Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening
I know, but in many areas there are a lot of unused frequencies. Still, I would never seriously tell someone to operate there. I would also not recommend operating repeaters in the parts of the band where repeaters are prohibited. Others don't see this prohibition as a deterrent, however. The reason? The repeater bands are full and there is a desire to put more repeaters on the air. This goes back to a comment I made before. IF you can justify putting repeaters in all parts of the band based solely on lack of 'repeater spectrum', what is to keep you from being able to justify extending beyond the ham bands? Illegal is illegal no matter how illegal it is. We all know there is lots of underutilized spectrum just above and below 2M and 220. Is that a reason to put ham repeaters there? (rhetorical question) Joe M. Mark Stennett wrote: Broadcasters use 450 to 451 for telemetry and remote pickup. You don't want to mess with them there. I know this first hand. 73 de na6m MCH wrote: The same ones that are legal inside the ham bands but choose to operate in spectrum probibited under Part 97. Illegal is illegal no matter where it operates. Joe M. Bob Dengler wrote: At 9/19/2007 01:52 PM, you wrote: Maybe they can move up to 450-451 as long as they don't cause interference to users there... (a dig on the D-STAR repeaters operating in non-repeater bands due to 'no repeater band spectrum left and non-interference where they are operating'). ;- What amateur modes are legal outside the amateur bands? Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
Illegal is Illegal period. Look at what there is to gain by promoting digital repeater technologies - more spectrum - less interference - better range and better quality communications - no pots to adjust on your repeater - 1s and 0s We have it within reach to re-farm present spectrum for a 2 for 1 or better yield in recovering spectrum by fostering digital technologies, be it P25 or DSTAR, or other means not to market at present. First - voluntary negotiated agreements - ie. Hey Joe, that repeater you have, you know, the one on the North side of town with the bad antenna - our group would like to share the channel and put up a new digital repeater and would like to partner with you - what do you think ? Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the North side of town. We respectfully request you re-consider coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair / replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share this spectrum with Joe. (Sharing a frequency is not interference). Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this coordination. Maybe the wording is not so great, but the idea is to work within the existing rules to promote more spectrally efficient frequency use to the end that there is more spectrum for everyone. I do not believe DSTAR repeaters to be anything other than repeaters, and unless there is a proper waiver of the FCC rules, should not be placed in any part of the band where repeaters are not permitted. Again, thanks to the volunteer coordinators who do their best to make things fit for the betterment of our hobby and service, Steve NU5D moderator dstar_digital yahoo group. MCH wrote: I know, but in many areas there are a lot of unused frequencies. Still, I would never seriously tell someone to operate there. I would also not recommend operating repeaters in the parts of the band where repeaters are prohibited. Others don't see this prohibition as a deterrent, however. The reason? The repeater bands are full and there is a desire to put more repeaters on the air.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening
Hi Bob Yes the shutdowns are ongoing. They will allow some fixed stations to continue but only at very low power. For all practical purposes the Air Force is imposing a quiet zone for 420-450 Mhz within 125 miles of the MA PAVE PAWS site and 150 miles of the CA one. Yes they did shut down 20 odd PAVEPAWS sites but the ones in AK, CA and MA were upgraded with all new equipment from Raytheon (?) and now do the work of all of the old sites, and also are better at detecting sea launched missles. These remaining super PAVEPAWS sites if you will, will continue on now for many years to come. The 440 guys in MA are all talking about moving to 900 or 220 or 2 m and there has been some talk about trying to get a primary allocation on the 700 band. But 440 is all through around here in MA as it is generally seen. That would be nice since we are secondary on 900 also. 73 Glenn -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Dengler Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening At 9/19/2007 01:52 PM, you wrote: But, what would you realign it to? I believe PAVE PAWS covers the entire band. There is no spectrum left to put them. Perhaps they can be QSY'd during the QRT period, assuming PAVE PAWS will only operate for a few years given that one site has already been shut down. When I was in Cape Cod last month there were still some 70 cm repeaters operating, but the locals were talking about a total shutdown. Don't know if it's happened yet. Maybe they can move up to 450-451 as long as they don't cause interference to users there... (a dig on the D-STAR repeaters operating in non-repeater bands due to 'no repeater band spectrum left and non-interference where they are operating'). ;- What amateur modes are legal outside the amateur bands? Bob NO6B No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date: 9/18/2007 11:53 AM
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
Steve Wouldnt it be easy and more effective and cheaper if your: ...hand full of folks just go ahead and use Joes repeater that is already on the air instead of complicating the situation more than it needs to be? Of course this assumes that Joes repeater is open. This brings up another issue in that I believe that closed repeaters should be disallowed where the band is full and there are people who will put up a repeater open to all. Closed repeaters could be allowed on 902 or 1.2G if need be. Refarming ham radio wholesale will be ill advised and I dont think you will see it in our lifetimes.. The users of ham radio are not the US government or public saftey or RCC's with bottomless buckets of money to just go out and replace equipment. We are losing people in the ham radio community not gaining them. Most hams buy a radio and use it for years and dont have to worry about it becoming useless or worthless, nor do they want to have to reinvest in something twice. I would say that the narrow band fm systems we use now work very well and are *much* more spectrally efficient than the wideband stuff that was out there when I became a ham back in the sixties. For those that want to experiment and promote investigation of the new dig modulation such as DStar and P25 that is good and we should encourage this on new spectrum that can be found that is unused, without destroying the existing repeater sub bands. Just my .02 for thought. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:10 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic... Illegal is Illegal period. Look at what there is to gain by promoting digital repeater technologies - more spectrum - less interference - better range and better quality communications - no pots to adjust on your repeater - 1s and 0s We have it within reach to re-farm present spectrum for a 2 for 1 or better yield in recovering spectrum by fostering digital technologies, be it P25 or DSTAR, or other means not to market at present. First - voluntary negotiated agreements - ie. Hey Joe, that repeater you have, you know, the one on the North side of town with the bad antenna - our group would like to share the channel and put up a new digital repeater and would like to partner with you - what do you think ? Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the North side of town. We respectfully request you re-consider coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair / replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share this spectrum with Joe. (Sharing a frequency is not interference). Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this coordination. Maybe the wording is not so great, but the idea is to work within the existing rules to promote more spectrally efficient frequency use to the end that there is more spectrum for everyone. I do not believe DSTAR repeaters to be anything other than repeaters, and unless there is a proper waiver of the FCC rules, should not be placed in any part of the band where repeaters are not permitted. Again, thanks to the volunteer coordinators who do their best to make things fit for the betterment of our hobby and service, Steve NU5D moderator dstar_digital yahoo group.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
Good post Steve. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:10 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic... Illegal is Illegal period. Look at what there is to gain by promoting digital repeater technologies - more spectrum - less interference - better range and better quality communications - no pots to adjust on your repeater - 1s and 0s We have it within reach to re-farm present spectrum for a 2 for 1 or better yield in recovering spectrum by fostering digital technologies, be it P25 or DSTAR, or other means not to market at present. First - voluntary negotiated agreements - ie. Hey Joe, that repeater you have, you know, the one on the North side of town with the bad antenna - our group would like to share the channel and put up a new digital repeater and would like to partner with you - what do you think ? Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the North side of town. We respectfully request you re-consider coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair / replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share this spectrum with Joe. (Sharing a frequency is not interference). Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this coordination. Maybe the wording is not so great, but the idea is to work within the existing rules to promote more spectrally efficient frequency use to the end that there is more spectrum for everyone. I do not believe DSTAR repeaters to be anything other than repeaters, and unless there is a proper waiver of the FCC rules, should not be placed in any part of the band where repeaters are not permitted. Again, thanks to the volunteer coordinators who do their best to make things fit for the betterment of our hobby and service, Steve NU5D moderator dstar_digital yahoo group. MCH wrote: I know, but in many areas there are a lot of unused frequencies. Still, I would never seriously tell someone to operate there. I would also not recommend operating repeaters in the parts of the band where repeaters are prohibited. Others don't see this prohibition as a deterrent, however. The reason? The repeater bands are full and there is a desire to put more repeaters on the air. Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007 3:59 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007 3:59 PM 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/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote: Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the North side of town. We respectfully request you re-consider coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair / replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share this spectrum with Joe. (Sharing a frequency is not interference). Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this coordination. I don't agree with the 'underutilized/inactive' parts of this. Just because a repeater doesn't have a bunch of jibber-jabber all day long shouldn't make it fair game. I know if we did that here, all of the repeaters that have dedicated agreements with local agencies, EMA, Red Cross, etc, would be the first ones to go, and the truly useless repeaters that have truck drivers blathering away all day long would be all that was left. Now, as far as repeaters that are decidedly not on the air at all, and haven't been for years, well... -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
