsible for the tower. Motorola shortly after this sold all (or at least most) of their vertical real estate and the FAA/FCC started the tower registration program. All lighted towers are required to be registered. The registration names the entity that owns the structure and who is solely responsible for the proper maintenance of the tower markings. Until towers were registered, a crafty lawyer could divert the fine from the owner to the tenant. At least this is how it was when I was working with tower site monitoring. 73 Glenn WB4UIV At 07:27 PM 06/16/07, you wrote: While this is true, ANYONE at the site can be fined for non-compliance - even a ham radio group who is prohibited from climbing the tower or making repairs. It doesn't matter who owns the tower anymore. It used to be that only the tower owner was responsible. Now, everyone at the site is. Joe M. Glenn Little WB4UIV wrote: If so the tower owner must ensure that the lights are maintained and operating properly. Yahoo! Groups Links
