[Repeater-Builder] Re: Yet Another split antenna Question
Joe, I would use a 6-8" pass can on both the transmitter and receiver. That will give you plenty of isolation. On a large site, I would recommend using a circulator or isolator on the transmitter, just to be a good neighbor, and the VHF Mastr II PA's really like them also. Add a Angle Linear preamp and that thing will be a pretty wild repeater. I would also use 1/4" or 3/8" superflex in the cabinet to cable everything with, even the preamp. Good Luck. Joe - WA7JAW --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "kb5vjy" wrote: > > Folks, > > I have read just about every split antenna post that I can find.. I > hate to be a "yet another" poster but here is my situation. I just > want to know if it is do able. And what problems I might run into. > > After months of waiting, I have been issued a repeater pair of > 147.255 for a long range 2m repeater that will be installed. This is > my first 2m repeater, but I do have 3 70cm repeaters (all Mastr > II's).. > > My situation is the following: > > I have a Mastr II Station 100w Cont. Duty PA for the project... I > still have to order the xtals. I will run a PL as needed on 127.3. > The controller will be a CAT (version unsure of) > > I have a 2000' broadcast tower with a platform at 1300' and another > at 1000'. There is a DB 224 mounted under the 1300' and one under > the 1000' platform with a section of 7/8 feedline running from the > top platform and the bottom platform. There is a full rack size NEMA > 12 enclosure on the 1300' platform. After Feb '09 there will be NO > VHF transmitting equipment on this tower at all. The closest > transmitter is 6 miles away. > > What I would like to do, is mount the radio in the enclosure at the > top platform. Use the top DB 224 for the Receive antenna, and the > 1000' DB 224 for the Transmit antenna. What are the problems that I > will run into with this situation, and should I look for some type of > filter for the receiver. I do plan on putting an APRS Digi at 1300' > as well moving one of my 70cm repeaters to the same platform some > time early next year. > > Any comments would be helpful. Thanks.. > > 73 de Joe KB5VJY Sorry.. RTTY dayz! >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR600 in Duplex radio?
At 12/17/2008 12:51, you wrote: >At 08:31 AM 12/17/08, you wrote: > > >Mike WA6ILQ > Mike: Please answer my e-mail from a few weeks ago. You've posted at least 3 times to this list since then but are either ignoring or not receiving my direct e-mails. If you haven't received any of them, please let me know via the list or call me at work. Thanks. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Yet Another split antenna Question
Folks, I have read just about every split antenna post that I can find.. I hate to be a "yet another" poster but here is my situation. I just want to know if it is do able. And what problems I might run into. After months of waiting, I have been issued a repeater pair of 147.255 for a long range 2m repeater that will be installed. This is my first 2m repeater, but I do have 3 70cm repeaters (all Mastr II's).. My situation is the following: I have a Mastr II Station 100w Cont. Duty PA for the project... I still have to order the xtals. I will run a PL as needed on 127.3. The controller will be a CAT (version unsure of) I have a 2000' broadcast tower with a platform at 1300' and another at 1000'. There is a DB 224 mounted under the 1300' and one under the 1000' platform with a section of 7/8 feedline running from the top platform and the bottom platform. There is a full rack size NEMA 12 enclosure on the 1300' platform. After Feb '09 there will be NO VHF transmitting equipment on this tower at all. The closest transmitter is 6 miles away. What I would like to do, is mount the radio in the enclosure at the top platform. Use the top DB 224 for the Receive antenna, and the 1000' DB 224 for the Transmit antenna. What are the problems that I will run into with this situation, and should I look for some type of filter for the receiver. I do plan on putting an APRS Digi at 1300' as well moving one of my 70cm repeaters to the same platform some time early next year. Any comments would be helpful. Thanks.. 73 de Joe KB5VJY Sorry.. RTTY dayz!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Holiday Special - MICOR 2 meter receiver conversion from W3KKC
Hello Kevin You are correct on your freqs for xmit and rcv. The Mitrek units I have will only tune receive to 146.00Mhz. This leaves more than one meg to go to meet tolerance on 144.890. I have tried 4 or 5 units and find similar operation of all. This is the reason for my question about the Micor coils working for Mitrek. Thanks. 73 de Tom Manning, AF4UG - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Holiday Special - MICOR 2 meter receiver conversion from W3KKC Tom, Do you mean 144.89 MHz? I would think your repeater would *transmit* on 145.490 MHz At any rate, no conversion is necessary for the Mitrek to make book specification sensitivity on 144.890 MHz. Kevin Good afternoon Kevin My need is to convert two or more Mitrek receivers to cover 145.49Mhzz, which is our receive freq for our repeater. Thanks. 73 de Tom Manning, AF4UG - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Holiday Special - MICOR 2 meter receiver conversion from W3KKC Tom Manning wrote: Good morning Kevin I have a question. Will these coils also work in a Mitrek? Thanks. 73 de Tom Manning, AF4UG Hi Tom, To answer your question, the conversion will not work in the Mitrek. Unlike the MICOR, the Mitrek high-band unit that is most common has a lower tunning limit of 146.00 MHz as specified from the factory. This means that the units normally tune anywhere in the 2M ham band without modification. What frequency do you need to listen on? Kevin -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1537 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RC96 manual
