[Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater Desense issues.

[Tom Elmore]

First of all let me thank everyone that answered my questions about LMR-400 
cable and the desense issues I have been having. So far tests right up to the 
antenna with a dummy load have shown no desense so to me that leaves the 
antenna. After some discussion with a Diamond representative who didn't have a 
lot of technical background this is what I have learned.  The model DP-GH62 
appears to cover the 6 meter band in two segments. 50 to 51.5 and 52 to 54 Mhz. 
There is a 9.5 pf cap across a  coil at the base and with the cap in place it 
is supposed to operate from 50.to 51.5 and removing the cap moves it up to 52 
to 54.  My repeater frequencies are 52.810 out and 51.110 in.
So I need to either move my input frequency up or so If I play with the value 
of the cap say 12 to 25 pf and make the antenna resonate somewhere from 51 to 
53 Mhz? 




Thank You 
Tom Elmore KA1NVZ
Anchorage, Alaska 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Portable Temporary Repeater

[Dan Cation]

Just a couple comments on the original question of isolation. 
Vertical separation is much more effective than horizontal - and with
a wide split you might be able to build a simple coaxial notch filter
using a T and a length of coax on the receive side to help keep the
transmitter out of the receiver.  I remember seeing this kind of
filter described in older VHF manuals.  If interested in finding out
more about this, let me know and I'll dig out my old copy and see if
it really might be an option to help out the isolation.  I've seen a
couple set ups described where the transmit antenna and receive
antenna were mounted base to base and the ground planes supposedly
helped increase isolation - that might not work with J poles since
there is no ground plane.  Good luck - long term you might look for an
old mobile telephone with an internal duplexer or even consider
building a helical resonator for the receiver to help improve front
end performance of the receiver. They aren't that hard to build and
can work pretty good.

73 - Dan

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Louis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I apologize if this has been addressed previously, or even close!  Do
> not have a substantial amount of time to complete this research!
> 
> Situation:  An event in a remote area, one hill top is well enough
> that coverage at around 10 watts VHF for the repeater could cover most
> of our Aid Stations, 2 with HT's, the other 3 with Portables at 25
> watts or so, could get into the repeater!
> 
> In the past, we have used crossband UHF in, VHF out, and it worked ok!
> Except for issues with a couple of HT's not being able to cut the
> input out during transmit! My goal, is to design a lite weight, low
> power consumption (i.e. fewest batteries possible, as the hill top is
> only assessable by hiking or horseback!
> 
> What I have on hand:  
> 
> Single band 2m HT for receive
> Single band Yaesu 2M FT2800R for transmit @ 12.5 watts!
> Pair of homebrewed 2 m aluminum j-poles
> 
> Need to acquire:
> 
> simple controller - NHRC-2 looks workable!
> batteries - based on estimated power consumption of final configuration!
> 
> 
> Basically the question is:  at a 2 mhz seperation (odd split) on VHF
> can one get away without using duplexers (cans), utilizing separate
> rx/tx antenna's, spaced about 20 ft apart!  Without desense or other
> issues!
> 
> Being such a remote area, and the nearest 2 meter repeater is well
> over 50 miles away, and nowhere near these frequencies - 145.500
> rx/147.500 out using a tone of 179.9, I do not see any interference
> issues there!  
> 
> Observations, suggestions, and your crazy are appreciated!
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> K1STX
>

[Repeater-Builder] Duplexers for 440 repeater

[Scott]

Good Afternoon,

I am looking for a duplexer for a 440 repeater, 15 watts out of the
radio.  

Thanks for your help.

73,
Scott
W9SBA

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

[G Shaw]

Hi Bob
You might also want to look at the new Icom commercial series FR-3000 VHF
and FR-4000 UHF repeaters.  I have heard good things about them so far and
they are running over 70db down on adjacent channel and intermod rejection.
They are designed for commercial business and public safety apps and do not
list Ham freq ranges, however they do tune to the ham pairs no problem.
They run 50 w continuous fan cooled but can have lower power selected if you
are running a sep. amp.  Price is competitive at around 1400-1500.

73
Glenn  N1GBY 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 10:14 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

Hi Joe,

>I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just
because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they should
work fine at the quiet one.


That's just it -- they don't work all that well at this mountaintop site
with literally hundreds of RF sources. Since we have an opportunity to sell
them, it seems like a good time for an upgrade. But if K is no better in
this situation than V, you're right, we're going down the wrong path.

This is a club that went from Micor vintage equipment that was showing its
age to Vertex and now has an opportunity to change once again. The bias is
toward new, low-maintenance gear rather than refurbished old commercial
gear.

73,
Bob

-Original Message-
From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 9:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood


I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just 
because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they 
should work fine at the quiet one.

Joe M.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF 
> site. A possible deal would move them to a much quieter site, and if 
> that happens we'll need replacements.
> 
> Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for Kenwoods, 
> and it appears both brands are priced about the same. However, I'm 
> concerned that much of what has been posted falls into the true believer 
> category, and this decision must be based on technical data. How about 
> it, RF gurus? If you have facts, please spill 'em.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 73,
> Bob, WA9FBO
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? 
> Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
> calculators 
>
.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008
7:46 AM



Find phone numbers fast with the New AOL Yellow Pages
 ! 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1705 - Release Date: 10/3/2008
8:18 AM

[Repeater-Builder] Q-202GR Sinclair VHF Repeater HAM Duplexer/Combiner

[v8aqm]

Hi all,

We are looking to put up a HAM repeater for our club for the first
time. Knowledge on setting up repeater is very minimal.

We are looking for an Elmer view about the above duplexer.
Detail are as follows:

FREQUENCY RANGE: 144 - 174 MHz, 
FREQUENCY SEPARATION: 500 kHz (min.), 
INSERTION LOSS: 2.9 dB (min.), 
ISOLATION: 80dB (min.), 
MAXIMUM VSWR: 1.5:1, 
MAXIMUM INPUT POWER: 350 Watts, 
TERMINATION(s): `N' Female and `N' Male .

