[Repeater-Builder] Piling On... Was: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Doug Zastrow]

I bought a brand new 1978 Chevette that was a total lemon.  I had to park it on 
a slope and let roll down hill to start it. And if I drove through a puddle of 
water the starter would seize requiring a quick bolt loosening/tightening 
maneuver.  And the tranny went out at 2300 miles. Red rust on the hood and 
clutch failure at 13 months old. Horrible alternator whine (slightly on topic 
now).  And..  It became known as the Sh*tvette.

I had a Ham friend (ever so slightly more on topic now) who had one and said it 
was the most reliable vehicle he had ever owned.

My ex-wife had a Pinto and it DID smoke and catch on fire too!

  - Original Message - 
  From: Michael Ryan 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 12:26 AM
  Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions


  Heck, While we're piling on, I had a Pinto once.damned thing smoked all the 
time, finally caught fire.  COOOL..  -M

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Dave]

We are putting up three new repeaters. I just got Hipro's new catalog 
and I see Arcom is listed in what looks like a favored status. Since we 
have limited funds, I would like to know if there are problems with it 
or is it just a fluke? If so we can look at other controllers. I would 
appreciate feedback before we spend money. Anyone please?  Thank you!

73
Dave

lenaw12 wrote:
Other than being off-topic for the topic (but not this list), I 
disagree.  Personally, I'd like to know exactly what Eric doesn't


like about the RC-210.  I've owned one myself & didn't care for it
either, but obviously many others have opposite opinions.
  
Bob NO6B


Bob and all the "others who have opposite opinions"

The obvious track would be to start a new string that was "on
topic"... Nowhere has anyone asked for opinions as to the quality of
the Motorola mic, the microphone cable, the connector, or the ARCOM
controller.

If you and all the "others who have opposite opinions" (opposite to
what I don't know) want to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of
one of the particular components in the original setup, start a new
topic...

That way, those of us who have heard this before can ignore the same
old discussion that occurred previously.

Otherwise, the rest of us would like to work at resolving the original
"problem" which is purely technical in nature at this time and not
emotional.

LW







Yahoo! Groups Links



  

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Michael Ryan]

Heck, While we're piling on, I had a Pinto once.damned thing smoked all the
time, finally caught fire.  COOOL..  -M

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lenaw12
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 1:11 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

 

> Other than being off-topic for the topic (but not this list), I 
> disagree. Personally, I'd like to know exactly what Eric doesn't
like about the RC-210. I've owned one myself & didn't care for it
either, but obviously many others have opposite opinions.
> 
Bob NO6B

Bob and all the "others who have opposite opinions"

The obvious track would be to start a new string that was "on
topic"... Nowhere has anyone asked for opinions as to the quality of
the Motorola mic, the microphone cable, the connector, or the ARCOM
controller.

If you and all the "others who have opposite opinions" (opposite to
what I don't know) want to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of
one of the particular components in the original setup, start a new
topic...

That way, those of us who have heard this before can ignore the same
old discussion that occurred previously.

Otherwise, the rest of us would like to work at resolving the original
"problem" which is purely technical in nature at this time and not
emotional.

LW

 

__ NOD32 3421 (20080906) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[lenaw12]

> Other than being off-topic for the topic (but not this list), I 
> disagree.  Personally, I'd like to know exactly what Eric doesn't
like about the RC-210.  I've owned one myself & didn't care for it
either, but obviously many others have opposite opinions.
> 
Bob NO6B

Bob and all the "others who have opposite opinions"

The obvious track would be to start a new string that was "on
topic"... Nowhere has anyone asked for opinions as to the quality of
the Motorola mic, the microphone cable, the connector, or the ARCOM
controller.

If you and all the "others who have opposite opinions" (opposite to
what I don't know) want to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of
one of the particular components in the original setup, start a new
topic...

That way, those of us who have heard this before can ignore the same
old discussion that occurred previously.

Otherwise, the rest of us would like to work at resolving the original
"problem" which is purely technical in nature at this time and not
emotional.

LW

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Joe Burkleo]

Bob,
I thought Eric's attack on Ken and the RC-210 controller was very
uncalled for also. The poor fellow asking for help, or the rest of us,
for that matter did not need to get drug into this several year old
disagreement between Eric and Ken.

All that was asked for was some help getting his Motorola DTMF Mic
working properly with his new controller.

There have been several threads here on this list asking everyone's
opinion on what controller they prefer and why. Lot's of reading if
you search through the archives. There was no need for this thread to
head in this direction.

Joe - WA7JAW


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> At 9/5/2008 12:29, you wrote:
> >Eric..
> >
> >Your response is out of line and indicates your either inability to
> >understand the original post or the technical needs of the situation.
> 
> How is one stating his personal experience with/opinions on a specific 
> model of repeater-related equipment "out of line"?
> 
> >I have absolutely nothing to do with ARCOM or Ken Ark or have any
> >opinion...but taking someone else's legitimate question and using it
> >as a platform for a biased diatribe, is clearly out of place for
> >common consumption.
> 
> Other than being off-topic for the topic (but not this list), I 
> disagree.  Personally, I'd like to know exactly what Eric doesn't like 
> about the RC-210.  I've owned one myself & didn't care for it
either, but 
> obviously many others have opposite opinions.
> 
> Bob NO6B
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[no6b]

At 9/5/2008 12:29, you wrote:
>Eric..
>
>Your response is out of line and indicates your either inability to
>understand the original post or the technical needs of the situation.

How is one stating his personal experience with/opinions on a specific 
model of repeater-related equipment "out of line"?

>I have absolutely nothing to do with ARCOM or Ken Ark or have any
>opinion...but taking someone else's legitimate question and using it
>as a platform for a biased diatribe, is clearly out of place for
>common consumption.

Other than being off-topic for the topic (but not this list), I 
disagree.  Personally, I'd like to know exactly what Eric doesn't like 
about the RC-210.  I've owned one myself & didn't care for it either, but 
obviously many others have opposite opinions.

Bob NO6B

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Cable Q-- Please Define

[Gary Schafer]

I think cables and cavities are being mixed up a littler here. When using
hard line cable to build the "cavities" for a 6 meter duplexer then that
hard line is not operating as a typical coax line. It is operating as a
quarter wave resonant cavity. It has a high impedance on one end and a short
on the other end. Very different from the way a typical coax cable is
operated. Yes Q does matter in a cavity.

The only reason to increase insertion loss in a cavity is when more
selectivity or a deeper or narrower notch is needed.

Most often cables within combiners / duplexers work in harmony with the
associated cavity. Replacing one of those cables with a poorer quality cable
will only reduce (if any difference is noted) the amount of rejection that
was obtained from that cable and cavity combination. Those cables are
usually operated as quarter wave shorts in these circuits at some specific
frequency. At other frequencies they operate as regular non resonant coax
cable in the circuit.

Duplexers, combiners, coax cables are all passive devices. By their nature
they do not produce intermod or any other signals, unless of course if they
are defective. 

Some transmitters (and some receivers) do not like reactive loads off
frequency. Even though a duplexer or transmitter combiner may present a flat
or nearly flat load at the wanted frequency, that same duplexer may present
enough of a reactance off frequency to cause unwanted oscillations in the
transmitter. In a case like that changing ANYTHING in the circuit can have
an effect on the transmitter's ability to remain stable. That is why
sometimes changing cable lengths between the transmitter and duplexer can
cure some problems. (normally this cable length is non critical) (changing
this cable length can also have an effect on power output of the transmitter
at the wanted frequency because of the load that it sees on the wanted
frequency)

Yes that interconnect cable can have Q associated with it if it is
transforming an impedance from one value to another at some unwanted
frequency. But when the cable is operating as a regular coax cable
transferring power at its nominal impedance Q is not a factor to be
considered.

In the case of parasitic suppressors in an amplifier circuit Q is reduced by
the suppressor at some specific unwanted frequency. The circuit Q of the
wanted frequency is not changed. This reduces oscillation tendency at the
unwanted frequency by reducing the gain of the amplifier circuit at that
frequency.