Thanks Kevin Custer wrote: > Joe wrote: > >> I tried to download a copy of the RC96 manual at: >> >> http://www.repeater-builder.com/acc/pdfs/ACC-RC-96-Manual-All.pdf >> >> and it says the file is damaged. Are there any other copies available? >> > > > Yes... > > http://www.repeater-builder.com/acc/acc-rc-96-manual.zip > > Kevin > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RC96 manual
Joe wrote: > I tried to download a copy of the RC96 manual at: > > http://www.repeater-builder.com/acc/pdfs/ACC-RC-96-Manual-All.pdf > > and it says the file is damaged. Are there any other copies available? Yes... http://www.repeater-builder.com/acc/acc-rc-96-manual.zip Kevin
[Repeater-Builder] Re: RC 1000 controller code table
Well its not that old then and a lot of the codes are current with 4.7 rev, but there are a few that do other things, not expected so just trying to get the real data. Randy --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, neal Newman wrote: > > The Old codes were 3 digits like 100 ,101,102,103 > the newer versions had 4 digits 4100,4101,4102 Ect.. > try that > > --- On Wed, 12/17/08, wb8art wrote: > > > From: wb8art > > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] RC 1000 controller code table > > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 4:36 PM > > Anyone have a copy of an older version of the code & > > user tables? I > > have chip version rev 4.34, and the RB sites text is rev > > 4.7.. There > > are some differences apparently and it would be nice to get > > the > > correct tables. > > > > Randy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
[Repeater-Builder] RC96 manual
I tried to download a copy of the RC96 manual at: http://www.repeater-builder.com/acc/pdfs/ACC-RC-96-Manual-All.pdf and it says the file is damaged. Are there any other copies available? 73, Joe, K1ike
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RC 1000 controller code table
The Old codes were 3 digits like 100 ,101,102,103 the newer versions had 4 digits 4100,4101,4102 Ect.. try that --- On Wed, 12/17/08, wb8art wrote: > From: wb8art > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] RC 1000 controller code table > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 4:36 PM > Anyone have a copy of an older version of the code & > user tables? I > have chip version rev 4.34, and the RB sites text is rev > 4.7.. There > are some differences apparently and it would be nice to get > the > correct tables. > > Randy > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it?
Benjamin L. Naber wrote: > For those of you who are really doing all they can, this message is not > for you. It's for those that say they are so busy. So busy with what? > Really, ask yourself, what makes you sooo busy that you cannot get on > the air at home or in the car? Even for five damn minutes? Benjamin -- I think a lot of us do as you do, and get on the air at each opportunity. But if I get on the air on every FM repeater I like to talk to people on (who are scattered across many), link up IRLP to popular places and say hello to other friends, get on the D-STAR system and do the same, fire up 2m SSB and see who's around in THAT group (they rarely get on repeaters, that gang), and also play a little on HF... That's hours a day. Realistically, I get on ONE of those things about once a day... call it five to six times a week. And look for a good conversation or friends to talk to. That means one person can only cover a very small amount of the time a repeater has available to it, each day... so to speak. Every repeater has 86400 seconds a day available to it to provide communications. I can maybe eat up a MAXIMUM on a really long QSO of two hours of KEY DOWN on my part... 7200 of those. It would take 12 people to keep the repeater on-air 24/7 at that rate, every single day. And if I were keying down for that long, I'd be considered a "repeater hog", I'm sure... but that's because the users all show up at generally the same times each day. See below for more on that. If we take out the overnight hours, you need 6 hams actively transmitting that much (which is too much) to have 12 hours of activity. You also need someone around to receive them and reply... and they could be the same people, but that's unlikely. So you probably need about 12 ACTIVE people on every repeater to make it a "busy" system. 12 hams, who talk a lot, every single day. I think the reality is... once you point out that most areas have at least 20 repeaters of some sort, with some kind of coverage in metro areas -- there's so many repeaters, we'll never adequately use the spectrum. Scanning helps. I pop over to other people's repeaters all the time. Luckily there's little in the way of "taboo" in doing this around here. If it's 2AM and I'm driving home and I hear ANY repeater pair (yes, I have ALL of them programmed into one rig) active, I'll either at least listen to the QSO or join in. How many people are bold enough to do that on unknown repeaters? I see it the same as "tuning around on HF"... if you're on-air, I'll talk to you that late at night.) Net's and set "activity times" are almost the only way to find the people interested in what you're interested in. And a lot of people turn off their rigs or go to other repeaters if the topic isn't something THEY are interested in. Interesting math for the number of seconds a repeater has "to give" every day, isn't it, when you break it down to real operators? It's amazing we ever find groups to associate with and stick with them on specific repeaters other than the fact that the real activity tends to "bunch up" around drive time. Most repeaters sit stone silent during the overnight hours, of course. So where is Repeater-Builder going to build an "always on" on-air presence? Does anyone even want to? Will we go crazy with end-user questions about repeaters? (Might be fun, might not...) Anyone willing to "park" somewhere? Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it?