How best  can  it work with any repeater switch? what are the do's and
the don't of this duplexer and building a repeater in general.

Vy 73
de v8aqm

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR-400 Cable

[Tom Elmore]

Here is the latest. I terminated the cable at the antenna with a dummy load
and no desense. I hooked back up to the antenna and if listen to the
receiver with the squelch
open I hear a buzz in the background of the receiver white noise audio in
addition to desense which doesn't show up when terminated.  Checking the swr
I have less than 1/2 watt reflected with about 80 forward.
The offset for this receiver is 1.7 Mhz by the way.  If I take a 1/4 wave
mag mount antenna that I have sitting on top of  the duplexer cabinet and
plug it directly into the receiver I hear no buzz or desense. This tells me
something is going on with the antenna and coming back the line. Is it time
to put in some hardline?

Tom / KA1NVZ


  -Original Message-
  From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:47 PM
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR-400 Cable


  At 10/2/2008 05:41, you wrote:
  >Hello Tom,
  >
  >I think that the clue here is that you had desense with both the RG-213
  >and the LMR-400. My guess would be that there is some mismatch between
  >the antenna and the duplexer. The duplexer may be tuned for a 50
  >resistive ohm load, but the antenna system is presenting some other
  >impedance/reactance.

  Neither RG-213 nor LMR400 are suitable for duplex use, so it's quite
likely
  that both were the source of the desense.

  Bob NO6B



  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Portable Temporary Repeater

[Tom]

<<"Observations, suggestions, and your crazy are appreciated!">>

Unfortunately I have to add myself to the list of naysayers but to
answer as you requested:

"Basically the question is: at a 2 mhz seperation (odd split) on VHF
can one get away without using duplexers (cans), utilizing separate
rx/tx antenna's, spaced about 20 ft apart! Without desense or other
issues"

NO.  Inadequate physical separation, inadequate frequency separation,
especially using the equipment described.


"Being such a remote area, and the nearest 2 meter repeater is well
over 50 miles away, and nowhere near these frequencies - 145.500
rx/147.500 out using a tone of 179.9, I do not see any interference
issues there!"

As you suggest, the likelihood of interference is small but NOT
nonexistent.  If it were me, I think I'd have a receiver (on carrier
squelch) monitoring your repeater output just for the purpose of CYA.
 Overkill?  Maybe, but as the movie actor asked, "Do you feel lucky
today?"  At least you could answer truthfully that the frequency was
monitored.



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Louis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I apologize if this has been addressed previously, or even close!  Do
> not have a substantial amount of time to complete this research!
> 
> Situation:  An event in a remote area, one hill top is well enough
> that coverage at around 10 watts VHF for the repeater could cover most
> of our Aid Stations, 2 with HT's, the other 3 with Portables at 25
> watts or so, could get into the repeater!
> 
> In the past, we have used crossband UHF in, VHF out, and it worked ok!
> Except for issues with a couple of HT's not being able to cut the
> input out during transmit! My goal, is to design a lite weight, low
> power consumption (i.e. fewest batteries possible, as the hill top is
> only assessable by hiking or horseback!
> 
> What I have on hand:  
> 
> Single band 2m HT for receive
> Single band Yaesu 2M FT2800R for transmit @ 12.5 watts!
> Pair of homebrewed 2 m aluminum j-poles
> 
> Need to acquire:
> 
> simple controller - NHRC-2 looks workable!
> batteries - based on estimated power consumption of final configuration!
> 
> 
> Basically the question is:  at a 2 mhz seperation (odd split) on VHF
> can one get away without using duplexers (cans), utilizing separate
> rx/tx antenna's, spaced about 20 ft apart!  Without desense or other
> issues!
> 
> Being such a remote area, and the nearest 2 meter repeater is well
> over 50 miles away, and nowhere near these frequencies - 145.500
> rx/147.500 out using a tone of 179.9, I do not see any interference
> issues there!  
> 
> Observations, suggestions, and your crazy are appreciated!
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> K1STX
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

[Richard Deering]

HI Bob, Very long no talk to. I would go with the Kenwood repeater over the 
Vertex. But my first choice would be Motorola. That what us guys  in Wicsonsin 
use  73's  Bob.  From Rick WB9RJB 
--- On Thu, 10/2/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 10:24 PM







Hi All,
 
My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF 
site. A possible deal would move them to a much quieter site, and if that 
happens we'll need replacements.
 
Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for Kenwoods, and 
it appears both brands are priced about the same. However, I'm concerned 
that much of what has been posted falls into the true believer category, and 
this decision must be based on technical data. How about it, RF gurus? If you 
have facts, please spill 'em.
 
Thanks!
 
73,
Bob, WA9FBO





Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out 
WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Antenna

[G Shaw]

That is THE GOLD STANDARD of commercial repeater vhf antennas and it should
be I guess for the money they get for them.  I am using one at this time and
it is excellent; the one I am using is in the 142-151  range (2)  which is
perect for 2 meter ham use. 

Glenn

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:06 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Antenna

I have a Repeater antenna. Radio Frequency Systems, #220-3AN Freq:
150.5-158. 
New is about $3000.00 ... I'll take 1/2 plus shipping for anyone that wants
it.
.
.
http://www.rfsworld.com/dataxpress/DataSheets/?q=220-3AN
 



 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008
7:46 AM

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Portable Temporary Repeater

[Louis]

First and foremost, I owe everyone on the forum an apology, for my
rant and ill place remarks posted yesterday!  48 hours and 5 hours
sleep, and then another 20 hr run with 4 hours sleep toady, is not
conducive to making good decisions and conversations!


To WD8CHL especially, I mistook some of your comments about the ham
gear, and should not have posted that publicly, especially with lack
of sleep!  As far as our repeater council, that is a whole nother can
of worms we will not go into! The band spectrum in Texas is not as
congested as in some other areas, and we have few closed systems,
unlike California and a couple of other states!  