Hi Glenn, If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all means leave it alone. Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well with a bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a couple of minutes a day. The folks wanting the digital repeater could help fix Joe's antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to mess with it. If they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM repeater not much different than the others in town. If they partner with Joe and upgrade to digital, depending on whether they occupy the middle of the channel, or offset up or down 6.25 Khz, they can restore Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make room for one more repeater in the area. This is only because there are no more 2M or 70CM channels available in Joe's neighborhood, and the folks wanting to place the new digital system have no other place within the rules to go in the band they want. Never would I want wholesale run this through and make it happen, but thoughtful well planned migration might be a good thing. Also like you said, the new equipment would cost more than fixing the old system for Joe, but then folks would not have the benefits of the digital system - no white noise (garble instead), good comm grade audio, and a smaller occupied bandwidth. I certainly respect your comments, and your points are valid. I am just trying to put forth some ideas that will foster a planned gradual move for some folks to digital - by no means a wholesale jump like the cellular folks did. Also there are still folks with radios that don't have channel guard tone - some things don't change. Lets put your 2 cents and a few others together and have a cup of coffee, 73, Steve NU5D (BTW - I can assure you that not all land mobile operators, RCCs etc have buckets of money - forced migration in the SMR business was very costly for me, and this don't take into account loss of customers who didn't want to mess with re-programming radios) sb. Glenn Shaw wrote: Steve Wouldnt it be easy and more effective and cheaper if your: ...hand full of folks just go ahead and use Joes repeater that is already on the air instead of complicating the situation more than it needs to be? Of course Refarming ham radio wholesale will be ill advised and I dont think you will see it in our lifetimes.. The users of ham radio are not the US government or public saftey or RCC's with bottomless buckets of money to just go out and replace equipment. We are losing people in the ham radio community not gaining them. Most hams buy a radio and use it for years and dont have to For those that want to experiment and promote investigation of the new dig modulation such as DStar and P25 that is good and we should encourage this on new spectrum that can be found that is unused, without destroying the existing repeater sub bands. Just my .02 for thought. Glenn N1GBY
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o
Frequency coordination boards have no power to get Joe to take his repeater off the air because he doesn't use it enough. In reality when the local frequency coordination group won't/can't do anything most (but not quite all) groups will eventually pick the most likely pair and set up shop on it without coordination. If Joe's group is truly dead they'll be all set. More likely Joe's group will come back to life and make noise. If it's a lot of strong noise the new group will probably pick a new pair and try again. Three points: 1. USE IT OR LOSE IT! 2. We need ACTIVE frequency coordination boards even when all pairs are gone. A frequency coordination council that's nothing more than a bit bucket does no one any good. 3. A dedicated group will aways find a frequency, one way or another. This isn't the place for venting about frequency coordination, but I feel a tad bit better. 73's Skip WB6YMH --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Illegal is Illegal period. Look at what there is to gain by promoting digital repeater technologies - more spectrum - less interference - better range and better quality communications - no pots to adjust on your repeater - 1s and 0s We have it within reach to re-farm present spectrum for a 2 for 1 or better yield in recovering spectrum by fostering digital technologies, be it P25 or DSTAR, or other means not to market at present. First - voluntary negotiated agreements - ie. Hey Joe, that repeater you have, you know, the one on the North side of town with the bad antenna - our group would like to share the channel and put up a new digital repeater and would like to partner with you - what do you think ? Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the North side of town. We respectfully request you re-consider coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair / replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share this spectrum with Joe. (Sharing a frequency is not interference). Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this coordination. Maybe the wording is not so great, but the idea is to work within the existing rules to promote more spectrally efficient frequency use to the end that there is more spectrum for everyone. I do not believe DSTAR repeaters to be anything other than repeaters, and unless there is a proper waiver of the FCC rules, should not be placed in any part of the band where repeaters are not permitted. Again, thanks to the volunteer coordinators who do their best to make things fit for the betterment of our hobby and service, Steve NU5D moderator dstar_digital yahoo group. MCH wrote: I know, but in many areas there are a lot of unused frequencies. Still, I would never seriously tell someone to operate there. I would also not recommend operating repeaters in the parts of the band where repeaters are prohibited. Others don't see this prohibition as a deterrent, however. The reason? The repeater bands are full and there is a desire to put more repeaters on the air.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you'll find in most areas where the repeater frequencies are Full, that there are more repeaters to talk on than there are people to actually talk on them. And we need more repeaters? My point exactly, Larry - is ham radio best served by more repeaters than there are folks to use them blocking folks who want to try and revitalize things with a digital system? Look at http://www.dstarusers.org and see who is talking now. Maybe this digital stuff is just a fad, and when it dies out, channels used for digital should be returned to re-coordination, but to kill an innovation at the onset by not allowing a place to operate when there is unused / underused space available just isn't right. As far as constant chatter - I would not want that either, but there are some repeaters that are just plain dead. It also seems the assumption here is that Joe would not be agreeable to the new folks proposal, maybe he would be. Anyhow this is all intended in the spirit of amateur radio and I don't want to provoke any arguments or ill will, as before I am thinking about ways to make this work for everyone. Almost coffee time, 73, Steve NU5D
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o
Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the North side of town. We respectfully request you re-consider coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair / replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share this spectrum with Joe. (Sharing a frequency is not interference). Technical question: Does a DSTAR radio automatically switch between analog and digital? i.e. can the DSTAR user hear the analog activity when his radio is in DStar mode so he can share the frequency? Sharing between digital and analog was tried back in the packet days... to say the least it didn't work. 73's Skip WB6YMH
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
Hi Steve You have a lot of valid points. There ought to be a way to create a sub band within the 2M and 440 repeater pairs for digital. Maybe interstitial. Who knows. My hope is that people decide on D Star or P25 so we will not have the old VHS vs Beta thing. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:26 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic... Hi Glenn, If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all means leave it alone. Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well with a bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a couple of minutes a day. The folks wanting the digital repeater could help fix Joe's antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to mess with it. If they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM repeater not much different than the others in town. If they partner with Joe and upgrade to digital, depending on whether they occupy the middle of the channel, or offset up or down 6.25 Khz, they can restore Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make room for one more repeater in the area. This is only because there are no more 2M or 70CM channels available in Joe's neighborhood, and the folks wanting to place the new digital system have no other place within the rules to go in the band they want. Never would I want wholesale run this through and make it happen, but thoughtful well planned migration might be a good thing. Also like you said, the new equipment would cost more than fixing the old system for Joe, but then folks would not have the benefits of the digital system - no white noise (garble instead), good comm grade audio, and a smaller occupied bandwidth. I certainly respect your comments, and your points are valid. I am just trying to put forth some ideas that will foster a planned gradual move for some folks to digital - by no means a wholesale jump like the cellular folks did. Also there are still folks with radios that don't have channel guard tone - some things don't change. Lets put your 2 cents and a few others together and have a cup of coffee, 73, Steve NU5D (BTW - I can assure you that not all land mobile operators, RCCs etc have buckets of money - forced migration in the SMR business was very costly for me, and this don't take into account loss of customers who didn't want to mess with re-programming radios) sb. Glenn Shaw wrote: Steve Wouldnt it be easy and more effective and cheaper if your: ...hand full of folks just go ahead and use Joes repeater that is already on the air instead of complicating the situation more than it needs to be? Of course Refarming ham radio wholesale will be ill advised and I dont think you will see it in our lifetimes.. The users of ham radio are not the US government or public saftey or RCC's with bottomless buckets of money to just go out and replace equipment. We are losing people in the ham radio community not gaining them. Most hams buy a radio and use it for years and dont have to For those that want to experiment and promote investigation of the new dig modulation such as DStar and P25 that is good and we should encourage this on new spectrum that can be found that is unused, without destroying the existing repeater sub bands. Just my .02 for thought. Glenn N1GBY No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007 3:59 PM
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o
wb6ymh wrote: Technical question: Does a DSTAR radio automatically switch between analog and digital? i.e. can the DSTAR user hear the analog activity when his radio is in DStar mode so he can share the frequency? Sharing between digital and analog was tried back in the packet days... to say the least it didn't work. 73's Skip WB6YMH Hi Skip, Dang service call broke into coffee time, but I did get to visit the local hams for a bit. As far as I know the DSTAR user radios can be set to busy channel lock out, so they will not transmit when there is anything on the channel. They also have an S Meter that will show activity, and can be set to monitor for analog or digital. One down side would be the internet gateway. I can direct a call to the DSTAR repeater in Malibu, CA from here in Temple, Texas and have no idea whether the channel in Malibu had analog traffic or not. Local folks could be observant, but folks thru the gateway would not know. This may be how folks contrive the DSTAR repeater to be an AUX Station because it can be caused to transmit by another station via the internet in another area. This may be a secondary function, though, because primarily the repeater works as a repeater, and I would venture that 2/3 of the DSTAR systems in the US are not connected to the internet. 73, Steve NU5D