73
Gary K4FMX

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of skipp025
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 1:47 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Cable Q-- Please Define
> 
> Higher Q parts/paths MAY sometimes support unwanted/parasitic
> action/energies otherwise not normally sustainable when
> losses in lower Q circuits overcome those paths/sources.
> 
> 
> An example...
> 
> The six meter duplexer made from 1-1/4 and 1-5/8 inch hard
> line can also be made of common coax. The Q of the common coax
> is relatively low enough so the flexible coax version won't work
> very well, the higher Q 1-5/8 inch line being the better choice.
> 
> Both the 1-1/4 and 1-5/8 inch home-brew rigid line duplexers
> are considered usable... graphs of both rigid line version are
> on the various web pages and clearly show the performance numbers.
> 
> If you experience a grunge/imd problem with/through using the
> better 1-5/8 inch hard line duplexer... the same mix/grunge/intermod
> problem might not be sustained(able) through the 1-1/4 duplexer
> because of it's higher internal loss (lower Q). Keep in mind the
> 1-1/4 inch diameter hard line 6 meter duplexer is still quite usable.
> 
> In common land mobile antenna combiners... we can and do increase
> the cavity, coax and network insertion loss to reduce problems
> in some specialized cases.
> 
> A lot of this is just about trying to describe how sometimes
> a reduction in an antenna/duplexer hardware and feed-line
> Cable Q (quality) can attenuate unwanted energies.
> 
> In my opinion the South American Telewave VHF Transmit Combiner
> story we saw here on the group a while back was very much about
> having high-Q cavities and very, very small amounts of unwanted
> energies fairly possibly solved with a number of modest changes
> including increasing the loss numbers on some of the combiner
> channels.
> 
> The combiner was engineered by Telewave and the potential mix
> numbers looked pretty darn good. But the as-built hardware had
> mix problems no-one seemed to be able to source using the off
> the shelf tricks. Reducing the Q of a circuit was probably not
> an "off the shelf method" used or even thought about by most
> people.
> 
> When working on/with high powered tube rf amplifiers we often
> use parasitic suppressors to reduce Q and make the amplifier
> ultra stable. Reducing the circuit Q a sli

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wits End -- Desense (actual Cable-Q contributions)

[no6b]

At 9/5/2008 08:46, you wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I disagree.  If your TX can't handle the near pure reactance
> > of the duplexer at the reject frequency, the proper remedy
> > is an isolator.  Now there's some low Q.  If the RX can't
> > handle it, replace the preamp with one that is unconditionally
> > stable.
>
>You appear to assume all problems are directly related to or
>generated by/in the Tx or Rx radio equipment hardware.

Not necessarily.  However, even if they are externally generated, lowering 
your TX power or reducing RX sensitivity is a compromise solution that 
fails to address the true source of the problem.

I guess my biggest problem with this thread is the terminology being 
used.  Most people here don't know what "low Q" coax is, & might assume 
it's generally a good thing.  As I mentioned earlier, what you call "low Q 
coax" is just higher loss coax.  Nothing more.  There are places where its 
use is preferred, but why not call it what it is: higher loss coax.

> > The one place a pad (or lossy coax) can go without affecting
> > system performance is between the preamp & RX,
>
>My turn... "I disagree" but you want to label standard
>coax as excessively lossy when in fact my point is to use
>a lower Q cable where the loss is an acceptable and reasonable
>amount.

We may disagree somewhat in the amount of loss that we consider 
acceptable.  My context is UHF, where the antenna noise temperature is low 
& foliage loss is high.  At 2 & especially 6 meters where the noise is much 
higher, some loss in front of a low noise RX is quite acceptable.

> > but even then the solution affording the greatest dynamic
> > range is the one where the preamp has only enough gain so
> > as to make the noise contribution from the RX insignificant.
> > The GaAsFET preamps I use have 16 dB of gain, just enough
> > to satisfy the above criteria on stock GE UHF RXs without
> > sacrificing dynamic range.
>
>Kind of off topic but whatever floats the boat further
>down the river...

Your above flippant comment suggests that my above statement is 
opinion.  It is not; it is fact.

> > > I'd trade away a pesky grunge - gremlin or glitch problem
> > > for less than a dB additional loss most any day of the week.
> >
> > One could achieve the same result by turning up the noise
> > squelch threshold.
>
>You appear to be totally missing the main point.
>
> > Whether you hide the real source of the problem by doing
> > this or throwing a pad in front of the RX or TX, you are
> > avoiding the actual source of the problem.
>
>What if the source of a grunge problem was directly related
>to or supported by unwanted energy in a high Q network/cable
>path that otherwise might not even be there when using
>slightly lower Q cable like RG-214? especially when the
>problem/unwanted energy comes from external sources...

Let's shoot down the possibilities in this example:

RX overload: filter out the strong signal or increase RX dynamic range
mix in TX: add isolator and possibly BPF
external source: locate & fix it!

As I said before, if you can't do the above then yes adding attenuation in 
the appropriate path may fix the problem, but accept the fact you're 
probably degrading system performance.  All I'm asking is don't hide that 
fact behind buzzwords like "low Q coax" - sounds like something Micro$oft 
would trademark  ;)

>If you have a pesky grunge problem... the proper use of lower
>Q coax versus say... hard-line and some higher-end coaxial
>lines MIGHT HELP suppress unwanted energy within a system,
>which could make the difference of a potential undesired mix
>even happening. If by using lower Q hardware you don't have a
>question of interference then wouldn't have to come up with
>an answer to...

Again, I translate the above to "my site has too much low-level crud to be 
able to operate a state-of-the-art repeater without diminishing some aspect 
of its operation", or possibly "I have an IMD problem that isn't worth the 
trouble to track down & I don't mind losing a db or two of sensitivity in 
order to fix it quickly & inexpensively".  Nothing wrong with any of this, 
but IMO it needs to be stated clearly.

> > & I believe RG-400 is lossier (hence "lower Q") than
> > RG-214.  Perhaps you meant to say hardline, superflex or
> > some other lower loss cable.
>
>The manufactures data sheet tells the spec.

@ 445 MHz, per 100': RG-214: 4.57 dB, RG-400: 9.52 dB.  Thank you, Times 
Microwave.

> > >You've never had a gremlin or grunge problem at a low-level site?
> >
> > None that had to be solved by adding attenuation on the RX or TX.
> > Bob NO6B
>
>Never even changed out a problematic run of LMR-400 yet?

The only place I'd ever use LMR-400 is for portable repeater installations, 
where hardline is impractical (too much flexing) & the length is too long 
for RG-214 due to loss.  I do find that if I use RG-214 for the 1st 10 to 
20 ft. of the run I have no duplexing problems.  This is due to avoiding 
having s

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Power (was TPN1132A Wireup help and questions)

[n9lv]

Kevin,

Very well put, now I can understand that concept.  Never thought to 
take the voltage into consideration.  You never know until you ask, 
tis how we always learn.

Mathew

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> n9lv wrote:
> > Mike, I am on old TV radio/tech repair for RCA and Zenith, so 
> > understandig the voltage is not the question I had.  What I am 
> > refereing to, is take for example, I have a 200 watt amplifier 
that 
> > came from the factory with 6 guage wire on it, much like the 
kids 
> > that is buying the 4 guage wire to run the 200 watt class D amps 
for 
> > the deep sub, were talking about how they accomplish 1/2 KW with 
all 
> > small wires.  You would not wire your 220 amp with such small 
wires.  
> > I'm just curious how they can handle the amps with such small 
wires.  
> > Where is the big leads.  Example, to the 10 watt exciter, they 
have 
> > 12 guage wires, why would they not have something like that 
going to 
> > such a high voltage amp.  Thats is all that I am curious about.  
Much 
> > like the 35kv carrier for a tube was 14 guage wire with a heavy 
> > insulator around it.
> 
> Power is derived from two main things, voltage and current.  Power 
> expressed in mathematics is simple - voltage is multiplied by the 
> current. V times A. 
> When you have lower voltage, like 12 volts in a vehicle, to create 
big 
> power you must have (draw) big current - many amperes.  A typical 
200 
> watt per channel audio amplifier will draw about 600 watts of DC 
power.  
> Okay, we'll work the law backwards since we know the voltage and 
the 
> power consumption.  600 (watts) divided by 12 (volts) is 50 
amperes.  No 
> big wonder why the kids want (need) #6 or #4 wire size.
> 
> Now lets take my 4EF5A1 330 watt RF power amplifier.  It's a 
little 
> better than 50% efficient, so to make 330 watts of RF it consumes 
about 
> 600 watts of power at the tube, just like the kids audio amp.   
However, 
> it has 2000 volts on the plate, not 12 volts, so lets do the 
math...
> 600 (watts) divided by 2000 (volts) is .3 amperes. (three tenths 
of one 
> ampere)  No big wonder why small wire (with BIG insulation) will 
produce 
> the power.  
> 
> This is the same law that allows the power company to use small 
wire to 
> serve hundreds of homes with electricity.  There is thousands of 
volts 
> on the PRIMARY of the transformer on the pole that serves your 
house.  
> The secondary has a few hundred volts at a few hundred amps.
> 
> Those big battery charger / starters that have the ability to 
start a 
> vehicle with a dead battery  they put out many many amps, 50 -
100 
> amps of current, but are run from a common extension cordI 
think 
> now you see the point...  
> 
> Kevin Custer
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[lenaw12]

Guys...