Paul Plack wrote: > This is an interesting debate. Anyone who builds a repeater finds > satisfaction when it attracts a community of users - "A warm heatsink is > a happy heatsink." But many users seem to favor repeaters with little > traffic, allowing unobtrusive monitoring for their friends. One way to accomodate both is fancy CTCSS schemes, or in the case of D-STAR, the coded squelch features. If you want to hear, you do... if you don't you don't, but you leave the rig on for calls -- which seems to be the important distinction in today's day and age where we have so many "noisemakers" that a lot of people only turn on the rig to make that one call, and then turn it back off. > Low usage is a time bomb in an age of growing demand for bandwidth. IRLP > could be one answer, but the reflectors seem to attract lots of chatter > which isn't very interesting to hear. I've turned the rig off many times > when I heard hams swapping S-meter reports. Hahahah... yes, dumb conversations and GOOD conversations both go with the territory of busy linked systems. Can't avoid it. We recently had some "controversy" here about that, and asked the groups wanting "quiet" and "noise" to split up... different repeaters for the different personality types. Me personally, I'll listen to anything -- if I *really* don't want to listen I know where the OFF button is. But my wife can attest (and maybe this is due to my multi-tasking ways with radios in airplane cockpits for a long time), I can have the commercial broadcast radio on, a ham repeater, a phone call going, and still able to be "interrupt driven" if something more important signals for my attention. (My wife on the other hand, can not... and no matter how hard you shake her, jump up and down, scream or otherwise... if she's on the phone, you can't stop her and update her with updated information for the person who she's talking to. She simply can't do it. You'll end up telling her, "I TRIED TO GET YOUR ATTENTION" and she'll have to call the person back. She wouldn't make a very good 911 dispatcher! GRIN...) > IRLP could be really neat for special interest nets. I've often thought > it would be great to have something equivalent to the old ECARS 40m net > for mobiles. I'd welcome the company when driving long distances at night. Yes, all the linked systems are great for that type of thing but rarely is it done. There are Nets about talking, but few nets about specific technical topics or ham activities on the Reflectors. I always thought the Houston AMSAT Net would be an excellent one to find on both IRLP and EchoLink... if you had enough volunteers around to knock the nodes offline who can't get their keying/ID's right. > I suppose APRS will have to become more fully developed before we'll be > able to easily find nets while transient. APRS is the "continuous net", it's always there on 144.39 in most metropolitan areas -- what do you mean? It's not really designed for a round-table, really. > Perhaps this will be the real "killer app" for D*. A mobile net that > utilizes automated frequency-hopping to work like satellite broadcast > radio on long drives would be awesome. Frequency hopping is easy to do manually, but it doesn't require D-STAR for that... just enough repeaters on the same network/reflector/conference along your route, or capable of being linked as you go. We have truck drivers here in Colorado that link the various IRLP machines together or to a Reflector as they drive around the state late at night... it works fine. That's not a "Net" per se, but there's no reason they couldn't expand it to the "Late Night Truck Drivers Conference", easily... if they wanted to. I've often wondered how to move THIS conversation -- REPEATER Builders/Geeks... to a known meeting place on-air. Wouldn't this discussion be more interesting in person with voices? :-) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it?