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
At 08:17 AM 09/20/07, you wrote: Hi Steve You have a lot of valid points. There ought to be a way to create a sub band within the 2M and 440 repeater pairs for digital. Maybe interstitial. Who knows. My hope is that people decide on D Star or P25 so we will not have the old VHS vs Beta thing. Glenn N1GBY And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right? Use a user radio? Does a user radio give a complete test of a conventional transmitter the way that a scope-equipped IFR does?? (would you trust a handheld to tell you that your conventional repeater transmitter deviation was set right?)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier
Milt I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the item. I could have missed it. Gran K6RIF At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote: Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though that this little gadget. Milt N3LTQ - Original Message - From: Gran Clark mailto:k6rif%40cox.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Hi All On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets. This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm. My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The identifier START COS is low true so you may have to invert a high true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave, as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400 Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is negative true and will or with most PTT logic. Be very careful to use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking. Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others on the linked system. I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component side. Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see and he is great to work with if needed. All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode matrix ID boards! http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64 Gran K6RIF Gran K6RIF Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
Hi Glen, If i were going to install a digital repeater i would be going with a P25 system. Hardware is very accessible and not to expensive. Also take in to consideration interoperability. Motorola, Kenwood, Macom, Icom, Yeasu, Thales, BK, Datron, etc and many others all provide radios for P25. Not to Bash Icom, butt how many do you think are really going to buy off on the D-Star system. P25 is established and works. Mike -- Original message -- From: Glenn Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Steve You have a lot of valid points. There ought to be a way to create a sub band within the 2M and 440 repeater pairs for digital. Maybe interstitial. Who knows. My hope is that people decide on D Star or P25 so we will not have the old VHS vs Beta thing. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:26 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic... Hi Glenn, If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all means leave it alone. Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well with a bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a couple of minutes a day. The folks wanting the digital repeater could help fix Joe's antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to mess with it. If they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM repeater not much different than the others in town. If they partner with Joe and upgrade to digital, depending on whether they occupy the middle of the channel, or offset up or down 6.25 Khz, they can restore Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make room for one more repeater in the area. This is only because there are no more 2M or 70CM channels available in Joe's neighborhood, and the folks wanting to place the new digital system have no other place within the rules to go in the band they want. Never would I want wholesale run this through and make it happen, but thoughtful well planned migration might be a good thing. Also like you said, the new equipment would cost more than fixing the old system for Joe, but then folks would not have the benefits of the digital system - no white noise (garble instead), good comm grade audio, and a smaller occupied bandwidth. I certainly respect your comments, and your points are valid. I am just trying to put forth some ideas that will foster a planned gradual move for some folks to digital - by no means a wholesale jump like the cellular folks did. Also there are still folks with radios that don't have channel guard tone - some things don't change. Lets put your 2 cents and a few others together and have a cup of coffee, 73, Steve NU5D (BTW - I can assure you that not all land mobile operators, RCCs etc have buckets of money - forced migration in the SMR business was very costly for me, and this don't take into account loss of customers who didn't want to mess with re-programming radios) sb. Glenn Shaw wrote: Steve Wouldnt it be easy and more effective and cheaper if your: ...hand full of folks just go ahead and use Joes repeater that is already on the air instead of complicating the situation more than it needs to be? Of course Refarming ham radio wholesale will be ill advised and I dont think you will see it in our lifetimes.. The users of ham radio are not the US government or public saftey or RCC's with bottomless buckets of money to just go out and replace equipment. We are losing people in the ham radio community not gaining them. Most hams buy a radio and use it for years and dont have to For those that want to experiment and promote investigation of the new dig modulation such as DStar and P25 that is good and we should encourage this on new spectrum that can be found that is unused, without destroying the existing repeater sub bands. Just my .02 for thought. Glenn N1GBY No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007 3:59 PM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier
we buy them by the box from Tessco. - Original Message - From: Gran Clark To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Milt I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the item. I could have missed it. Gran K6RIF At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote: Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though that this little gadget. Milt N3LTQ - Original Message - From: Gran Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Hi All On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets. This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm. My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The identifier START COS is low true so you may have to invert a high true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave, as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400 Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is negative true and will or with most PTT logic. Be very careful to use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking. Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others on the linked system. I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component side. Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see and he is great to work with if needed. All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode matrix ID boards! http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64 Gran K6RIF Gran K6RIF Yahoo! Groups Links
FW: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier
Hi, Gran http://www.com-spec.com/id8.htm http://www.com-spec.com/index1.htm I believe they sell direct. if not, you can buy it from Tessco - once they establish an account for you. Try also AES in Milwaukee - they may carry it, too, but I haven't verified this. Mark - N9WYS _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Gran Clark Milt I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the item. I could have missed it. Gran K6RIF At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote: Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though that this little gadget. Milt N3LTQ
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TS64 as repeater controller
ZI'd just like to thank everyone for the help figuring this problem out. I took the duplexer to a radio shop and had it tuned correctly. The outfit we bought it from said it was tuned. According to the radio shop it was off. What a difference a day makes. Repeater works great now. Thanks agian to all. Craig --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fxbuilder wrote: Put a different radio in as the receiver and tried 2 different configurations for the controller and the behavior was about the same. So it looks like I'm down to desense. The jumper cables from the radios to duplexer are of an unknown type. The cable to the antenna is RG-8. Or it could just be repeater location. Thanks for all the help. Craig Did you try the weak-signal transmitter on/off test? You're not down to anything if you didn't. :-) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier
At 09:13 AM 09/20/07, you wrote: Milt I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the item. I could have missed it. Gran K6RIF G to http://www.com-spec.com then click on the very first item in the web site menu (Communications Specialists). Then in the Products area (the left blue area) click on ID-8. Com-Spec will sell direct to the end user and can easily beat Hutton's, Tessco's and most others prices. Call 800-854-0547 or 714-998-3021 from 8:00am to 4:30pm (Pacific time zone), Monday to Friday And check out the article at http://www.repeater-builder.com/micor/micor-shelf-id8.html Mike At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote: Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though that this little gadget. Milt N3LTQ - Original Message - From: Gran Clark mailto:k6rif%40cox.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Hi All On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets. This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm. My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The identifier START COS is low true so you may have to invert a high true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave, as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400 Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is negative true and will or with most PTT logic. Be very careful to use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking. Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others on the linked system. I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component side. Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see and he is great to work with if needed. All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode matrix ID boards! http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64 Gran K6RIF Gran K6RIF Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o
You know - it would be SO much easier to transition if the REPEATERS could serve dual-use. That way, existing analog repeaters could be replaced with D-STAR and both modes could be used while the users transition to digital. This is a huge advantage of P25 - those repeaters CAN be dual mode. D-STAR is digital only. Joe M. wb6ymh wrote: Technical question: Does a DSTAR radio automatically switch between analog and digital? i.e. can the DSTAR user hear the analog activity when his radio is in DStar mode so he can share the frequency?
[Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF band opening
I was on top of Bald Eagle Mt. Williamsport getting our clubs 443.050 mastr Base on the air hearing signals grom ohio, to south at North carolina that use the same PL's as we do in this area. Ryan --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, what would you realign it to? I believe PAVE PAWS covers the entire band. There is no spectrum left to put them. Maybe they can move up to 450-451 as long as they don't cause interference to users there... (a dig on the D-STAR repeaters operating in non-repeater bands due to 'no repeater band spectrum left and non-interference where they are operating'). ;- Joe M. Glenn Shaw wrote: Its pretty much a moot point now in most of New Eng due to Pave Paws. Maybe it would be a good time forNESMC to realign things with all these 440 repeaters going QRT. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:12 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening I believe it was done to accomodate radios that would not TX well below 445 MHz. Those repeaters could use LIHO and TX well between 447 and 450 MHz. Yes, it's going to be 'fun' when the 12.5 kHz pairs come into use. Joe M. Bob Dengler wrote: Does anyone know why the New England bandplan has inverted 70 cm pairs every 25 kHz (unlike the rest of the country, which is either all + or all - 5 MHz)? 25 kHz isn't close enough for any adjacent channel issues to be a concern. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date: 9/18/2007 11:53 AM Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF band opening
ahhh... ok. THat might explain why you couldn't hear me then. I had Buffalo stations using my 146.910 machine and 444.600 in Wellsboro was hearing A new Jersey station. That was pretty impressive. The WB2JPQ system was hearing the target system on 146.835 and the 835 in Eden, NY was hearing all the people on it's input... What an opening... Corey On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Ryan wrote: I was on top of Bald Eagle Mt. Williamsport getting our clubs 443.050 mastr Base on the air hearing signals grom ohio, to south at North carolina that use the same PL's as we do in this area. Ryan --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, what would you realign it to? I believe PAVE PAWS covers the entire band. There is no spectrum left to put them. Maybe they can move up to 450-451 as long as they don't cause interference to users there... (a dig on the D-STAR repeaters operating in non-repeater bands due to 'no repeater band spectrum left and non-interference where they are operating'). ;- Joe M. Glenn Shaw wrote: Its pretty much a moot point now in most of New Eng due to Pave Paws. Maybe it would be a good time forNESMC to realign things with all these 440 repeaters going QRT. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:12 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening I believe it was done to accomodate radios that would not TX well below 445 MHz. Those repeaters could use LIHO and TX well between 447 and 450 MHz. Yes, it's going to be 'fun' when the 12.5 kHz pairs come into use. Joe M. Bob Dengler wrote: Does anyone know why the New England bandplan has inverted 70 cm pairs every 25 kHz (unlike the rest of the country, which is either all + or all - 5 MHz)? 25 kHz isn't close enough for any adjacent channel issues to be a concern. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date: 9/18/2007 11:53 AM Yahoo! Groups Links -- This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean. Click here to report this message as spam. http://simba.repeater.net/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=6EAED299AE.E175A -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by repeater.net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by repeater.net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o
No, D-Star does not automatically switch between analog and digital. You have to have one channel set up for analog and then if you want to do digital on the same frequency, you have to set up a digital channel. P25 can monitor both analog and digital in mixed mode operation but only transmit in one or the other (so you need to channels on a P25 radio as well for transmit purposes. Dan KA8YPY On Sep 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, wb6ymh wrote: Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the North side of town. We respectfully request you re-consider coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair / replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share this spectrum with Joe. (Sharing a frequency is not interference). Technical question: Does a DSTAR radio automatically switch between analog and digital? i.e. can the DSTAR user hear the analog activity when his radio is in DStar mode so he can share the frequency? Sharing between digital and analog was tried back in the packet days... to say the least it didn't work. 73's Skip WB6YMH Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
Gentle people, I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress. And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star) Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many people have told someone else on their cell phone that you sounded like you just went under water? (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your call discontinued - with no prior warning/indication? As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the message or it is obscured because of artificial means. My question is: why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding another layer of fallibility into the picture? Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley! 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right? Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
JUst like CW. I still use it and love it! I still use analog. When everyone goes digital, I will still use CW and analog! Corey N3FE On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, n9wys wrote: Gentle people, I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress. And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star) Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many people have told someone else on their cell phone that you sounded like you just went under water? (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your call discontinued - with no prior warning/indication? As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the message or it is obscured because of artificial means. My question is: why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding another layer of fallibility into the picture? Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley! 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right? Yahoo! Groups Links -- This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean. Click here to report this message as spam. http://simba.repeater.net/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=C3D1927EE1.B78AA -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by repeater.net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by repeater.net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
No flames here, Mark, Maybe we should have stuck with straight keys - those bugs might obscure transmissions - maybe a 10 wpm speed limit. But no, folks added microphones and heising coils. Next thing the cans went to the sideline and there were loudspeakers, then Central Electronics with the multiphase exciter, and here comes sideband and warbulators2M and 6M AM gave way to fm - point being this should be progress - just as digital has surpassed almost every analog strong hold. Your telephone network has used PCM digital mux since the days of N Carrier went away - remember LD calls with cross talk in the back ground - gone. Digitized voice is in its infancy in ham radio, but I do believe with continued development it will continue to gain acceptance. I am not so big on critical traffic on ham radio - that is what public safety networks are for. We as hams provide comms for events like marathons, parades, etc, and during disasters, augment failed and downed public systems. Critical traffic is not intended to be hams mainstay. - kind of off topic for repeater builders, though. As for serviceability I have been a bench and field tech since 1972, when selenium rectifiers stunk, and tuned lines were king. We could actually repair radios then. Today, unless you have hot air soldering / desoldering stations and a microscope, I defy the average tech to get into board level repair - has nothing to do with digital, or smarts, or education and everything to do with automated manufacture and unbelievable reliability. It was unusual to see a tube radio in a butane truck go 6 months without some kind of failure. Now it's unusual for a modern radio not to outlast several butane trucks - things have changed. Our technology has changed too - the diddle stick is replaced with digital pots and firmware upgrades - flash new data and go. The really sad thing is my profession is also fast disappearing - 2 Way Radio Shops are turning into dinosaurs - we still change mics and volume controls and do minor repairs - but most major fixes go to a depot because who buys several thousand $$$ in custom repair and testing fixtures to change a 128 pin IC that cost $20 and fails in 3 out of every 500 radios in the first 2 years ??? So, no flames my friend - I too don't like all the change taking place but like a wise friend once said a bend in the road is not the end of the road, unless you fail to turn. 73, Steve NU5D n9wys wrote: Gentle people, Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 73 de Mark - N9WYS
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier
Hutton no longer carries Comspec. I just ordered 3 ID8s yesterday. My account from 1985 was still good. Steve NU5D I wonder if I should have purchased one of the micro repeater controllers, though - get ID plus controllersb Mike Morris wrote: At 09:13 AM 09/20/07, you wrote: Milt I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the item. I could have missed it. Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbzlwaG8yBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDc3RuZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE5MDMxMDMzNQ-- (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:%20Digest | Switch to Fully Featured mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:%20Fully%20Featured Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder;_ylc=X3oDMTJjNTA0cWNiBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDaHBmBHN0aW1lAzExOTAzMTAzMzU- | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ | Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