For my personal purpose, purchasing a bunch of purpose built or
specialized equipment was what I was trying to a avoid, the main use
occurs once a year, with possible use a couple of other times besides
that! Although it would be nice to have available, if a Search and
Rescue operation needed to occur in that or similar area!  In other
areas and events, we usually have the use of one or more of the many
wide area coverage repeaters located throughout the area and state!

I had seen a set-up similar to what I was interesting in building, and
everything fit in a small pelican case!  The big problem was I cannot
remember who had it! It used a crystal based HT for receive and the
FT-2800 for transmit!  Did not have the opportunity to see how else it
was assembled! I can only assume it used some sort of crystal ladder
in the HT for isolation, not sure. The rig worked well for about a 10
mile square area, although not as rugged a terrain as our event is in!
Was hoping someone on this group had knowledge of the set-up!


Guess I will work at saving up some spare change and find some sort of
commercial radio (possibly one suggested) that can be converted to a
portable UHF rig!  Seems that is much easier to accomplish!

Again, thanks to everyone for their advice and wisdom!  

And please except my apology for being a jerk!

Now, I am going to bed, since I have to be on the road again tonight
at 2200!

73
Louis - K1STX
 





--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wd8chl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Robert Pease wrote:
> > Ok since we made it back to the original question. Here are my
> > thoughts on it. 1st. Ham rigs are a bad choice for any type of
> > repeater, I would look hard for used commercial rigs, especially if
> > you want to transmit from the recieve site.
> 
> That's what I said, but he took offense to that. Well, sorry, it may
not 
> be what you want to hear, but it's the truth. No, I obviously DON'T
have 
> anything against ham radio, or I wouldn't be here. But I DO have 
> something against using made-for-ham equipment in a repeater 
> environment, because they just don't work. At best, not for long. Broad 
> receivers prone to intermod/desense, dirty transmitters that cause 
> desense and intermod, poor PA's that just don't hold up to long 
> transmissions, etc. We are trying to warn you that you WILL have 
> problems using that equipment for a repeater.
> 
>   You can find some really
> > cheap commercial gear and some people on this list and other lists I
> > am on have been known to donate to the right cause. 2nd  I understand
> > the budget problem and only working with what you have. So here is an
> > idea I have used before since you mentioned that there are dual band
> > HT's out there. I have set up 2 dual band HT's on buildings several
> > hundred feet apart. 1 cross band from 2 meters to a specific 440 freq
> > and the other cross band from that 440 freq to your 2m freq.
> > Depending on power and spacing you may even get away with 600 khz
> > offset.  I realize you probably don't have buildings at your site but
> > hills will work also. Even the same hill if you can get them spaced
> > far enough apart. Ours ran on a gell cell charged by solar.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, a split-site arrangement like that is a REALLY good idea for this 
> app. Although again, I wouldn't use made-for-ham handhelds for this. 
> Find some commercial-grade gear. Part 90 commercial MUST narrowband
in a 
> few years, and older radios that won't narrowband will start showing up 
> DIRT cheap, since it can't be used there after 2012.
> Good suggestions? Syntor X is a great radio, lots of info on it, 
> synthesized, clean, rugged, etc. GE Phoenix-S or SX, smaller 
> (dash-mount), everything you need is on the rear connector, no mods!
> 2 VHF Phoenix-S with power turned down to about 10W, and a pair of UHF 
> -S's like wise turned down to ~5W, spaced about 3/4 to 1 mile apart, or 
> less depending on terrain between the two, a simple control package
with 
> ID and time-out-timer, and you're good to go!
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Portable Temporary Repeater

[Louis]

First and foremost, I owe everyone on the forum an apology, for my
rant and ill place remarks posted yesterday!  48 hours and 5 hours
sleep, and then another 20 hr run with 4 hours sleep toady, is not
conducive to making good decisions and conversations!


To WD8CHL especially, I mistook some of your comments about the ham
gear, and should not have posted that publicly, especially with lack
of sleep!  As far as our repeater council, that is a whole nother can
of worms we will not go into! The band spectrum in Texas is not as
congested as in some other areas, and we have few closed systems,
unlike California and a couple of other states!  

For my personal purpose, purchasing a bunch of purpose built or
specialized equipment was what I was trying to a avoid, the main use
occurs once a year, with possible use a couple of other times besides
that! Although it would be nice to have available, if a Search and
Rescue operation needed to occur in that or similar area!  In other
areas and events, we usually have the use of one or more of the many
wide area coverage repeaters located throughout the area and state!

I had seen a set-up similar to what I was interesting in building, and
everything fit in a small pelican case!  The big problem was I cannot
remember who had it! It used a crystal based HT for receive and the
FT-2800 for transmit!  Did not have the opportunity to see how else it
was assembled! I can only assume it used some sort of crystal ladder
in the HT for isolation, not sure. The rig worked well for about a 10
mile square area, although not as rugged a terrain as our event is in!
Was hoping someone on this group had knowledge of the set-up!


Guess I will work at saving up some spare change and find some sort of
commercial radio (possibly one suggested) that can be converted to a
portable UHF rig!  Seems that is much easier to accomplish!

Again, thanks to everyone for their advice and wisdom!  

And please except my apology for being a jerk!

Now, I am going to bed, since I have to be on the road again tonight
at 2200!

73
Louis - K1STX
 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF LINK ANTENNA QUESTION HELP NEEDED!

[Certified Software Solutions]

How about a pl tone decoder (Get the wanted repeater to send or pass through a 
pl tone)?
Lower the link antenna?
Increase the number of elements on the link antenna?
Turn th link antenna more north so that the non wanted repeater is not 
receivable(Find the weak spot in the pattern)?










Thanks, 
Sean Murphy

985-951-8557 Office 985-264-2765 Cell 
Certified Software Solutions of Louisiana L.L.C.

[Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Duplexer Q2220E or Q202GR

[Wafa Mohammad]

I need your help to decide which duplexer is best to choose between
Sinclair Q202GR or Sinclair Q2220E for a ham repeater in Brunei Climate.



de V8AQM


  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Vertex vs. Kenwood

[no6b]

At 10/3/2008 19:04, you wrote:

>Can't say much for the Vertex Repeater front end because I've
>never had one around to look at.

The one I saw (UHF) had no visible filtering on the RX board.  It was 
installed at a comm. site with only a duplexer for filtering, & completely 
fell apart (massive IMD).  A single Motorola 1/4 wave pass can in front of 
the RX cleaned it up.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Colorado Gateway back on-line & repeaters up high

[Nate Duehr]

Gary Glaenzer wrote:
> "and I-70 to approximately Limon, CO, almost to
> Western Kansas"
>  
> with all due respect, it's 90 miles from Limon to the KS border

Okay, "over 100 miles, and more than half-way from the repeater site to 
Western Kansas".

Better?  :-)

Nate WY0X

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ritron Repeaters

[Peter Summerhawk]

I am sorry to but in but did they make this in a  vhf model by chance (the 
silver face ones would work better) that way I can use them for some on site 
portable repeater work for some very small coverage areas like a warehouse? We 
are running 151/159 range for our set.
Thanks
Peter Summerhawk

-Original Message-
From: Johnny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:37 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ritron Repeaters

I have one of the early model that I use for portable temporary use at
 events. Not fancy or a whole lot of power, but does a real good job in
 that application.

 I would not want to try to use one in a high RF environment, but for low
 level stuff they are pretty good and the price is right.
 Johnny

 skipp025 wrote:
 > Just relative to your post here...
 >
 > If you're playing with a Ritron Repeater of circa 80's
 > vintage... then you probably have one of two types. The first
 > is the black shoe-box model, which at first glance is considered
 > a toy repeater. Under the right conditions the black shoe-box
 > repeater works pretty well for what it is. Model RR-454 and similar
 > nubers.
 >
 > The second model is the silver face unit... looking more like
 > a desk-top radio... can also be a base station and/or repeater
 > or combinations of both.
 >
 > Both of the above repeaters have what I call cigar tube notch
 > type duplexers, which in the right conditions do work fairly
 > well for their intended application.
 >
 > Most stuffy radio folks without much imagination discount these
 > products as toys. When looking at these items with a more flexible
 > and bean counter eye... the reason why there are a lot of these
 > units out there will become obvious.
 >
 > They are much fun to play with... providing you have the right
 > attitude and res

[The entire original message is not included]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ritron Repeaters

[Johnny]

I have one of the early model that I use for portable temporary use at 
events.  Not fancy or a whole lot of power, but does a real good job in 
that application. 

I would not want to try to use one in a high RF environment, but for low 
level stuff they are pretty good and the price is right.  
Johnny 

skipp025 wrote:
> Just relative to your post here... 
> 
> If you're playing with a Ritron Repeater of circa 80's 
> vintage... then you probably have one of two types. The first 
> is the black shoe-box model, which at first glance is considered 
> a toy repeater. Under the right conditions the black shoe-box 
> repeater works pretty well for what it is. Model RR-454 and similar 
> nubers. 
> 
> The second model is the silver face unit... looking more like 
> a desk-top radio... can also be a base station and/or repeater 
> or combinations of both. 
> 
> Both of the above repeaters have what I call cigar tube notch 
> type duplexers, which in the right conditions do work fairly 
> well for their intended application. 
> 
> Most stuffy radio folks without much imagination discount these 
> products as toys. When looking at these items with a more flexible 
> and bean counter eye... the reason why there are a lot of these 
> units out there will become obvious. 
> 
> They are much fun to play with... providing you have the right 
> attitude and resources. 
> 
> cheers, 
> s. 
> 
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Hi All!
>>  
>> I have a couple of Ritron UHF repeaters here and kind of curious if
>  anyone 
>> has had a chance to screw around with these little job site 
> repeaters.  Anyone 
>> moved them to the ham bands?  For their age, I was  surprised they
> worked, 
>> had clean audio and rated output. New rocks are $21  each from ICM,
> not too bad.
>>  
>> The two I have is a Repeater Plus and a Responder II.  One is at  15
> watts 
>> and the other at 3 watts.  Both do repeat and are PL.
>>  
>> I checked the Ritron website, no info on these guys.  I don't have any  
>> manuals. oh well!
>>  
>> Yepp, its 70's and 80's tech, but what the heck, the sunspot cycle
> is still  
>> low!
>>  
>> 73, Brian WD9HSY
>>  
>> Before we flame, my repeaters are Micors and I know these are not
> top of  
>> line, but they are not a couple of hundred pounds either!
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Ritron Repeaters

[skipp025]

Just relative to your post here... 

If you're playing with a Ritron Repeater of circa 80's 
vintage... then you probably have one of two types. The first 
is the black shoe-box model, which at first glance is considered 
a toy repeater. Under the right conditions the black shoe-box 
repeater works pretty well for what it is. Model RR-454 and similar 
nubers. 

The second model is the silver face unit... looking more like 
a desk-top radio... can also be a base station and/or repeater 
or combinations of both. 

Both of the above repeaters have what I call cigar tube notch 
type duplexers, which in the right conditions do work fairly 
well for their intended application. 

Most stuffy radio folks without much imagination discount these 
products as toys. When looking at these items with a more flexible 
and bean counter eye... the reason why there are a lot of these 
units out there will become obvious. 

They are much fun to play with... providing you have the right 
attitude and resources. 

cheers, 
s. 