You've both made your points...now...as it's a "he said, she said"
PLEASE take it behind the barn...

LW


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Your right about one thing Ken, I didn't come out smelling like a rose
> as I never got my controller back from you or even a refund! But thats
> ok as I've learned the hard way on that. Glad to see you've have
> satisfied customers. Sorry I'm not among them. I said the controller
> was poorly engineered, not junk. Even Motorola came out with some
> poorly engineered equipment. I have just learned to steer clear of
> them all.
> 
> 
> Eric 
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ken Arck  wrote:
> >
> > Eric
> > 
> > I really don't desire to get into a pissing contest with you over an 
> > issue that was settled literally YEARS ago but if you insist, I would 
> > be more than happy to once more post the entire exchange that took 
> > place back then. You didn't exactly come out smelling like a rose as 
> > you may remember.
> > 
> > While we obviously will never meet everyone's needs nor will be able 
> > to please everyone, we do try and have hundreds and hundreds of 
> > satisfied customers. Both of our products and of the support they 
> > receive from us.
> > 
> > One final suggestion if I may. I would strongly suggest you consider 
> > the laws on slander and libel should you decide to continue down
> this road.
> > 
> > Ken
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > At 11:30 AM 9/5/2008, Eric Harrison wrote:
> > 
> > >Fist of all I would have not wasted my money a such a poorly
> > >engineered controller, ARCOM RC-210).
> > >Second of all if it is a new controller assembled and tested at the
> > >factory then I would be contacting Ken Ark with ACOM and getting your
> > >money back (GOOD LUCK!) or having him help you trouble-shoot your
> > >problem. I have owned two of these controllers in the past and had
> > >nothing but issue after issue with them. As I said before they are a
> > >poorly engineered controller. Suggest you look at Link-Comm or S-Comm
> > >for you future controller needs.
> > >
> > >ERIC
> > >
> > >N7JYS
> > >
> > >--- In 
> >
>
>Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com,
> 
> > >Mike Morris WA6ILQ
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 10:47 AM 09/03/08, you wrote:
> > > > >I am constructing one of the "repeater-builders friends'", and
> am in
> > > > >need of a DTMF pad, or suggestions. I have a Motorola DTMF mic
> that I
> > > > >picked up from someone @ work. I have tried it direct into the
> > > > >controller, through a pot, and through an amplifier w/ a matching
> > > > >transformer on it. The controller is an ARCOM 210 and it does not
> > > > >seem to be picking up the tones no matter what I try. The
> controller
> > > > >is brand new, and was purchased assembled and tested, so I
can only
> > > > >assume that it is fully functional.
> > > > >
> > > > >Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >Jeremy
> > > > >
> > > > >KB3BAM
> > > >
> > > > Check out <http://www.pipo.net/>
> > > >
> > > > I've used the PK3 a couple of times:
> > > >
>
<http://www.pipo.net/productlis2.htm>
> > > >
> > > > Good stuff. Joe Oliveira is good people.
> > > >
> > > > Mike WA6ILQ
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> >
>
--
> > President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> > Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
> > http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
> > Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> > we offer complete repeater packages!
> > AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> > http://www.irlp.net
> > "We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"
> >
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Eric Harrison]

Your right about one thing Ken, I didn't come out smelling like a rose
as I never got my controller back from you or even a refund! But thats
ok as I've learned the hard way on that. Glad to see you've have
satisfied customers. Sorry I'm not among them. I said the controller
was poorly engineered, not junk. Even Motorola came out with some
poorly engineered equipment. I have just learned to steer clear of
them all.


Eric 

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Eric
> 
> I really don't desire to get into a pissing contest with you over an 
> issue that was settled literally YEARS ago but if you insist, I would 
> be more than happy to once more post the entire exchange that took 
> place back then. You didn't exactly come out smelling like a rose as 
> you may remember.
> 
> While we obviously will never meet everyone's needs nor will be able 
> to please everyone, we do try and have hundreds and hundreds of 
> satisfied customers. Both of our products and of the support they 
> receive from us.
> 
> One final suggestion if I may. I would strongly suggest you consider 
> the laws on slander and libel should you decide to continue down
this road.
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:30 AM 9/5/2008, Eric Harrison wrote:
> 
> >Fist of all I would have not wasted my money a such a poorly
> >engineered controller, ARCOM RC-210).
> >Second of all if it is a new controller assembled and tested at the
> >factory then I would be contacting Ken Ark with ACOM and getting your
> >money back (GOOD LUCK!) or having him help you trouble-shoot your
> >problem. I have owned two of these controllers in the past and had
> >nothing but issue after issue with them. As I said before they are a
> >poorly engineered controller. Suggest you look at Link-Comm or S-Comm
> >for you future controller needs.
> >
> >ERIC
> >
> >N7JYS
> >
> >--- In 
>
>Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com,

> >Mike Morris WA6ILQ
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At 10:47 AM 09/03/08, you wrote:
> > > >I am constructing one of the "repeater-builders friends'", and
am in
> > > >need of a DTMF pad, or suggestions. I have a Motorola DTMF mic
that I
> > > >picked up from someone @ work. I have tried it direct into the
> > > >controller, through a pot, and through an amplifier w/ a matching
> > > >transformer on it. The controller is an ARCOM 210 and it does not
> > > >seem to be picking up the tones no matter what I try. The
controller
> > > >is brand new, and was purchased assembled and tested, so I can only
> > > >assume that it is fully functional.
> > > >
> > > >Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >Jeremy
> > > >
> > > >KB3BAM
> > >
> > > Check out <http://www.pipo.net/>
> > >
> > > I've used the PK3 a couple of times:
> > >
<http://www.pipo.net/productlis2.htm>
> > >
> > > Good stuff. Joe Oliveira is good people.
> > >
> > > Mike WA6ILQ
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>
--
> President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
> http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
> Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> we offer complete repeater packages!
> AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> http://www.irlp.net
> "We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Tait 800 not working

[Ed Yoho]

cisfuk wrote:
> 455-480mhz all read 19.89v and doesn't change from there when adjusting 
> the vco trimmer and below 455mhz all read 0.54v and also doesn't change 
> from there when adjusting vco trimmer

That seems to say the free running VCO frequency is around 453/454 
(somewhere between 452.5 and 455). Not sure what to say.

The VCO is tuned by varying the voltage across a Varicap diode. The 
Varicap decreases in capacitance as the applied reverse voltage is 
increased. From your readings above, it appears to be backwards as 
frequencies above the free running frequency seem to be requesting the 
VCO to go up and the opposite on the low side.

It almost sounds like the EPROM is programmed incorrectly.

Below is some example code plug data. This was generated manually as 
here in southern California 440 uses 20KHz channels and the series one 
software only supports 12.5/25KHz channel spacing.


  WORD   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
  REGM  M  M  A  A  R  R  R
  BIT L  0  2  6  0  4  0  4  8
  BIT M  1  5  9  3  6  3  7  10
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |M   A
  CH #   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   TX FREF=200KHz
   004 0E 0A 02 02 0A 00 00   697  34   446.420 TX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   108 0E 0A 0E 00 0A 00 00   698  14   446.860 TX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   208 0E 0A 00 01 0A 00 00   698  16   446.880 TX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   30C 0E 0A 02 00 0A 00 00   699  02   447.380 TX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   408 0F 0A 04 00 0A 00 00   702  04   449.320 TX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   508 0F 0A 06 02 0A 00 00   702  38   449.660 TX USING 10 KHZ STEPS

   RX FREF=6.4MHz
   00C 0A 09 0A 01 00 04 01   619  26   441.420 RX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   100 0B 09 06 00 00 04 01   620  06   441.860 RX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   20C 0A 09 08 00 00 04 01   620  08   441.880 RX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   300 0B 09 0A 03 00 04 01   620  58   442.380 RX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   40C 0B 09 0C 03 00 04 01   623  60   444.320 RX USING 10 KHZ STEPS
   500 0C 09 0E 01 00 04 01   624  30   444.660 RX USING 10 KHZ STEPS

TX FREQ(MHz) = M * 0.64 + A * 0.01
RX FREQ(MHz) = M * 0.64 + A * 0.01 + 45

You might want to try verifying what is in the EPROM and possibly 
manually create a channel around 454 (your VCO's free running freq).