And no burns received. ;-) Like I said in my first post - I usually am *very* open to newer technologies... in fact, I'm a big user/proponent of the digital modes (especially PSK31) on HF. You can usually find me on 20 or 30 PSK - when I can find the time. I just think this one (digitized voice) was either not thought-through properly prior to deployment, or was ram-rodded down some people's throats. Kinda like, Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!! In all reality Steve, I do certainly hope they overcome some of the issues I see daily on my public safety agency's network with what I refer to as digital artifacts - the squeek-squawk-fart lost voice thing I referred to. I see it MUCH more on the Motorola systems than I do on the EDACS systems - and I choke to say this, because I've been a *big* Motorola fan for many years. I haven't personally played around with any of the D-Star systems/radios... yet. Who knows, maybe 10 years from now we'll be calling D-Star old technology too. Yep - old habits die hard. Hehehehe 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) No flames here, Mark, Maybe we should have stuck with straight keys - those bugs might obscure transmissions - maybe a 10 wpm speed limit. But no, folks added microphones and heising coils. Next thing the cans went to the sideline and there were loudspeakers, then Central Electronics with the multiphase exciter, and here comes sideband and warbulators2M and 6M AM gave way to fm - point being this should be progress - just as digital has surpassed almost every analog strong hold. Your telephone network has used PCM digital mux since the days of N Carrier went away - remember LD calls with cross talk in the back ground - gone. Digitized voice is in its infancy in ham radio, but I do believe with continued development it will continue to gain acceptance. I am not so big on critical traffic on ham radio - that is what public safety networks are for. We as hams provide comms for events like marathons, parades, etc, and during disasters, augment failed and downed public systems. Critical traffic is not intended to be hams mainstay. - kind of off topic for repeater builders, though. As for serviceability I have been a bench and field tech since 1972, when selenium rectifiers stunk, and tuned lines were king. We could actually repair radios then. Today, unless you have hot air soldering / desoldering stations and a microscope, I defy the average tech to get into board level repair - has nothing to do with digital, or smarts, or education and everything to do with automated manufacture and unbelievable reliability. It was unusual to see a tube radio in a butane truck go 6 months without some kind of failure. Now it's unusual for a modern radio not to outlast several butane trucks - things have changed. Our technology has changed too - the diddle stick is replaced with digital pots and firmware upgrades - flash new data and go. The really sad thing is my profession is also fast disappearing - 2 Way Radio Shops are turning into dinosaurs - we still change mics and volume controls and do minor repairs - but most major fixes go to a depot because who buys several thousand $$$ in custom repair and testing fixtures to change a 128 pin IC that cost $20 and fails in 3 out of every 500 radios in the first 2 years ??? So, no flames my friend - I too don't like all the change taking place but like a wise friend once said a bend in the road is not the end of the road, unless you fail to turn. 73, Steve NU5D n9wys wrote: Gentle people, Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 73 de Mark - N9WYS Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
I have a slightly different take on the matter. If say 2% (ridiculously high figure at this time) of the people can communicate with D-STAR or P25 or some other narrowband mode, and 98% of the people cannot, in an emergency you have to cater to the least common demoninator. In this case, that is NBFM. It has been proven time and again that the current systems hams use can withstand devistation that has trashed virtually (if not literally) every other PS system out there except for other NBFM systems. Do we REALLY want to follow those whose decisions have failed? When the ham radio network is as fragile as those other systems, we will be as useless as the radios that don't work anymore because the infrastructure is gone. Don't throw away the ace up your sleeve. NBFM is 100% interoperable. NBFM is in widespread use - almost exclusively. Everyone has the capability of NBFM. D-STAR/P25 is not compatible with NBFM for communications. Why do we need a 2:1 increase of repeaters when so many repeaters are silent most of the day? If D-STAR is the future, why is it you cannot convince ANYONE to switch their repeater from NBFM to D-STAR? This has been proven in California - nobody wants to switch - NOBODY! That is why D-STAR repeaters are setting up shop in non-repeater band segments. Nobody is buying the argument that they are the future. Joe M. n9wys wrote: Gentle people, I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress. And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star) Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many people have told someone else on their cell phone that you sounded like you just went under water? (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your call discontinued - with no prior warning/indication? As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the message or it is obscured because of artificial means. My question is: why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding another layer of fallibility into the picture? Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley! 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
you have my vote 100% agreement KB2SSE Ken On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 14:56 -0500, n9wys wrote: Gentle people, I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress. And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star) Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better said, digitized) voice thing has me very concerned. As a public safety worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many people have told someone else on their cell phone that you sounded like you just went under water? (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your call discontinued - with no prior warning/indication? As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic... we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the message or it is obscured because of artificial means. My question is: why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding another layer of fallibility into the picture? Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley! 73 de Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator built into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging. This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught in conventional mode. On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well. I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester. Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship. Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up... 73, Steve NU5D Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: And one more point - and it's a major one You can get P25 test equipment. Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even the manufacturer has one. So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right? Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
- Forwarded Message From: Jay Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:15:49 PM Subject: NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters The membership of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council has voted to ask the FCC to treat all repeaters as repeaters, regardless of mode or transmission protocol. The following motion was adopted: That the NFCC send a letter to the FCC that states that the NFCC believes that any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and should be treated as such. Under the NFCC's proportional voting system, 93 votes were cast in favor of the motion by 19 members, and 54 against by 11 members. The letter will be sent to the FCC's Bill Cross today. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390 Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mailp=summer+activities+for+kidscs=bz
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Rosing wrote: What other things out there repeat but arent repeaters? Digipeaters. Since no one ever made a full-duplex digipeater... -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] * WAR IS PEACE * FREEDOM IS SLAVERY * * IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH * KETCHUP IS * * A VEGETABLE *
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
Ok, For someone who isnt that much into the rules and regsthat would seem like a duh statement. Why is this such a big deal? To me, a repeater repeats the signal, hince a repeater. Looking at it, I am seeing that you refer to delays and transmission protocolWhat other things out there repeat but arent repeaters? Chris - Original Message From: Mark Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; List for people interested in the D Star repeaters [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 2:35:05 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters - Forwarded Message From: Jay Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] com To: coordinator@ yahoogroups. com; Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:15:49 PM Subject: NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters The membership of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council has voted to ask the FCC to treat all repeaters as repeaters, regardless of mode or transmission protocol. The following motion was adopted: That the NFCC send a letter to the FCC that states that the NFCC believes that any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and should be treated as such. Under the NFCC's proportional voting system, 93 votes were cast in favor of the motion by 19 members, and 54 against by 11 members. The letter will be sent to the FCC's Bill Cross today. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro .com http://jmaynard. livejournal. com http://www.tronguy. net http://www.hercules -390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepres s.com/hercules- 390 Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
* n9wys [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007 Sep 20 15:02 -0500]: Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I didn't become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an appliance operator... I need to be able to understand how it works, and if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the earlier statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to box and ship it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. Actually, not so much a step backward as outward, as we hams have so far avoided being held hostage by the manufacturers in that way. Sure, most any modern radio is likely to be factory repaired, but many independent shops also perform the work. If a future digital implementation were to use a codec under a license prevents divulging of its operational parameters, then ham radio is had. I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice, since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to Expan(d) the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. [Part 97.1(d)] I most assuredly agree with your conclusion. 73, de Nate -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation! http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy
Here is my combination rant/contribution to thread drift... I recently monitored an exchange on my company's technical email list relating to a guy who had set up an ISDN codec system for a broadcast remote. The question was, how do I get rid of the delay? I wanted to start acting like the dog on Family Guy when one of the humans does something really stupid to him, what the hell Peter, what the hell! But I contained myself. Yes, I have read Shannon, Hartley, Viterbi and a bunch of other people's stuff that were/are way smarter than me. Bottom line here is this, my stuff, the channels I am allowed to occupy and most if not all of my equipment is gona' be ANALOG for a damn long time. Don't even try to sell me that crap and don't get it within 20 kHz of the frequencies I am using. After you pull my lifeless, charred body off of my equipment, you can do whatever the hell you want, I wont care anymore. Digital cellphones, digital broadcasting both radio and TV and digital whatever else for the sake of going digital is not about getting the message through cleaner and farther. It should be but its not. I get a reminder of that whenever I talk on my digital cellphone. What crap! There are large companies here in So Cal that consider things like Nextel walkie talkie an integral part of their emergency restoration plan. There is nothing funnier than to be in a conference room with a bunch of execs trying to talk to each other on their PTT cellphones and thinking that its great. Then there was the non-english speaking plumber crew we had to my house not long ago. They had Nextels, one guy was under my house, almost underground, right up against my foundation, trying to talk to the guy working on my kitchen sink, with the radios not much more than 6 feet from each other. The radios were spewing stuff I couldn't understand even if they were speaking english. Obviously, they couldn't understand each other either because they had to resort to screaming through the floor and stomping their feet to communicate. Lets stick with analog and fall back to simplex when we need to. Because the message has to get through the first time! There may not be a second chance. Sorry for the BW. td wb6mie
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
* Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007 Sep 20 09:46 -0500]: Look at http://www.dstarusers.org and see who is talking now. Interesting page. Thanks. Maybe this digital stuff is just a fad, and when it dies out, channels used for digital should be returned to re-coordination, but to kill an innovation at the onset by not allowing a place to operate when there is unused / underused space available just isn't right. It's not a fad as I believe it is here to stay. Most likely it won't remain in its present form for very long as new CODECs and other techniques will supplant the current. I just don't see amateur radio becoming an all digital service in the foreseeable future. The present analog modes still have plenty of usefulness and amateur radio will remain a playground where the past, present, and future come together. As far as constant chatter - I would not want that either, but there are some repeaters that are just plain dead. It also seems the assumption here is that Joe would not be agreeable to the new folks proposal, maybe he would be. If they buy him a complimentary radio and respect his prior efforts, Old Joe may well not just approve, but offer more help than they ask for. It's all in the approach. Too many times we prepare for an adversarial position when none exists. Flies to honey and all that. 73, de Nate -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation! http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
At 9/20/2007 03:44 PM, you wrote: Ok, For someone who isnt that much into the rules and regsthat would seem like a duh statement. Why is this such a big deal? To me, a repeater repeats the signal, hince a repeater. Looking at it, I am seeing that you refer to delays and transmission protocolWhat other things out there repeat but arent repeaters? Kenwood SkyCommand. 100s of remote bases in SoCal. I won't speak for other areas, since I'm not familiar with what operators in those areas consider their systems to be. Here, they're auxiliary stations. Don't believe me? Consider that back in the early 70's when repeaters auxiliary stations required separate licenses from the FCC, remote base owners had to submit detailed information to the FCC (block diagrams, etc.) in order to obtain those licenses. Many licenses issued for what most people on this list consider repeaters were actually auxiliary station licenses, which IIRC used callsigns from the standard group D block (2x3) at the time (i.e. WA6BCD); repeaters had the special WR prefix. So if these systems that clearly repeat were repeaters, why did the owners apply for auxiliary station licenses, why did the FCC issue all those auxiliary station licenses to these repeaters after receiving the detailed paperwork clearly indicating the mode of operation? Because these stations, by nature of their operation, were in fact auxiliary stations. Obviously they do repeat, but if they operate within a network of cooperating amateur stations, they can be classified as auxiliary stations. The definition as written is rather loose, but that is a debate for some other reflector. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote: If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all means leave it alone. Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well with a bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a couple of minutes a day. The folks wanting the digital repeater could help fix Joe's antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to mess with it. If they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM repeater not much different than the others in town. If they partner with Joe and upgrade to digital, depending on whether they occupy the middle of the channel, or offset up or down 6.25 Khz, they can restore Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make room for one more repeater in the area. While I have no interest in putting a D-Star system on-air, I agree with Steve's sentiment that people wanting to put things on-air in crowded bands can almost ALWAYS find a limping/dead system that needs some help. And unless the owner is a total jerk (happens... what-do-ya-do?), if a group of people approached Old Joe with a reasonable upgrade plan to digital, and perhaps even offered to BUY OLD JOE A RIG for that new mode... he'd be a proponent and HAPPY to participate, in an awful lot of cases. Old Joe is probably PROUD of his old, tired, beat-down repeater... that's the part that a lot of people forget. Back when Old Joe built it, he had more money, more time, and the technology was probably harder to deal with, and he didn't even have access to test gear! He's not going to toss his hard work out without feeling INVOLVED and APPRECIATED by the newbies, but if they play their cards right -- he'll be their best ALLY, and will start spreading the word about the new repeater on the block... ESPECIALLY if those building it don't mind leaving Old Joe's CALLSIGN on it. There's some basic How to make friends and influence people type stuff going on here, that new builders seem to think aren't important... Want to REALLY impress Old Joe, fire up a mixed-mode Quantar with P25 on his pair, buying whatever new antennas/hardline/duplexer... whatever it takes to get it to perform well. You can't as easily do this with D-Star... You probably have to buy Old Joe a radio or two. But with P-25 mixed-mode repeaters, you can have a transition process for Old Joe and his friends with a mixed-mode repeater for a while... announce a date in which you're going to shut down the analog side of things... talk up the digital side... etc. You don't get the benefit of the smaller utilization of bandwidth at first, but Old Joe's repeater wasn't going anywhere anyway, and now you've got a dual-usage scenario that works. (This idea leaves out a lot... like the fact that D-Star's ability to automatically link person-to-person via Internet gateways and callsigns blows anything currently available at a reasonable price for P25 out of the water for hams... for the time being, anyway... but it's just meant to be an example of thinking outside of the box.) Nevertheless, whatever you do -- work with Old Joe and not against him... again, he's got a personal, EMOTIONAL, connection with that repeater... that you have to take into account when trying to find a place to put something new. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
Kris Kirby wrote: On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Rosing wrote: What other things out there repeat but arent repeaters? Digipeaters. Since no one ever made a full-duplex digipeater... Huh? Sure they did. Our club did it in the late 80's and early 90's when regular AX.25 packet radio was a lot more popular. It was called a repeater with bit-regeneration, and they were deployed (around here anyway) inside the repeater sub-bands. The system transmitted at the same time as it was receiving. Our club had both 1200 baud VHF and 9600 baud UHF varieties on the air in our not-so-distant past. They were built to address the hidden node problems inherent in simplex packet radio, to have a coverage area where either the user was in or out of the repeater... There was minimal (but measurable) delay from input to output, just like the current D-Star, P-25, whatever... digitized voice repeaters. By having channel traffic go through a bit-regeneration repeater system, with separate input/output frequencies and good coverage, it kept stations unable to hear other stations with widly varying capabilities in RF power levels, antenna, and receiver performance, from colliding on the channel and struggling to communicate effectively on busy channels. Mathematics shows that in cases where some stations can hear others, whereas a third station (or fourth, fifth, sixth) can only hear one of the original two stations, there's a cap on effective channel throughput as eventually the channel (in the worst-case scenario) becomes saturated with re-tries to re-send crashed packets of data... no matter how hard you try to randomize the re-try back-off timers. In the full-duplex repeater scenario, once a particular station captured the repeater, they had the channel -- period -- until they stopped sending or the repeater's digital hardware forced a timeout. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...