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi All!
>  
> I have a couple of Ritron UHF repeaters here and kind of curious if
 anyone 
> has had a chance to screw around with these little job site 
repeaters.  Anyone 
> moved them to the ham bands?  For their age, I was  surprised they
worked, 
> had clean audio and rated output. New rocks are $21  each from ICM,
not too bad.
>  
> The two I have is a Repeater Plus and a Responder II.  One is at  15
watts 
> and the other at 3 watts.  Both do repeat and are PL.
>  
> I checked the Ritron website, no info on these guys.  I don't have any  
> manuals. oh well!
>  
> Yepp, its 70's and 80's tech, but what the heck, the sunspot cycle
is still  
> low!
>  
> 73, Brian WD9HSY
>  
> Before we flame, my repeaters are Micors and I know these are not
top of  
> line, but they are not a couple of hundred pounds either!
>  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Ritron Repeaters

[ve3ext]

Brian I have converted two  ritron responder., model rr-450 

They work good., but internal duplexer is right on the edge., an external 
one would work better., (out of range)., as they are indeed 450-470 mhz 

Jerry VE3 EXT

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Vertex vs. Kenwood

[skipp025]

Can't say much for the Vertex Repeater front end because I've 
never had one around to look at. 

The Kenwood TKR Series Repeaters have a very good front-end, 
multi-section helical type pre-selection, then amplification 
with excellent 3rd orderperformance and more multi section 
helical type pre-selection. 

I'm all in favor of a great receiver front end and the 
Kenwood TKR Repeaters have them... 

Keep in mind as a Kenwood Dealer of course I am biased toward 
products I know well. 

cheers, 
skipp 

skipp025 at yahoo.com 
www.radiowrench.com 

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>  
> My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex  repeaters at a
high-RF site. 
> A possible deal would move them  to a much quieter site, and if that
happens 
> we'll  need replacements.
>  
> Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for 
Kenwoods, and 
> it appears both brands are priced about the  same. However, I'm
concerned that 
> much of what has been posted falls  into the true believer category,
and this 
> decision must be based  on technical data. How about it, RF gurus?
If you 
> have facts, please  spill 'em.
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> 73,
> Bob, WA9FBO
> 
> 
> 
> **Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
> challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
information, tips and 
> calculators.  (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall0001)
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Ritron Repeaters

[David Struebel]

Brian,

The Repeater Builder Technical Web Pages may have the information you are 
looking for... I have one of the UHF Ritron repeaters here.

http://www.repeater-builder.com/ritron/ritron-index.html

73 Dave WB2FTX
  - Original Message - 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:25 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Ritron Repeaters



  Hi All!

  I have a couple of Ritron UHF repeaters here and kind of curious if anyone 
has had a chance to screw around with these little job site repeaters.  Anyone 
moved them to the ham bands?  For their age, I was surprised they worked, had 
clean audio and rated output. New rocks are $21 each from ICM, not too bad.

  The two I have is a Repeater Plus and a Responder II.  One is at 15 watts and 
the other at 3 watts.  Both do repeat and are PL.

  I checked the Ritron website, no info on these guys.  I don't have any 
manuals. oh well!

  Yepp, its 70's and 80's tech, but what the heck, the sunspot cycle is still 
low!

  73, Brian WD9HSY

  Before we flame, my repeaters are Micors and I know these are not top of 
line, but they are not a couple of hundred pounds either!







--
  New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, 
Movies, Events, News more. Try it out!

   


--



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1705 - Release Date: 10/3/2008 
8:18 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1705 - Release Date: 10/3/2008 8:18 
AM

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

[MCH]

Something you might want to try (if you can quickly) is put a Micor (or 
similar) front end on the front end of the receiver.

Joe M.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
>  >I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just
> because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they
> should work fine at the quiet one.
> 
> 
> That's just it -- they don't work all that well at this mountaintop site 
> with literally hundreds of RF sources. Since we have an opportunity to 
> sell them, it seems like a good time for an upgrade. But if K is no 
> better in this situation than V, you're right, we're going down the 
> wrong path.
> 
> This is a club that went from Micor vintage equipment that was showing 
> its age to Vertex and now has an opportunity to change once again. The 
> bias is toward new, low-maintenance gear rather than refurbished old 
> commercial gear.
> 
> 73,
> Bob
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 9:50 pm
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood
> 
> I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just
> because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they
> should work fine at the quiet one.
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  > Hi All,
>  >
>  > My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF
>  > site. A possible deal would move them to a much quieter site, and if
>  > that happens we'll need replacements.
>  >
>  > Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for Kenwoods,
>  > and it appears both brands are priced about the same. However, I'm
>  > concerned that much of what has been posted falls into the true believer
>  > category, and this decision must be based on technical data. How about
>  > it, RF gurus? If you have facts, please spill 'em.
>  >
>  > Thanks!
>  >
>  > 73,
>  > Bob, WA9FBO
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges?
>  > Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
>  > calculators
>  > 
> .
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  >
>  > No virus found in this incoming message.
>  > Checked by AVG.
>  > Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 
> 10/2/2008 7:46 AM
> 
> Find phone numbers fast with the New AOL Yellow Pages 
> !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008 
> 7:46 AM

[Repeater-Builder] Ritron Repeaters

[bbedoe]

Hi All!
 
I have a couple of Ritron UHF repeaters here and kind of curious if  anyone 
has had a chance to screw around with these little job site  repeaters.  Anyone 
moved them to the ham bands?  For their age, I was  surprised they worked, 
had clean audio and rated output. New rocks are $21  each from ICM, not too bad.
 
The two I have is a Repeater Plus and a Responder II.  One is at  15 watts 
and the other at 3 watts.  Both do repeat and are PL.
 
I checked the Ritron website, no info on these guys.  I don't have any  
manuals. oh well!
 
Yepp, its 70's and 80's tech, but what the heck, the sunspot cycle is still  
low!
 
73, Brian WD9HSY
 
Before we flame, my repeaters are Micors and I know these are not top of  
line, but they are not a couple of hundred pounds either!
 
 



**New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!  
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew0001)

[Repeater-Builder] FS (2) Kenwood TK-830 (H) High Power Mobile Units (Once used as Repeaters)

[bbfmrf]

Both of these units have been tested and operate at mfg specs.  They 
were linked together at one time and used as a rack mounted receiver.

I have and will include, the aluminum rack in which they were mounted.