Also, be sure to power cycle the unit after changing channels.

Ed Yoho
W6YJ

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Tait 800 not working

[cisfuk]

455-480mhz all read 19.89v and doesn't change from there when adjusting 
the vco trimmer and below 455mhz all read 0.54v and also doesn't change 
from there when adjusting vco trimmer

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Any M/A-Com dealers out there?

[Butch Kanvick]

Most Tyco Ma/Com accounts went stale as the minimum order is $500.00.
 
Even if you pre pay with a credit card.
 
You might try New London Technologies as he might be able to make the minimum 
order easily, he might even have them in stock ready to go.
 
Butch, KE7FEL/r



To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:06:03 
-0400Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Any M/A-Com dealers out there?




Anyone on the list a Tyco M/A-Com dealer? I need to order someparts, and it's 
been so long since I've ordered that my account went stale.Please email direct 
if you can help. Or, just in case anybody has somelaying around, I need a bunch 
of the contact pins for Delta/Rangr systemconnectors.--- Jeff WN3A 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Tait 800 not working

[Ed Yoho]

cisfuk wrote:
> Thanks, I fitted the oscillator on the TX module now L1 shows 19.89v 
> but doesn't change when adjusting the VCO trimmer
> 

You should try creating a test EPROM for the TX also with channels every 
2.5 MHz and see if it can lock anywhere.

As it is pushing 19V into the VCO, it is trying to push the frequency 
upwards from where it currently is operating unlocked.

Ed Yoho
W6YJ

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Tait 800 not working

[cisfuk]

Thanks, I fitted the oscillator on the TX module now L1 shows 19.89v 
but doesn't change when adjusting the VCO trimmer

[Repeater-Builder] Any M/A-Com dealers out there?

[Jeff DePolo]

Anyone on the list a Tyco M/A-Com dealer?  I need to order some
parts, and it's been so long since I've ordered that my account went stale.
Please email direct if you can help.  Or, just in case anybody has some
laying around, I need a bunch of the contact pins for Delta/Rangr system
connectors.

--- Jeff WN3A

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Ken Arck]

Eric

I really don't desire to get into a pissing contest with you over an 
issue that was settled literally YEARS ago but if you insist, I would 
be more than happy to once more post the entire exchange that took 
place back then. You didn't exactly come out smelling like a rose as 
you may remember.


While we obviously will never meet everyone's needs nor will be able 
to please everyone, we do try and have hundreds and hundreds of 
satisfied customers. Both of our products and of the support they 
receive from us.


One final suggestion if I may. I would strongly suggest you consider 
the laws on slander and libel should you decide to continue down this road.


Ken



At 11:30 AM 9/5/2008, Eric Harrison wrote:


Fist of all I would have not wasted my money a such a poorly
engineered controller, ARCOM RC-210).
Second of all if it is a new controller assembled and tested at the
factory then I would be contacting Ken Ark with ACOM and getting your
money back (GOOD LUCK!) or having him help you trouble-shoot your
problem. I have owned two of these controllers in the past and had
nothing but issue after issue with them. As I said before they are a
poorly engineered controller. Suggest you look at Link-Comm or S-Comm
for you future controller needs.

ERIC

N7JYS

--- In 
Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, 
Mike Morris WA6ILQ

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 10:47 AM 09/03/08, you wrote:
> >I am constructing one of the "repeater-builders friends'", and am in
> >need of a DTMF pad, or suggestions. I have a Motorola DTMF mic that I
> >picked up from someone @ work. I have tried it direct into the
> >controller, through a pot, and through an amplifier w/ a matching
> >transformer on it. The controller is an ARCOM 210 and it does not
> >seem to be picking up the tones no matter what I try. The controller
> >is brand new, and was purchased assembled and tested, so I can only
> >assume that it is fully functional.
> >
> >Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >KB3BAM
>
> Check out <http://www.pipo.net/>
>
> I've used the PK3 a couple of times:
> <http://www.pipo.net/productlis2.htm>
>
> Good stuff. Joe Oliveira is good people.
>
> Mike WA6ILQ
>




--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net
"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Michael Ryan]

Eric, I bought a DTMF encoder to use on an ARCOM board in July. I cannot
recall what we got for it but I have contacted the seller to get that info.
I just don't recall what we bought..at the moment.  As soon as I find that
out, I will post it here for you. That board works fine on the ARCOM 210.
I'll get  back to you as soon as and IF I find out.  - Mike

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wd8chl
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 3:56 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or
suggestions

 

lenaw12 wrote:
> Eric..
> 
> Your response is out of line and indicates your either inability to 
> understand the original post or the technical needs of the situation.
> 
> Clearly, at this point, this is an interface issue between two 
> different manufacturer's products. In no way does he complain that 
> either is not working properly.
> 
> I have absolutely nothing to do with ARCOM or Ken Ark or have any 
> opinion...but taking someone else's legitimate question and using it 
> as a platform for a biased diatribe, is clearly out of place for 
> common consumption.
> 
> LW
> 

seconded.

> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> , "Eric Harrison" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:


 

__ NOD32 3419 (20080905) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[KD4PBC]

Use a resistor and cap to inject bias on the mic line. 

Robert...

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Morris WA6ILQ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 10:47 AM 09/03/08, you wrote:
> >I am constructing one of the "repeater-builders friends'", and am in
> >need of a DTMF pad, or suggestions. I have a Motorola DTMF mic that I
> >picked up from someone @ work. I have tried it direct into the
> >controller, through a pot, and through an amplifier w/ a matching
> >transformer on it. The controller is an ARCOM 210 and it does not
> >seem to be picking up the tones no matter what I try. The controller
> >is brand new, and was purchased assembled and tested, so I can only
> >assume that it is fully functional.
> >
> >Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >KB3BAM
> 
> Check out 
> 
> I've used the PK3  a couple of times:
> 
> 
> Good stuff.   Joe Oliveira is good people.
> 
> Mike WA6ILQ
>







Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[wd8chl]

lenaw12 wrote:
> Eric..
> 
> Your response is out of line and indicates your either inability to 
> understand the original post or the technical needs of the situation.
> 
> Clearly, at this point, this is an interface issue between two 
> different manufacturer's products. In no way does he complain that 
> either is not working properly.
> 
> I have absolutely nothing to do with ARCOM or Ken Ark or have any 
> opinion...but taking someone else's legitimate question and using it 
> as a platform for a biased diatribe, is clearly out of place for 
> common consumption.
> 
> LW
> 

seconded.

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

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question

[Paul Plack]

Impedance is impedance. The MFJ analyzer should be as accurate for that antenna 
as any other.

However, the analyzer's signal is very small, and at any site where other 
transmitters are nearby, the analyzer's internal SWR bridge can be fooled by 
signals other than its own, leading to erroneous readings. You may need to use 
an external SWR bridge or directional wattmeter and run some significant power 
to get an accurate reading.

That said, your symptoms suggest you have a real problem, possibly with the 
feedline, inter-element harness, or a connector.

73,
Paul, AE4KR

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ian Miller 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:43 AM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question


  Our group has a Sinclair 8 dipole array for UHF.

  The repeater was recently moved, and has not been behaving as usual. 
  It hears OK, but seems weak on transmit.

  One of the members went up to the site last night with an MFJ antenna 
  analyser - and he measured SWR at 3:1 - with no real resonant point.

  Our old UHF beam that was on the same tower and same feedline had an 
  SWR of 1.5:1 measured on the same analyser.

  Is this method of measurement on an 8 dipole antenna correct? We 
  have not put an SWR bridge on it.

  For the moment the repeater is off the air until the antenna question 
  is resolved.

  What is inside the guts of one of those 8-bay antennas? Do they have 
  a weak point where a bad connection can occur?

  Thanks

  Ian
  VA2IR



   

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[lenaw12]

Eric..

Your response is out of line and indicates your either inability to 
understand the original post or the technical needs of the situation.

Clearly, at this point, this is an interface issue between two 
different manufacturer's products. In no way does he complain that 
either is not working properly.

I have absolutely nothing to do with ARCOM or Ken Ark or have any 
opinion...but taking someone else's legitimate question and using it 
as a platform for a biased diatribe, is clearly out of place for 
common consumption.