To add to Nate's comments, prospective D-Star system builders might coordinate with one of their local MARS services. MARS is currently proposing to partner with the ARRL in providing emergency communications support and an opportunity to have assistance in setting up a D-Star system should be well received. 73 de Jack - N7OO - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic... Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote: If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all means leave it alone. Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well with a bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a couple of minutes a day. The folks wanting the digital repeater could help fix Joe's antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to mess with it. If they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM repeater not much different than the others in town. If they partner with Joe and upgrade to digital, depending on whether they occupy the middle of the channel, or offset up or down 6.25 Khz, they can restore Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make room for one more repeater in the area. While I have no interest in putting a D-Star system on-air, I agree with Steve's sentiment that people wanting to put things on-air in crowded bands can almost ALWAYS find a limping/dead system that needs some help. And unless the owner is a total jerk (happens... what-do-ya-do?), if a group of people approached Old Joe with a reasonable upgrade plan to digital, and perhaps even offered to BUY OLD JOE A RIG for that new mode... he'd be a proponent and HAPPY to participate, in an awful lot of cases. Old Joe is probably PROUD of his old, tired, beat-down repeater... that's the part that a lot of people forget. Back when Old Joe built it, he had more money, more time, and the technology was probably harder to deal with, and he didn't even have access to test gear! He's not going to toss his hard work out without feeling INVOLVED and APPRECIATED by the newbies, but if they play their cards right -- he'll be their best ALLY, and will start spreading the word about the new repeater on the block... ESPECIALLY if those building it don't mind leaving Old Joe's CALLSIGN on it. There's some basic How to make friends and influence people type stuff going on here, that new builders seem to think aren't important... Want to REALLY impress Old Joe, fire up a mixed-mode Quantar with P25 on his pair, buying whatever new antennas/hardline/duplexer... whatever it takes to get it to perform well. You can't as easily do this with D-Star... You probably have to buy Old Joe a radio or two. But with P-25 mixed-mode repeaters, you can have a transition process for Old Joe and his friends with a mixed-mode repeater for a while... announce a date in which you're going to shut down the analog side of things... talk up the digital side... etc. You don't get the benefit of the smaller utilization of bandwidth at first, but Old Joe's repeater wasn't going anywhere anyway, and now you've got a dual-usage scenario that works. (This idea leaves out a lot... like the fact that D-Star's ability to automatically link person-to-person via Internet gateways and callsigns blows anything currently available at a reasonable price for P25 out of the water for hams... for the time being, anyway... but it's just meant to be an example of thinking outside of the box.) Nevertheless, whatever you do -- work with Old Joe and not against him... again, he's got a personal, EMOTIONAL, connection with that repeater... that you have to take into account when trying to find a place to put something new. Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF band opening
repeater owners in the New York City metro found that they had fewer issues with desense and overload if they flipped to a negative offset (i.e. get the ham repeater Rx further away from the 450-455 commercial repeater Tx's). ... which is not really a valid reason. Probably a combination of the available receivers of the day and lack of resources (cavities and duplexers)... not to mention a bit of being lazy (taking the easy way out) s. Or they were converting UHF Micor mobiles into repeaters and didn't realize high-side injection was an option (inside joke for you Micor mobile fans out there).
[Repeater-Builder] WTD: 19D432500G1 Channel guard board for mastr II
Hi All, The subject line says it all. Im looking for a 19D432500G1 channel guard board for a Mastr II. This is the dip switch encode / decode board. My old versatone one died:/ I would also take a 19D432500G3 board which is decode only (but still dip switch programmable!) Please contact me off list @ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove underscores) Thanks --Don Wisdom KD7WKF
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed
Jeff wrote: Hi all, Well, it finally happened. We got hit by lightning. And it blew the antenna in half on the 444.325 machine here at the college. It wasn't a great antenna to begin with, obviously. We'd like to go back with something much better if possible. We're thinking maybe a multibay folded dipole antenna of some sort with an omni pattern like the DB 404, but if there's a better choice we'd love to hear it. There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for Amateur Repeaters. Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas (450-470 MHz). I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible. What is the consensus Best UHF Repeater Antenna, considering all the above (omnidirectional, probably no more than 100 watts)? Get a DB-420... They are plenty broadband...Don't think.. Just do it! -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier
http://www.com-spec.com/index1.htm Left side of the page 9th item down http://www.com-spec.com/id8.htm Milt - Original Message - From: Gran Clark To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Milt I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the item. I could have missed it. Gran K6RIF At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote: Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though that this little gadget. Milt N3LTQ - Original Message - From: Gran Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Hi All On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets. This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm. My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The identifier START COS is low true so you may have to invert a high true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave, as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400 Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is negative true and will or with most PTT logic. Be very careful to use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking. Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others on the linked system. I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component side. Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see and he is great to work with if needed. All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode matrix ID boards! http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64 Gran K6RIF Gran K6RIF Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed
Check out Comtelco antennas, you will find them online. We use several of them, very good quality, reasonable cost. lance/N2HBA - Original Message - From: Jay Urish To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:32 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed Jeff wrote: Hi all, Well, it finally happened. We got hit by lightning. And it blew the antenna in half on the 444.325 machine here at the college. It wasn't a great antenna to begin with, obviously. We'd like to go back with something much better if possible. We're thinking maybe a multibay folded dipole antenna of some sort with an omni pattern like the DB 404, but if there's a better choice we'd love to hear it. There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for Amateur Repeaters. Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas (450-470 MHz). I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible. What is the consensus Best UHF Repeater Antenna, considering all the above (omnidirectional, probably no more than 100 watts)? Get a DB-420... They are plenty broadband...Don't think.. Just do it! -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life Member Denton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed
DB-420 is the way to go, DB-408 second chioce. 450-470 version will go in the ham band no problem. Thats my vote. Tom W9SRV - Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed
I should add unless your obsessed you dont need to re-tune. My 2 uhf machines are using second-hand 450-470 DB-420's, each site is 1.2:1 or less on the ham band (441.300 on the lowest output). TGundo 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:DB-420 is the way to go, DB-408 second chioce. 450-470 version will go in the ham band no problem. Thats my vote. Tom W9SRV - Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search. - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
That pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin of TASMA's proposal
[Repeater-Builder] looking for Motorola part number
Looking for the part number for the cable entrance kit for the newer Motorola cabinets (Quantar etc.). The access holes are in the top of the cabinet and are about 3.5-4 diameter. The kit consists of 2 plates that slide across each other with one on the outside of the cabinet and one on the inside as I recall. Thanks in advance. Milt N3LTQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