Units are rated at  75W tuneable down to 35W 

I am also enclosing (2) brand New, (in the box) power cords for these 
high power units.

I do not have any other accessories, nor do I have any info on how 
they were linked for repeater use.

Each unit performs well as a stand alone unit.  When I opened them to 
check operation, I found the following notes inside,  I am including 
this info strictly for your consideration:

Note 1  Wire added from HN2 @ CN106 on Logic Board to "TO" pad on RF 
board for External TX Data Input

Note 2  DEO wire cut @ CN104 and connected to Pin 13 of IC103 for 
True Discriminator Output to ACC Connector

I would like to sell both of these units as a package w/ the mount 
and power cords.

Asking $350.00 shipping included

Picture of equipment available upon request by contacting bbfmrf at 
Yahoo dot com

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Colorado Gateway back on-line & repeaters up high

[Gary Glaenzer]

"and I-70 to approximately Limon, CO, almost to 
Western Kansas"

with all due respect, it's 90 miles from Limon to the KS border


  - Original Message - 
  From: Nate Duehr 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:10 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Colorado Gateway back on-line & repeaters up high


  I'm happy to announce that the Colorado D-STAR group has completed our 
  site move to Mt. Thorodin, Colorado.

  A full D-STAR stack of repeaters consisting of VHF, UHF, 1.2 DV and 1.2 
  DD are now operating from approximately 10,482 feet above sea level.

  


  As of about 10:00 Mountain Time today, our Gateway is back online, and 
  the stack is operating very well. VHF is still slightly deaf due to 
  some site noise, but a new antenna installed today is helping significantly.

  Most activity is on Port B (UHF 446.9625-) and you can say hello via our 
  Gateway callsign "W0CDS". Whiskey Zero Colorado D-Star!

  The repeater system covers the entire Front-Range area of Colorado, 
  including the Denver Metro area, Boulder, Greeley, Ft. Collins, Castle 
  Rock, Aurora, etc.

  A quickly calculated estimate was that the stack will have a coverage 
  area of something close to the size of the entire state of Connecticut.

  Reports already indicate that coverage extends into downtown Cheyenne, 
  Wyoming for mobile users with good antennas, and the surrounding plains 
  out I-76 toward Nebraska, and I-70 to approximately Limon, CO, almost to 
  Western Kansas. We also have reports that HT users are using the system 
  well as into the southeastern and southern suburbs and further south. 
  Coverage generally ends due to the natural RF barrier at the Palmer 
  Divide between Denver, CO and Colorado Springs, CO. Mountain-West 
  coverage has not yet been determined.

  We will know more as we get signal reports from far-flung hams using 
  D-STAR. We welcome signal reports, see our contact page:

  http://www.coloradodstar.org/contact.htm

  A coverage map from another group's VHF repeater is here:
  http://www.colcon.org/fig/thorodin_coverage.gif

  A 3D map of the mountain is here from the same group:
  http://www.colcon.org/fig/mt_thorodin_3d.jpg

  Here's a photo of the mountain from northwest of Boulder, CO:
  http://www.colcon.org/fig/mt_thorodin_big.jpg

  (Thank you to the Colorado Connection for use of their graphics.)

  Thanks to all of our RF "crew" who have assisted with the site move over 
  the last couple of weeks, including the guys from Rocky Mountain Ham 
  Radio (http://www.rmham.org) and all of our great volunteers!

  For more information on the group: http://www.coloradodstar.org

  (We know the website needs updating... hang on! We're too busy playing 
  with D-STAR! GRIN...)

  73,
  Nate Duehr, WY0X
  W0CDS Gateway Admin & General D-STAR Geek -- Having Fun w/ D-STAR!


   


--




  Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1705 - Release Date: 10/3/2008 
8:18 AM

[Repeater-Builder] Colorado Gateway back on-line & repeaters up high

[Nate Duehr]

I'm happy to announce that the Colorado D-STAR group has completed our 
site move to Mt. Thorodin, Colorado.

A full D-STAR stack of repeaters consisting of VHF, UHF, 1.2 DV and 1.2 
DD are now operating from approximately 10,482 feet above sea level.



As of about 10:00 Mountain Time today, our Gateway is back online, and 
the stack is operating very well.  VHF is still slightly deaf due to 
some site noise, but a new antenna installed today is helping significantly.

Most activity is on Port B (UHF 446.9625-) and you can say hello via our 
Gateway callsign "W0CDS".  Whiskey Zero Colorado D-Star!

The repeater system covers the entire Front-Range area of Colorado, 
including the Denver Metro area, Boulder, Greeley, Ft. Collins, Castle 
Rock, Aurora, etc.

A quickly calculated estimate was that the stack will have a coverage 
area of something close to the size of the entire state of Connecticut.

Reports already indicate that coverage extends into downtown Cheyenne, 
Wyoming for mobile users with good antennas, and the surrounding plains 
out I-76 toward Nebraska, and I-70 to approximately Limon, CO, almost to 
Western Kansas.  We also have reports that HT users are using the system 
well as into the southeastern and southern suburbs and further south. 
Coverage generally ends due to the natural RF barrier at the Palmer 
Divide between Denver, CO and Colorado Springs, CO.  Mountain-West 
coverage has not yet been determined.

We will know more as we get signal reports from far-flung hams using 
D-STAR.  We welcome signal reports, see our contact page:

http://www.coloradodstar.org/contact.htm

A coverage map from another group's VHF repeater is here:
http://www.colcon.org/fig/thorodin_coverage.gif

A 3D map of the mountain is here from the same group:
http://www.colcon.org/fig/mt_thorodin_3d.jpg

Here's a photo of the mountain from northwest of Boulder, CO:
http://www.colcon.org/fig/mt_thorodin_big.jpg

(Thank you to the Colorado Connection for use of their graphics.)

Thanks to all of our RF "crew" who have assisted with the site move over 
the last couple of weeks, including the guys from Rocky Mountain Ham 
Radio (http://www.rmham.org) and all of our great volunteers!