LW


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Fist of all I would have not wasted my money a such a poorly
> engineered controller, ARCOM RC-210). 
> Second of all if it is a new controller assembled and tested at the
> factory then I would be contacting Ken Ark with ACOM  and getting 
your
> money back (GOOD LUCK!) or having him help you trouble-shoot your
> problem. I have owned two of these controllers in the past and had
> nothing but issue after issue with them. As I said before they are a
> poorly engineered controller. Suggest you look at Link-Comm or S-
Comm
> for you future controller needs.
> 
> 
> ERIC
> 
> N7JYS
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Morris WA6ILQ
>  wrote:
> >
> > At 10:47 AM 09/03/08, you wrote:
> > >I am constructing one of the "repeater-builders friends'", and 
am in
> > >need of a DTMF pad, or suggestions. I have a Motorola DTMF mic 
that I
> > >picked up from someone @ work. I have tried it direct into the
> > >controller, through a pot, and through an amplifier w/ a matching
> > >transformer on it. The controller is an ARCOM 210 and it does not
> > >seem to be picking up the tones no matter what I try. The 
controller
> > >is brand new, and was purchased assembled and tested, so I can 
only
> > >assume that it is fully functional.
> > >
> > >Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> > >
> > >Jeremy
> > >
> > >KB3BAM
> > 
> > Check out 
> > 
> > I've used the PK3  a couple of times:
> > 
> > 
> > Good stuff.   Joe Oliveira is good people.
> > 
> > Mike WA6ILQ
> >
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Cable Q-- Please Define

[skipp025]

Higher Q parts/paths MAY sometimes support unwanted/parasitic 
action/energies otherwise not normally sustainable when 
losses in lower Q circuits overcome those paths/sources. 


An example... 

The six meter duplexer made from 1-1/4 and 1-5/8 inch hard 
line can also be made of common coax. The Q of the common coax 
is relatively low enough so the flexible coax version won't work 
very well, the higher Q 1-5/8 inch line being the better choice. 

Both the 1-1/4 and 1-5/8 inch home-brew rigid line duplexers 
are considered usable... graphs of both rigid line version are 
on the various web pages and clearly show the performance numbers. 

If you experience a grunge/imd problem with/through using the 
better 1-5/8 inch hard line duplexer... the same mix/grunge/intermod 
problem might not be sustained(able) through the 1-1/4 duplexer 
because of it's higher internal loss (lower Q). Keep in mind the 
1-1/4 inch diameter hard line 6 meter duplexer is still quite usable. 

In common land mobile antenna combiners... we can and do increase 
the cavity, coax and network insertion loss to reduce problems 
in some specialized cases. 

A lot of this is just about trying to describe how sometimes 
a reduction in an antenna/duplexer hardware and feed-line 
Cable Q (quality) can attenuate unwanted energies. 

In my opinion the South American Telewave VHF Transmit Combiner 
story we saw here on the group a while back was very much about 
having high-Q cavities and very, very small amounts of unwanted 
energies fairly possibly solved with a number of modest changes 
including increasing the loss numbers on some of the combiner 
channels. 

The combiner was engineered by Telewave and the potential mix 
numbers looked pretty darn good. But the as-built hardware had 
mix problems no-one seemed to be able to source using the off 
the shelf tricks. Reducing the Q of a circuit was probably not 
an "off the shelf method" used or even thought about by most 
people. 

When working on/with high powered tube rf amplifiers we often 
use parasitic suppressors to reduce Q and make the amplifier 
ultra stable. Reducing the circuit Q a slight amount is enough 
to prevent unwanted parasitic oscillations and potential 
spurious energy mix generation. Fractional reduction in 
gain/performance traded for grunge free operation. 

Tis something to consider... 

cheers, 
s. 

> "Laryn Lohman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been  to follow the current thread on cable Q, 
> and this is a new term to me.  
> 
> My educated guess is that lower Q may mean more loss, and the
> opposite.  But I've never heard of cables being described this way
> before.  What have I missed?  Please explain.  Thanks.
> 
> Laryn K8TVZ
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Eric Harrison]

Fist of all I would have not wasted my money a such a poorly
engineered controller, ARCOM RC-210). 
Second of all if it is a new controller assembled and tested at the
factory then I would be contacting Ken Ark with ACOM  and getting your
money back (GOOD LUCK!) or having him help you trouble-shoot your
problem. I have owned two of these controllers in the past and had
nothing but issue after issue with them. As I said before they are a
poorly engineered controller. Suggest you look at Link-Comm or S-Comm
for you future controller needs.


ERIC

N7JYS



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Morris WA6ILQ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 10:47 AM 09/03/08, you wrote:
> >I am constructing one of the "repeater-builders friends'", and am in
> >need of a DTMF pad, or suggestions. I have a Motorola DTMF mic that I
> >picked up from someone @ work. I have tried it direct into the
> >controller, through a pot, and through an amplifier w/ a matching
> >transformer on it. The controller is an ARCOM 210 and it does not
> >seem to be picking up the tones no matter what I try. The controller
> >is brand new, and was purchased assembled and tested, so I can only
> >assume that it is fully functional.
> >
> >Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >KB3BAM
> 
> Check out 
> 
> I've used the PK3  a couple of times:
> 
> 
> Good stuff.   Joe Oliveira is good people.
> 
> Mike WA6ILQ
>

[Repeater-Builder] Cable Q-- Please Define

[Laryn Lohman]

I've been  to follow the current thread on cable Q, and this
is a new term to me.  

My educated guess is that lower Q may mean more loss, and the
opposite.  But I've never heard of cables being described this way
before.  What have I missed?  Please explain.  Thanks.

Laryn K8TVZ 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TPN1132A Wireup help and questions

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

They come out red because your flesh acts like a filter, the camera
microprocessor compensates and dials up the lower light frequencies,
which happens to be red.  Use a piece of white paper -  a paper
napkin or even a few layers of toilet paper.  Do not cover part of the
strobe light reflector with something opaque as that will shade one
side of the object of interest and the photo will come out with (for
example) the right side illuminated, and the left side dark..

One trick I've successfully used is to back off a few feet and then
zoom back in so the framing is the same as when you were close
with no zoom.  The camera flash has to cover more square
footage (since the camera is further back) and the amount of
light that lands on the object of interest is reduced.

After the Canon digital camera I had was stolen I replaced it
with another and specifically looked for one with at least 3X
mechanical zoom. The one I now have has a 4x mechanical
zoom and I've been very happy with it.

Last night I took some photos of a Teletek mobile repeater
(anyone have any info on them?) and the light source in some
was a the camera flash, in others a street light, in others was
a LED flashlight, and in the last set was a fluorescent light
under a restaurant canopy.  I'm amazed at how well they
turned out considering the circumstances.

Mike WA6ILQ


At 06:03 AM 09/05/08, you wrote:
>I've tried that and they come out red.
>
>Robert
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Henry
>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:26 PM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TPN1132A Wireup help and questions
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "KD4PBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:36 AM
>Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TPN1132A Wireup help and questions
>
>
> >[snip]
> > Pictures did not come out as the flash washed them out. I am going there
> > again today hopefully in daylight and will try again.
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert
>
>
>You can always try covering half of the flash "lens" with your finger to
>reduce the flash output for close-ups...
>
>
>George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] W2EDN modules

[mjcal77]

Does anybody have any .pdf files or similar on the W2EDN line of 
modules? I picked up an unfinished, but working receiver at the 
Shelby hamfest, and would like to know the xtal freq range for this 2 
meter receiver.  

A discriminator meter was installed, but not hooked up.  Would need 
to know if the discrimninator output was available on one of the pins 
on the board, or if I need to find the spot on the underside.  

I was told that each module had a name like '10.7 IF', but cant find 
what the board ID's are, the orignal builder used copper angle and 
soldered all the board edges to it, I think the board ID's must have 
been on that edge because only 'W2EDN' could be found undisturbed.  
It is obvious the original idea was to build a single channel 2 meter 
rig, but the transmitter board was never installed.  Holes were 
drilled on the back of the enclosure to fit a board that measure 
about 2 X 6 inches.  Any idea what module that would have been?

Bottom line info I really need though, is what crystal range was used 
with his 2 meter RF/MIX/HFO board when feeding a 10.7 IF?

Thanks,

Charlie in NC W4MEC

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[ka1jfy]

Maybe not ALL, but all /\/\ DTMF mics DO require mic bias.