At 03:51 PM 09/20/07, you wrote: On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Rosing wrote: What other things out there repeat but arent repeaters? Digipeaters. Since no one ever made a full-duplex digipeater... -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] * WAR IS PEACE * FREEDOM IS SLAVERY * * IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH * KETCHUP IS * * A VEGETABLE * Sorry, you are wrong on that. Talk to WB6YMH - Skip Hansen. Had a 2m digipeater here in LA for over 10 years (maybe 20, I've not been on packet for along time). Mike
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed
The DB 404 and 408 are great antennas, however I just purchased an Antenex YDA-4404 which is a regular 4 bay dipole. It is not as heavy duty as the DB antennas but is still better than most fiberglass antennas. It is tuneable and it tends to be about half of the price of the DB as well. I think I paid around $180 for it on the web. http://www.antenex.com/index051206.htm thanks James N0QZV --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Well, it finally happened. We got hit by lightning. And it blew the antenna in half on the 444.325 machine here at the college. It wasn't a great antenna to begin with, obviously. We'd like to go back with something much better if possible. We're thinking maybe a multibay folded dipole antenna of some sort with an omni pattern like the DB 404, but if there's a better choice we'd love to hear it. There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for Amateur Repeaters. Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas (450-470 MHz). I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible. What is the consensus Best UHF Repeater Antenna, considering all the above (omnidirectional, probably no more than 100 watts)? Thanks in advance, Jeff/KD4RBG
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier
I believe you can still buy an ID-8 from AES. They are a little pricy but work great.. I have two of them somewhere here in the shack if you know what I mean Dave WB2FTX - Original Message - From: Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Hutton no longer carries Comspec. I just ordered 3 ID8s yesterday. My account from 1985 was still good. Steve NU5D I wonder if I should have purchased one of the micro repeater controllers, though - get ID plus controllersb Mike Morris wrote: At 09:13 AM 09/20/07, you wrote: Milt I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the item. I could have missed it. Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbzlwaG8yBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDc3RuZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE5MDMxMDMzNQ-- (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:%20Digest | Switch to Fully Featured mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:%20Fully%20Featured Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder;_ylc=X3oDMTJjNTA0cWNiBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDaHBmBHN0aW1lAzExOTAzMTAzMzU- | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ | Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 12:07 PM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair duplexer notches
lpcoates wrote: Hi I'm helping a friend who wants to convert a Sinclair Res-Lok 4 cavity combiner into a duplexer. Basically turning it into a Q2220E I think). As far as I can tell, it should be possible by simply adding a vatialbe cap to the coupling loops. I still haven't found the answers to to two questions. 2. What determines the location of the notch? two cavities will have the notch above the pass band and the other two will have the notch below the pass band. I suspect there's something different about the coupling loops but I don't know what. There is no difference between the loops for hi side or lo side notches. A loop with series capacitor will have 2 notches, one above and one below the pass frequency. On VHF they are separated by about 10 MHz. The capacitor shifts the pair of notches relative to the pass frequency. More capacity, lower notch freqs. A low pass notch needs typically 10-12 pf and a high side 20-25 pf. You will need to use very hi Q capacitors. On VHF the value of the capacitor should be 30 pf. Sinclair use Johanson 5600 (or 5602) 1-30pf trimmers. They are costly, typically 12-15$ each and not readily available surplus. An alternative is to use 1-10 pf trimmers (Johanson 5200 series) in parallel. They are readily available surplus for $1 or less each. You would need two for a low pass notch and 3 for a high pass notch. Warning: Never use any trimmer that has a sliding or rotating contact in the RF circuit. From experience they are almost guaranteed to cause noise problems. The Johanson trimmers use a bellows to make solid contact to the movable element. Good luck in your project Burt VE2BMQ Thanks Bruce VE5BNC
Re: [Repeater-Builder] E.F. Johnson/Dataradio DL-3410 info needed.
You might try Dataradio Inc. They took over the EF Johnson data radio line as I recall. www.dataradio.com/ Burt VE2BMQ kb4mdz wrote: Anyone have any info on alignment, etc. on a E.F. Johnson DL-3410 radio, Receiver or Transmitter? Got one of RX, two of TX, and am trying to decide on suitability for little g-job idea. Thanks, Chuk G. kb4mdz Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] E.F. Johnson/Dataradio DL-3410 info needed.
I believe they claim no alignment required for the entire band of coverage. Now.if you figure out how to hack the software and get them into the ham bands, let me know. I've not had much luck with their tech guys even though I use these for telemetry on a regular basis, they claim they just won't go down to the ham bands. I suspect they will, just haven't tried getting them down there. You can always call Joe at tech support, he's pretty good as far as helping with issues. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kb4mdz Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:49 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] E.F. Johnson/Dataradio DL-3410 info needed. Anyone have any info on alignment, etc. on a E.F. Johnson DL-3410 radio, Receiver or Transmitter? Got one of RX, two of TX, and am trying to decide on suitability for little g-job idea. Thanks, Chuk G. kb4mdz
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q-2B05D duplexer
According to an old Sinclair datasheet, the 2B indicates a frequency range of 132-150 MHz, the trailing D indicates 3 in cans and the O5 is an engineering number. Looking at Q-203D specs shows 3 MHz min spacing, 0.6dB insertion loss and 65 dB isolation. Hope that helps. Burt Lang VE2BMQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying to find specs of the above. It appears to be abt. 20 yrs. old., 5 mhz spacing ?? Any further info is appreciated. Jerry VE3 EXT Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier
If you look at the price list is says discontinued. Had I seen the Tessco unit I might have gone that way. The $20 dollar ID board will meet FCC requirements and the ID will not be heard at the other end of the link so everyone is happy. Gran Tessco At 08:37 PM 9/20/2007, you wrote: http://www.com-spec.com/index1.htmhttp://www.com-spec.com/index1.htm Left side of the page 9th item down http://www.com-spec.com/id8.htmhttp://www.com-spec.com/id8.htm Milt - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gran Clark To: mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Milt I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the item. I could have missed it. Gran K6RIF At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote: Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though that this little gadget. Milt N3LTQ - Original Message - From: Gran Clark mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier Hi All On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets. This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm. My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The identifier START COS is low true so you may have to invert a high true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave, as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400 Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is negative true and will or with most PTT logic. Be very careful to use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking. Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others on the linked system. I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component side. Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see and he is great to work with if needed. All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode matrix ID boards! http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64 Gran K6RIF Gran K6RIF Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
Which proposal is that? Joe M. George Henry wrote: That pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin of TASMA's proposal
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Jeff wrote: There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for Amateur Repeaters. Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas (450-470 MHz). I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible. You know, there's probably a ton of 400-420MHz folded dipoles out there on federal sites that will have to be replaced sooner or later... -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] * WAR IS PEACE * FREEDOM IS SLAVERY * * IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH * KETCHUP IS * * A VEGETABLE *
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 220 link radios
__,_. Speaking of the Alnico DR-235 , I had A Ham Friend Who was told by a Ham Radio Dealer with four State stores the Radio has been discontinued , They had one left , and the Reason was the New Model would come out made with Lead free Solder I have No idea if this is true or not, but maybe with the Lead Toy problem that was in the News Who knows . Happy Repeater Building Don KA9QJG _,___