For more information on the group: http://www.coloradodstar.org

(We know the website needs updating... hang on!  We're too busy playing 
with D-STAR!  GRIN...)

73,
Nate Duehr, WY0X
W0CDS Gateway Admin & General D-STAR Geek -- Having Fun w/ D-STAR!

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeater Antenna

[Randy]

--- I probably should have done a Google Search. My first choice was 
to search for the manufactor of the antenna first. Radio Frequency 
Systems. 
.
In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ed Yoho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Randy wrote:
> > --- One person says one thing...Like I've said before; I know 
nothing 
> > about Motorola products...
> 
> 
> If you know nothing about it, you might want to at least do a 
simple 
> Google search for:
> super stationmaster 220-3an
> 
> If you did, you would see $1046.00 is the correct list price for a 
new 
> antenna with warranty. Most folks who purchase from either Talley 
or 
> Tessco have accounts with substantial discounts from list.
> 
> Ed Yoho
> W6YJ
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeater Antenna

[Ed Yoho]

Randy wrote:
> --- One person says one thing...Like I've said before; I know nothing 
> about Motorola products...


If you know nothing about it, you might want to at least do a simple 
Google search for:
super stationmaster 220-3an

If you did, you would see $1046.00 is the correct list price for a new 
antenna with warranty. Most folks who purchase from either Talley or 
Tessco have accounts with substantial discounts from list.

Ed Yoho
W6YJ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

[John Barrett]

What sort of problems are you having with the system at the current 
site, and generally how much quieter is the new site. Was there any 
additional filtering or other adjustments made to get the gear 
functional at the old site that might be eliminated at the new site 
without sacrificing so much isolation/protection that you create new 
problems ?? And a dozen more questions I could ask :) What I'm looking 
for here is anything that would indicate that the current system could 
be made to perform better at the new site.

Given that any issues at the old site are primarily related to the 
problems of operating in a high-RF environment, and there is nothing 
particularly wrong with the current repeater electronics excepting mods 
made to deal with the high-RF, I personally would look at moving the 
gear as is and see how it performs at the new site, THEN decide if the 
gear needs to be replaced.

But you have a possible advantage in having a buyer for the old gear and 
the desire for new gear -- you can latch on to the new gear first, get 
it installed and tested at the new location, THEN take down the old 
site... minimal down time and no pressure to move the old gear to the 
new site fast and get it back on the air. The only question in my 
mind would be if the buyer wants the entire old system so you can do a 
total replacement without reusing parts from the old site.. if so, I'd 
be giving this option serious consideration.

So there is the trade-off -- downtime plus possible double work 
rebuilding the old repeater plus installing a new repeater if the old 
one does not perform well at the new site versus the up front expense of 
buying and installing a complete new system before taking the old one down.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> >I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just
> because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they
> should work fine at the quiet one.
>
>
> That's just it -- they don't work all that well at this mountaintop 
> site with literally hundreds of RF sources. Since we have an 
> opportunity to sell them, it seems like a good time for an upgrade. 
> But if K is no better in this situation than V, you're right, we're 
> going down the wrong path.
>
> This is a club that went from Micor vintage equipment that was showing 
> its age to Vertex and now has an opportunity to change once again. The 
> bias is toward new, low-maintenance gear rather than refurbished old 
> commercial gear.
>
> 73,
> Bob
>
> -Original Message-
> From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 9:50 pm
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood
>
> I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just
> because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they
> should work fine at the quiet one.
>
> Joe M.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF
> > site. A possible deal would move them to a much quieter site, and if
> > that happens we'll need replacements.
> >
> > Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for Kenwoods,
> > and it appears both brands are priced about the same. However, I'm
> > concerned that much of what has been posted falls into the true 
> believer
> > category, and this decision must be based on technical data. How about
> > it, RF gurus? If you have facts, please spill 'em.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > 73,
> > Bob, WA9FBO
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges?
> > Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
> > calculators
> > 
> .
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 
> 10/2/2008 7:46 AM
> 
> Find phone numbers fast with the New AOL Yellow Pages 
> !
>  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeater Antenna

[Randy]

--- One person says one thing...Like I've said before; I know nothing 
about Motorola products...
.
In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> $3,000 new?   Tessco list price is $1,046.00
> 
> Joe
> 
> Randy wrote:
> > I have a Repeater antenna. Radio Frequency Systems, 
> > #220-3AN Freq: 150.5-158. 
> > New is about $3000.00 ... I'll take 1/2 plus shipping
> > for anyone that wants it.
> > .
> > .
> > http://www.rfsworld.com/dataxpress/DataSheets/?q=220-3AN
> >
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR-400 Cable

[no6b]

At 10/2/2008 16:06, you wrote:

>Hi Tom,
>
>
>
>As others have said, try the dummy load at the antenna end of the cable 
>and see if there is any desense.
>
>
>
>Then try disconnecting the antenna input to the receiver from the duplexer 
>and place a dummy load on the receiver. Turn on the transmitter and see if 
>you still have desense. If you do then your receiver is probably picking 
>up RF from the antenna and causing the problem.

The problem could still be the feedline.  The RF won't loop around to the 
outside of the coax (where the problem is) unless the antenna is connected, 
or if the connector at the antenna end isn't properly attached to the coax, 
in which case there will be desense with the dummy load.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

[Joe Montierth]

Our club has 7 of the TK750 and two TK850 repeaters running on several 
different mountaintops, mostly medium RF intense. They have worked without any 
issues for a couple of years now. I don't know how they stack up against the 
vertex, but they seem well suited for what we are doing with them.

We replaced mostly Micor mobile conversions with these newer units, and have 
cut back on maint issues dramatically. Of course the Micors were around 30 
years old, too.

The Kenwoods are very nice, and easy to program and set up. They mount in a 
3.5" rack space, so thats good too. Output power is 35-40 watts, we set ours 
around 25-30 since they can grind for many hours continuously.