Walter KD7BJJ

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "skipp025" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> > All Motorola mics are 'pre-amped' mics. 
> 
> Not accurate... 
> 
> [paste text]
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accurate 
> 
> Main Entry: ac·cu·rate Listen to the pronunciation of accurate
> Pronunciation: \ˈa-kyə-rət, ˈa-k(ə-)
rət\ 
> Function: adjective 
> Etymology: Latin accuratus, from past participle of accurare 
> to take care of, from ad- + cura care
> Date: 1596
> 
> 
> Most of the more common Motorola mics you might find, but not 
> all. 
> 
> cheers, 
> s.
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Wits End -- Desense (actual Cable-Q contributions)

[skipp025]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I disagree.  If your TX can't handle the near pure reactance 
> of the duplexer at the reject frequency, the proper remedy 
> is an isolator.  Now there's some low Q.  If the RX can't 
> handle it, replace the preamp with one that is unconditionally 
> stable.  

You appear to assume all problems are directly related to or 
generated by/in the Tx or Rx radio equipment hardware. Not 
always the case... 

> The one place a pad (or lossy coax) can go without affecting 
> system performance is between the preamp & RX, 

My turn... "I disagree" but you want to label standard 
coax as excessively lossy when in fact my point is to use 
a lower Q cable where the loss is an acceptable and reasonable 
amount. 

> but even then the solution affording the greatest dynamic 
> range is the one where the preamp has only enough gain so 
> as to make the noise contribution from the RX insignificant. 
> The GaAsFET preamps I use have 16 dB of gain, just enough 
> to satisfy the above criteria on stock GE UHF RXs without 
> sacrificing dynamic range.

Kind of off topic but whatever floats the boat further 
down the river... 

> > I'd trade away a pesky grunge - gremlin or glitch problem 
> > for less than a dB additional loss most any day of the week.
> 
> One could achieve the same result by turning up the noise 
> squelch threshold. 

You appear to be totally missing the main point. 

> Whether you hide the real source of the problem by doing 
> this or throwing a pad in front of the RX or TX, you are 
> avoiding the actual source of the problem. 

What if the source of a grunge problem was directly related 
to or supported by unwanted energy in a high Q network/cable 
path that otherwise might not even be there when using 
slightly lower Q cable like RG-214? especially when the 
problem/unwanted energy comes from external sources...

One transmit combiner system we heard about on the group here 
a while back had a serious grunge problem without some of the 
other-leg repeater hardware even being connected. I suspected 
the fault was actually unwanted contributions or mix products 
made or supported by the (relatively) higher-Q transmission 
hardware within the combiner... 

> Granted, depending on the level of system performance needed 
> vs. quality of equipment involved it may not be worth 
> the effort to properly remedy the interference.  My point 
> is that if one is trying to fully maximize system performance 
> (maximum power output, maximum possible effective sensitivity), 
> padding the TX or RX is not the answer to an interference 
> problem.

... what you're now talking about above is slightly off 
the original topic. 

If you have a pesky grunge problem... the proper use of lower 
Q coax versus say... hard-line and some higher-end coaxial 
lines MIGHT HELP suppress unwanted energy within a system, 
which could make the difference of a potential undesired mix 
even happening. If by using lower Q hardware you don't have a 
question of interference then wouldn't have to come up with 
an answer to... 

> The short lengths involved do not introduce significant 
> loss, 

We're talking about different cable and related hardware Q 
for the same-length of two different types of cable. 

> & I believe RG-400 is lossier (hence "lower Q") than 
> RG-214.  Perhaps you meant to say hardline, superflex or 
> some other lower loss cable. 

The manufactures data sheet tells the spec. 

> Of course, those cables are more expensive & would drive 
> the unit cost up as well. 

When a customer or radio club is fighting a real pain in the 
pazzoo grunge problem they sometimes have to reach deeper into 
their wallet. If you've quoted a radio system with an included 
un-contained grunge dragon that person might possibly be you. 

> However, I believe there are several on this list that 
> have in fact replaced their duplexer & interconnect cables 
> with Superflex.

Nothing wrong with using higher quality materials when you 
can. Most well designed antenna combiner systems and duplexer 
assemblies don't incorporate a grunge problem by design or 
desire. When one is unlucky enough to have a grunge problem 
the fix can include any number of unconventional methods 
not mentioned in the initial system design. 

> >You've never had a gremlin or grunge problem at a low-level site?
> 
> None that had to be solved by adding attenuation on the RX or TX.
> Bob NO6B

Never even changed out a problematic run of LMR-400 yet?


Then... 

Got Milk? 

:-) 
s. 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question

[Cort Buffington]

Ian,

As some others have pointed out, I too have seen a little odd response  
from the MFJ analyzer too. I very recently used one to toy around with  
several DB420 antennas. The MFJ wasn't "wrong" really, but it did not  
give the same response that two different SWR/Wattmeters powered by  
two different transmitters did (the Wattmeter SWR combos always  
matched). BTW: All of my testing was at the antenna feed point.


In the end, reflected power at the transmitter and how well the system  
works in the real world are what are most important to me, but since  
you have real-world problems, jumping to the antenna in an attempt to  
start at one and and work your way back is the right thing to do.


73 DE N0MJS


On Sep 5, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Ian Miller wrote:


Our group has a Sinclair 8 dipole array for UHF.

The repeater was recently moved, and has not been behaving as usual.
It hears OK, but seems weak on transmit.

One of the members went up to the site last night with an MFJ antenna
analyser - and he measured SWR at 3:1 - with no real resonant point.

Our old UHF beam that was on the same tower and same feedline had an
SWR of 1.5:1 measured on the same analyser.

Is this method of measurement on an 8 dipole antenna correct? We
have not put an SWR bridge on it.

For the moment the repeater is off the air until the antenna question
is resolved.

What is inside the guts of one of those 8-bay antennas? Do they have
a weak point where a bad connection can occur?

Thanks

Ian
VA2IR





--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-838-3034
M: +1-785-865-7206

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question

[Ralph Mowery]

--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Ian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Ian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, September 5, 2008, 9:43 AM
> Our group has a Sinclair 8 dipole array for UHF.
> 
> The repeater was recently moved, and has not been behaving
> as usual.  
> It hears OK, but seems weak on transmit.
> 
> One of the members went up to the site last night with an
> MFJ antenna 
> analyser - and he measured SWR at 3:1 - with no real
> resonant point.
> 
> Our old UHF beam that was on the same tower and same
> feedline had an 
> SWR of 1.5:1 measured on the same analyser.
> 
> Is this method of measurement on an 8 dipole antenna
> correct?  We 
> have not put an SWR bridge on it.
> 
>
I would use a real swr meter/directional watt meter on it.  Sometimes those 
analizers will pick up power from other transmitters that are near it and not 
give a correct reading.



  

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question

[de W5DK]

I have seen problems with using analyzers on dipole arrays, hopefully the
bridge will give you a better report. Also might be an open connector as
mentioned.

 

Don Kirchner

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Miller
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:44 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question

 

Our group has a Sinclair 8 dipole array for UHF.

The repeater was recently moved, and has not been behaving as usual. 
It hears OK, but seems weak on transmit.

One of the members went up to the site last night with an MFJ antenna 
analyser - and he measured SWR at 3:1 - with no real resonant point.

Our old UHF beam that was on the same tower and same feedline had an 
SWR of 1.5:1 measured on the same analyser.

Is this method of measurement on an 8 dipole antenna correct? We 
have not put an SWR bridge on it.

For the moment the repeater is off the air until the antenna question 
is resolved.

What is inside the guts of one of those 8-bay antennas? Do they have 
a weak point where a bad connection can occur?

Thanks

Ian
VA2IR

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question

[Chuck Kelsey]

How much line loss do you have? It could simply be an open at the connector 
on the antenna end. Try checking with an ohmmeter on the ground. It should 
show as a short from the center pin to the connector shell.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: "Ian Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna question


> Our group has a Sinclair 8 dipole array for UHF.
>
> The repeater was recently moved, and has not been behaving as usual.
> It hears OK, but seems weak on transmit.
>
> One of the members went up to the site last night with an MFJ antenna
> analyser - and he measured SWR at 3:1 - with no real resonant point.
>
> Our old UHF beam that was on the same tower and same feedline had an
> SWR of 1.5:1 measured on the same analyser.
>
> Is this method of measurement on an 8 dipole antenna correct?  We
> have not put an SWR bridge on it.
>
> For the moment the repeater is off the air until the antenna question
> is resolved.
>
> What is inside the guts of one of those 8-bay antennas?  Do they have
> a weak point where a bad connection can occur?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ian
> VA2IR
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Antenna question

[Ian Miller]

Our group has a Sinclair 8 dipole array for UHF.

The repeater was recently moved, and has not been behaving as usual.  
It hears OK, but seems weak on transmit.

One of the members went up to the site last night with an MFJ antenna 
analyser - and he measured SWR at 3:1 - with no real resonant point.

Our old UHF beam that was on the same tower and same feedline had an 
SWR of 1.5:1 measured on the same analyser.

Is this method of measurement on an 8 dipole antenna correct?  We 
have not put an SWR bridge on it.

For the moment the repeater is off the air until the antenna question 
is resolved.

What is inside the guts of one of those 8-bay antennas?  Do they have 
a weak point where a bad connection can occur?

Thanks

Ian
VA2IR

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TPN1132A Wireup help and questions

[KD4PBC]

I've tried that and they come out red. 

Robert

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Henry
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:26 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TPN1132A Wireup help and questions


- Original Message - 
From: "KD4PBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TPN1132A Wireup help and questions


>[snip]
> Pictures did not come out as the flash washed them out. I am going there
> again today hopefully in daylight and will try again.
>
>
>
> Robert


You can always try covering half of the flash "lens" with your finger to 
reduce the flash output for close-ups...


George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413 






Yahoo! Groups Links

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[souryatlexcomincdotnet]

Hello,
I have (2) brand new, sealed in packs, Pipo PK-2KM DTMF encoders 
(which is the 16 key with A,B,C and D keys along with the optional 
automatic keying relay and the optional mounting frame) available to 
the group if anyone is interested.

Goto www.pipo.net for all the specs and pics.

List for $83.00 ea. I will sell for $50.00 ea. with shipping included.

Please contact off list with any questions, etc.

73 and thanks,
Doug
N4TZD



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Morris WA6ILQ 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 10:47 AM 09/03/08, you wrote:
> >I am constructing one of the "repeater-builders friends'", and am 
in
> >need of a DTMF pad, or suggestions. I have a Motorola DTMF mic 
that I
> >picked up from someone @ work. I have tried it direct into the
> >controller, through a pot, and through an amplifier w/ a matching
> >transformer on it. The controller is an ARCOM 210 and it does not
> >seem to be picking up the tones no matter what I try. The 
controller
> >is brand new, and was purchased assembled and tested, so I can only
> >assume that it is fully functional.
> >
> >Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >KB3BAM
> 
> Check out 
> 
> I've used the PK3  a couple of times:
> 
> 
> Good stuff.   Joe Oliveira is good people.
> 
> Mike WA6ILQ
>

[Repeater-Builder] Power (was TPN1132A Wireup help and questions)

[Kevin Custer]

n9lv wrote:
> Mike, I am on old TV radio/tech repair for RCA and Zenith, so 
> understandig the voltage is not the question I had.  What I am 
> refereing to, is take for example, I have a 200 watt amplifier that 
> came from the factory with 6 guage wire on it, much like the kids 
> that is buying the 4 guage wire to run the 200 watt class D amps for 
> the deep sub, were talking about how they accomplish 1/2 KW with all 
> small wires.  You would not wire your 220 amp with such small wires.  
> I'm just curious how they can handle the amps with such small wires.  
> Where is the big leads.  Example, to the 10 watt exciter, they have 
> 12 guage wires, why would they not have something like that going to 
> such a high voltage amp.  Thats is all that I am curious about.  Much 
> like the 35kv carrier for a tube was 14 guage wire with a heavy 
> insulator around it.

Power is derived from two main things, voltage and current.  Power 
expressed in mathematics is simple - voltage is multiplied by the 
current. V times A. 
When you have lower voltage, like 12 volts in a vehicle, to create big 
power you must have (draw) big current - many amperes.  A typical 200 
watt per channel audio amplifier will draw about 600 watts of DC power.  
Okay, we'll work the law backwards since we know the voltage and the 
power consumption.  600 (watts) divided by 12 (volts) is 50 amperes.  No 
big wonder why the kids want (need) #6 or #4 wire size.

Now lets take my 4EF5A1 330 watt RF power amplifier.  It's a little 
better than 50% efficient, so to make 330 watts of RF it consumes about 
600 watts of power at the tube, just like the kids audio amp.   However, 
it has 2000 volts on the plate, not 12 volts, so lets do the math...
600 (watts) divided by 2000 (volts) is .3 amperes. (three tenths of one 
ampere)  No big wonder why small wire (with BIG insulation) will produce 
the power.  

This is the same law that allows the power company to use small wire to 
serve hundreds of homes with electricity.  There is thousands of volts 
on the PRIMARY of the transformer on the pole that serves your house.  
The secondary has a few hundred volts at a few hundred amps.

Those big battery charger / starters that have the ability to start a 
vehicle with a dead battery  they put out many many amps, 50 -100 
amps of current, but are run from a common extension cordI think 
now you see the point...  

Kevin Custer

[Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater

[lenaw12]

Please...

Just put the repeater up and leave the FCC/Local Coordinating Group
and the List to go on with more sane, less argumentative business...

If it works for you...do it!

What do you care ...you're licensed to make your own decisions...the
rest will take care of itself in time.

LW


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The FCC has only enforced that which is clearly spelled out in the 
> standards and nothing else. No regional or splintered  band plans
exist. 
> There may be mitigating circumstances such a pavepaws etc that can have 
> a detrimental effect on continued operation or putting up a repeater. 
> That in no way is dictated by or imposed by by anyone but the FCC.
> I have already communicated with the FCC and they have acknowledged
that 
> only those standards clearly set forth in the applicable regulations 
> apply. Anything else is voluntary.  Of course  there can develop 
> situations and circumstances that may affect the future operation of
any 
> transmitter. They are a case by case basis and the validity of those is 
> determined by and enforced by only the FCC.
> The local coordination group also clearly has clearly reflected this. 
> the Vice President in charge of coordination is directly quoted in the 
> following blurb. That is from direct communications with  him in 
> official response to a local clubs inquiries relative to the possible 
> setup and activation of THREE new local repeaters:
> 
> It is Dave.
> 
> I suggest that you form a club, nail down the best possible
location, either gather or document the equipment you will use (do NOT
scrimp on the hard-line) and be ready to go on the air.  If you have
the opportunity to put it up without incurring too much cost, by all
means do so.  If it works out, try to coordinate.  But DO NOT get all
hung up on it should we disagree with you.
> 
> 
> MCH wrote:
> > That's odd, as the FCC HAS enforced local bandplans in the past. Feel 
> > free to tell them they didn't have the authority to do so.
> >
> > They cited the persons under the "good engineering practice" rule.
> >
> > As for your statements about not being coordinated, read my post
again. 
> > I addressed that, and said that AS LONG AS there is no problem,
the FCC 
> > likely will not get invovled, but IF there is, they will get involved 
> > and will side with the user following the local bandplan (all else
being 
> > equal).
> >
> > No matter how big your font, that does not make what you type correct.
> >
> > Joe M.
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> >   
> >> You are incorrect. The local coordinating body will tell you the
only 
> >> band plan is that which is authorized in the applicable FEDERAL 
> >> regulations. NO band plan other than that is enforceable. The
ARRL is in 
> >> NO WAY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AN OFFICIAL REGULATORY  AGENCY! IT
CANNOT 
> >> BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
> >> No coordinating body is an official governmental body or enforcing 
> >> agency. The adhearance to any unofficial nonregulatory   'Band
Plan" is 
> >> strictly voluntary. ANY licensed amateur radio operator may put up a 
> >> repeater in a spectrum area as authorized under their license class 
> >> authorizations. The FCC licenses the operator NOT the repeater.
> >> Yes the FCC has backed governing bodies in certain situations.
That is 
> >> only because that body was highlighting applicable FCC standards.
NO one 
> >> other entity other than the FCC can direct or order any radio 
> >> transmitter or operator to do anything else. There exists NO
splintered 
> >> or regional band plan!
> >> There are local repeaters here that are on the air without
coordination 
> >> and have been for years. The local repeater coordination group has 
> >> absolutely NO authority over them. At present there is a local group 
> >> putting up a 6 meter repeater and it has just gone 'on the air
with a 1 
> >> meg split. They are not now coordinated and may never be so. As
long as 
> >> no interfearnce issues (as in any spectrum area hf or higher)
there is 
> >> only operator license regulation required.
> >> MCH wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Not true. The FCC has upheld local bandplans. Coordinated or not
- they 
> >>> apply to everyone. It doesn't even have to be a repeater issue.
> >>>
> >>> True, as long as no interference is created, they likely won't get 
> >>> involved, but if there is, and one user is operating according
to the 
> >>> bandplan and the other is not, they will side with the one
operating 
> >>> according to the bandplan. Coordination should not be an issue
since any 
> >>> operation contrary to the bandplan should not be coordinated
(unless 
> >>> it's grandfathered).
> >>>
> >>> Joe M.
> >>>
> >>> Dave wrote:
> >>>   
> >>>   
>  That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not 
>  mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces
does the 
>  fcc place creedance  of any kind to the coordin

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater

[MCH]

They HAVE enforced local bandplans. That's a fact. They have also 
threatened many times anyone not following them who had better have a 
darned good reason for it.