Joe

--- On Fri, 10/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 3, 2008, 8:13 AM











Hi Joe,



>I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just 

because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they 

should work fine at the quiet one.





That's just it -- they don't work all that well at this mountaintop site with 
literally hundreds of RF sources. Since we have an opportunity to sell them, it 
seems like a good time for an upgrade. But if K is no better in this situation 
than V, you're right, we're going down the wrong path.



This is a club that went from Micor vintage equipment that was showing its 
age to Vertex and now has an opportunity to change once again. The bias is 
toward new, low-maintenance gear rather than refurbished old commercial gear.



73,

Bob



-Original Message-

From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 9:50 pm

Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood













I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just 

because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they 

should work fine at the quiet one.



Joe M.



[EMAIL PROTECTED] com wrote:

> Hi All,

> 

> My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF 

> site. A possible deal would move them to a much quieter site, and if 

> that happens we'll need replacements.

> 

> Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for Kenwoods, 

> and it appears both brands are priced about the same. However, I'm 

> concerned that much of what has been posted falls into the true believer 

> category, and this decision must be based on technical data. How about 

> it, RF gurus? If you have facts, please spill 'em.

> 

> Thanks!

> 

> 73,

> Bob, WA9FBO

> 

> 

> 

>  - - - - - -

> Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? 

> Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 

> calculators 

>  http://www. walletpop. com/?NCID= emlcntuswall 0001>.

> 

> 

> 

>  - - - - - -

> 

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG. 

> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008 
> 7:46 AM



 






Find phone numbers fast with the New AOL Yellow Pages! 

  




 

















  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

[scomind]

Hi Joe,

>I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just 
because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they 
should work fine at the quiet one.


That's just it --?they don't work all that well at?this mountaintop site with 
literally hundreds of RF sources. Since we have an opportunity to sell them, it 
seems like a good time for an upgrade. But if K is no better in this situation 
than V, you're right, we're going down the wrong path.

This is a club that went from Micor vintage equipment that was showing its 
age?to Vertex and now?has an opportunity to change once again. The bias is 
toward new, low-maintenance gear rather than refurbished old commercial gear.

73,
Bob

-Original Message-
From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 9:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood






I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just 
because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they 
should work fine at the quiet one.

Joe M.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF 
> site. A possible deal would move them to a much quieter site, and if 
> that happens we'll need replacements.
> 
> Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for Kenwoods, 
> and it appears both brands are priced about the same. However, I'm 
> concerned that much of what has been posted falls into the true believer 
> category, and this decision must be based on technical data. How about 
> it, RF gurus? If you have facts, please spill 'em.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 73,
> Bob, WA9FBO
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? 
> Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
> calculators 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008 
> 7:46 AM


 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Portable Temporary Repeater

[Erik Finskas]

Truly a long thread about portable repeaters, so I thought that I should 
throw in my two cents;

I've built several of these out of ex-PMR MPT1327 trunking mobile radios;
http://gallery.lakki.iki.fi/R58_portable_UHF_repeater

The radio goes with a ham radio firmware which has advanced repeater 
functions, including timers, courtesy tones, CWID, etc. The hardware 
supports external DTMF and CTCSS decoders, CTCSS encoding is built-in.

The radio has built-in duplexers and they perform OK for a low power 
repeater for 5MHz split in range 441-443MHz TX and 446-448MHz RX with 
10W power to a matched antenna. It runs OK with couple of watts also 
with a 1/4 whip attached directly to the radio.

Here's one in action at Belton Hamfest 2004:
http://gallery.lakki.iki.fi/USA2004_Belton_hamfest/IMG_2341

You can get references about these from the Armadillo guys in Houston 
and Dallas, there are some of these in use there.

I can provide such repeaters, please contact me directly if interrested.

73
Erik OH2LAK

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Antenna

[Joe]

$3,000 new?   Tessco list price is $1,046.00

Joe

Randy wrote:
> I have a Repeater antenna. Radio Frequency Systems, 
> #220-3AN Freq: 150.5-158. 
> New is about $3000.00 ... I'll take 1/2 plus shipping
> for anyone that wants it.
> .
> .
> http://www.rfsworld.com/dataxpress/DataSheets/?q=220-3AN
>   

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

[Mike Mullarkey]

You may take a spectrum analyzer to the site and see what the noise floor is
at. Get the spec for the repeater what the isolation needs to be and measure
what your antenna is seeing. Look at adding more band pass cavities to the
transmit and receive. Look at adding an isolator on the transmitter. These
mite be the steps to take before you want to move. Now if there is a site
that is quiet and you can get without all the politics I would go for it
providing it covers where you need the coverage.

 

Mike K7PFJ

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Barrett
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:53 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood

 

my question exactly -- if the new site is quieter and you had the 
duplexer cranked back (insertion loss increased) to get better 
isolation, you may may even be able to open it up a little and get some 
additional receive sensitivity... other than that, why change what works 
unless there are significant issues with the old gear.

I'd be looking at it as a chance to go over the entire system and fix 
any minor problems like old/stressed coax, oxidized connections, etc.. 
make sure its going to work trouble free for another 3 years.

MCH wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just
> because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they
> should work fine at the quiet one.
>
> Joe M.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  com 
wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF
> > site. A possible deal would move them to a much quieter site, and if
> > that happens we'll need replacements.
> >
> > Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for Kenwoods,
> > and it appears both brands are priced about the same. However, I'm
> > concerned that much of what has been posted falls into the true 
> believer
> > category, and this decision must be based on technical data. How about
> > it, RF gurus? If you have facts, please spill 'em.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > 73,
> > Bob, WA9FBO
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges?
> > Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
> > calculators
> > 
> 
com/promoclk/10075x1209382257x1200540686/aol?redir=http://www.walletpop.
com/?NCID=emlcntuswall0001 
> 
com/promoclk/10075x1209382257x1200540686/aol?redir=http://www.walletpop.
com/?NCID=emlcntuswall0001>>.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 
> 10/2/2008 7:46 AM
>
>