Here is an interesting quote from one ham with an opinion...
"Band plans are voluntary in nature," (he) acknowledged in each of the 
similarly worded letters. He said the FCC depends upon voluntary 
compliance because it minimizes the necessity for the Commission to be 
called in to resolve amateur problems. "Where interference results from 
band plans not being followed," Hollingsworth continued, "the Commission 
expects substantial justification to be shown by the operators ignoring 
the band plans." (source of quote listed below)

So, they expect substantial justification, but have not always received 
that. In those cases, they enforced the local bandplans via Part 97.101 
which states (in part):


(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur 
station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good 
amateur practice.

(b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in 
selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of 
the amateur service frequencies. 
-

EACH of the above suggests that a) Part 97's written rules are not the 
only thing you have to worry about following - good practice counts, 
too, and b) your choice of frequency should be via cooperative effort. 
Where a local bandplan exists, and you ignore it, you are not complying 
with 97.101(b), and those ARE written rules the FCC can, and DOES, enforce.

But, what does Riley Hollingsworth (the person who was quoted above) 
know about the FCC's policies, right? You're right and he is wrong and 
I'm sorry for doubting you in deference to the FCC's actions and written 
words. I say this to end the thread since it's obvious nothing anyone 
says will sway your opinion.

Joe M.

Dave wrote:
> The FCC has only enforced that which is clearly spelled out in the 
> standards and nothing else. No regional or splintered  band plans exist. 
> There may be mitigating circumstances such a pavepaws etc that can have 
> a detrimental effect on continued operation or putting up a repeater. 
> That in no way is dictated by or imposed by by anyone but the FCC.
> I have already communicated with the FCC and they have acknowledged that 
> only those standards clearly set forth in the applicable regulations 
> apply. Anything else is voluntary.  Of course  there can develop 
> situations and circumstances that may affect the future operation of any 
> transmitter. They are a case by case basis and the validity of those is 
> determined by and enforced by only the FCC.
> The local coordination group also clearly has clearly reflected this. 
> the Vice President in charge of coordination is directly quoted in the 
> following blurb. That is from direct communications with  him in 
> official response to a local clubs inquiries relative to the possible 
> setup and activation of THREE new local repeaters:
> 
> It is Dave.
> 
> I suggest that you form a club, nail down the best possible location, either 
> gather or document the equipment you will use (do NOT scrimp on the 
> hard-line) and be ready to go on the air.  If you have the opportunity to put 
> it up without incurring too much cost, by all means do so.  If it works out, 
> try to coordinate.  But DO NOT get all hung up on it should we disagree with 
> you.
> 
> 
> MCH wrote:
>> That's odd, as the FCC HAS enforced local bandplans in the past. Feel 
>> free to tell them they didn't have the authority to do so.
>>
>> They cited the persons under the "good engineering practice" rule.
>>
>> As for your statements about not being coordinated, read my post again. 
>> I addressed that, and said that AS LONG AS there is no problem, the FCC 
>> likely will not get invovled, but IF there is, they will get involved 
>> and will side with the user following the local bandplan (all else being 
>> equal).
>>
>> No matter how big your font, that does not make what you type correct.
>>
>> Joe M.
>>
>> Dave wrote:
>>   
>>> You are incorrect. The local coordinating body will tell you the only 
>>> band plan is that which is authorized in the applicable FEDERAL 
>>> regulations. NO band plan other than that is enforceable. The ARRL is in 
>>> NO WAY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AN OFFICIAL REGULATORY  AGENCY! IT CANNOT 
>>> BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
>>> No coordinating body is an official governmental body or enforcing 
>>> agency. The adhearance to any unofficial nonregulatory   'Band Plan" is 
>>> strictly voluntary. ANY licensed amateur radio operator may put up a 
>>> repeater in a spectrum area as authorized under their license class 
>>> authorizations. The FCC licenses the operator NOT the repeater.
>>> Yes the FCC has backed governing bodies in certain situations. That is 
>>> only because that body was highlighting applica

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Looking for DTMF encoder...or suggestions

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 10:47 AM 09/03/08, you wrote:
>I am constructing one of the "repeater-builders friends'", and am in
>need of a DTMF pad, or suggestions. I have a Motorola DTMF mic that I
>picked up from someone @ work. I have tried it direct into the
>controller, through a pot, and through an amplifier w/ a matching
>transformer on it. The controller is an ARCOM 210 and it does not
>seem to be picking up the tones no matter what I try. The controller
>is brand new, and was purchased assembled and tested, so I can only
>assume that it is fully functional.
>
>Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>Jeremy
>
>KB3BAM

Check out 

I've used the PK3  a couple of times:


Good stuff.   Joe Oliveira is good people.

Mike WA6ILQ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater

[Dave]

The FCC has only enforced that which is clearly spelled out in the 
standards and nothing else. No regional or splintered  band plans exist. 
There may be mitigating circumstances such a pavepaws etc that can have 
a detrimental effect on continued operation or putting up a repeater. 
That in no way is dictated by or imposed by by anyone but the FCC.
I have already communicated with the FCC and they have acknowledged that 
only those standards clearly set forth in the applicable regulations 
apply. Anything else is voluntary.  Of course  there can develop 
situations and circumstances that may affect the future operation of any 
transmitter. They are a case by case basis and the validity of those is 
determined by and enforced by only the FCC.
The local coordination group also clearly has clearly reflected this. 
the Vice President in charge of coordination is directly quoted in the 
following blurb. That is from direct communications with  him in 
official response to a local clubs inquiries relative to the possible 
setup and activation of THREE new local repeaters:


It is Dave.

I suggest that you form a club, nail down the best possible location, either 
gather or document the equipment you will use (do NOT scrimp on the hard-line) 
and be ready to go on the air.  If you have the opportunity to put it up 
without incurring too much cost, by all means do so.  If it works out, try to 
coordinate.  But DO NOT get all hung up on it should we disagree with you.


MCH wrote:
That's odd, as the FCC HAS enforced local bandplans in the past. Feel 
free to tell them they didn't have the authority to do so.


They cited the persons under the "good engineering practice" rule.

As for your statements about not being coordinated, read my post again. 
I addressed that, and said that AS LONG AS there is no problem, the FCC 
likely will not get invovled, but IF there is, they will get involved 
and will side with the user following the local bandplan (all else being 
equal).


No matter how big your font, that does not make what you type correct.

Joe M.

Dave wrote:
  
You are incorrect. The local coordinating body will tell you the only 
band plan is that which is authorized in the applicable FEDERAL 
regulations. NO band plan other than that is enforceable. The ARRL is in 
NO WAY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AN OFFICIAL REGULATORY  AGENCY! IT CANNOT 
BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
No coordinating body is an official governmental body or enforcing 
agency. The adhearance to any unofficial nonregulatory   'Band Plan" is 
strictly voluntary. ANY licensed amateur radio operator may put up a 
repeater in a spectrum area as authorized under their license class 
authorizations. The FCC licenses the operator NOT the repeater.
Yes the FCC has backed governing bodies in certain situations. That is 
only because that body was highlighting applicable FCC standards. NO one 
other entity other than the FCC can direct or order any radio 
transmitter or operator to do anything else. There exists NO splintered 
or regional band plan!
There are local repeaters here that are on the air without coordination 
and have been for years. The local repeater coordination group has 
absolutely NO authority over them. At present there is a local group 
putting up a 6 meter repeater and it has just gone 'on the air with a 1 
meg split. They are not now coordinated and may never be so. As long as 
no interfearnce issues (as in any spectrum area hf or higher) there is 
only operator license regulation required.

MCH wrote:

Not true. The FCC has upheld local bandplans. Coordinated or not - they 
apply to everyone. It doesn't even have to be a repeater issue.


True, as long as no interference is created, they likely won't get 
involved, but if there is, and one user is operating according to the 
bandplan and the other is not, they will side with the one operating 
according to the bandplan. Coordination should not be an issue since any 
operation contrary to the bandplan should not be coordinated (unless 
it's grandfathered).


Joe M.

Dave wrote:
  
  
That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not 
mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the 
fcc place creedance  of any kind to the coordination thing.







Yahoo! Groups Links



  
  






Yahoo! Groups Links