I think it's time to kiss our little useless things we do on that side and say hello to radio again. After all, what are you *really* accomplishing? For those of you who are really doing all they can, this message is not for you. It's for those that say they are so busy. So busy with what? Really, ask yourself, what makes you sooo busy that you cannot get on the air at home or in the car? Even for five damn minutes? On this military installation, no antennas on the house allowed and handheld in the hole I live in don't make for good TX/RX range. But you bet that every time I get in the car, even at 5:45AM, I put out my callsign. Everytime. If you have an extenuating; roger, got it. But for the rest of you? Get on the air you just give your stuff to someone who will. No reply needed, just roll your sleeves up, get on the air, and do something to get others to follow suit. ~Benjamin, KB9LFZ On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 16:46 -0700, Paul Plack wrote: > This is an interesting debate. Anyone who builds a repeater finds > satisfaction when it attracts a community of users - "A warm heatsink > is a happy heatsink." But many users seem to favor repeaters with > little traffic, allowing unobtrusive monitoring for their friends. > > Low usage is a time bomb in an age of growing demand for bandwidth. > IRLP could be one answer, but the reflectors seem to attract lots of > chatter which isn't very interesting to hear. I've turned the rig off > many times when I heard hams swapping S-meter reports. > > IRLP could be really neat for special interest nets. I've often > thought it would be great to have something equivalent to the old > ECARS 40m net for mobiles. I'd welcome the company when driving long > distances at night. > > I suppose APRS will have to become more fully developed before we'll > be able to easily find nets while transient. > > Perhaps this will be the real "killer app" for D*. A mobile net that > utilizes automated frequency-hopping to work like satellite broadcast > radio on long drives would be awesome. > > 73, > Paul, AE4KR > > > - Original Message - > From: John J. Riddell > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:32 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - > what are you going to do about it? > > > Benjamin, > The sparse activity seems to be everywhere.One suggestion > is to > add IRLP to your repeater. When there is no local activity > there always > seems to be someone listening on the various reflectors all > over the world > and you can chat with them. > > Some time back, I was driving to pick up my wife from work at > 7 PM > here in Ontario, and I came across a fellow Ham in Japan who > was also > driving > but it was 7 AM in the morning there. > > IRLP activity would certainly be of interest to anyone > listening to our > Ham repeaters on a scanner and it may just be the "spark" to > get them > interested > in becoming a Ham. > > The inventor of IRLP is a Canadian Ham and is a member of this > list, VE7LTD > > 73 John VE3AMZ (A Ham for 50 years) > Waterloo, Ontario > > - Original Message - > From: "Benjamin L. Naber" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:47 PM > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - > what are you > going to do about it? > > > So after reading a few messages, I began to think, what is > each person > > who gets these messages now going to do about it? > > > > I guess you have a few options. > > > > Sit on your butt in front of the idiot box like 90% of all > Americans and > > not do anything but complain. > > -Or- > > Do something about like going attending club meetings and > begin public > > service events. The ARRL has a lot of getting involved with > amateur > > radio. I read it about five years ago and to this day I > still do what I > > can which my military time consuming job allows - I still go > on the air, > > even if it's on the rid home.. > > > > Read my article in June/July 2004 QST. > > > > Unless you have a positive thing you are going do, then > never mind this > > post and do not reply. > > > > ~Benjamin, KB9LFZ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it?
This is an interesting debate. Anyone who builds a repeater finds satisfaction when it attracts a community of users - "A warm heatsink is a happy heatsink." But many users seem to favor repeaters with little traffic, allowing unobtrusive monitoring for their friends. Low usage is a time bomb in an age of growing demand for bandwidth. IRLP could be one answer, but the reflectors seem to attract lots of chatter which isn't very interesting to hear. I've turned the rig off many times when I heard hams swapping S-meter reports. IRLP could be really neat for special interest nets. I've often thought it would be great to have something equivalent to the old ECARS 40m net for mobiles. I'd welcome the company when driving long distances at night. I suppose APRS will have to become more fully developed before we'll be able to easily find nets while transient. Perhaps this will be the real "killer app" for D*. A mobile net that utilizes automated frequency-hopping to work like satellite broadcast radio on long drives would be awesome. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: John J. Riddell To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it? Benjamin, The sparse activity seems to be everywhere.One suggestion is to add IRLP to your repeater. When there is no local activity there always seems to be someone listening on the various reflectors all over the world and you can chat with them. Some time back, I was driving to pick up my wife from work at 7 PM here in Ontario, and I came across a fellow Ham in Japan who was also driving but it was 7 AM in the morning there. IRLP activity would certainly be of interest to anyone listening to our Ham repeaters on a scanner and it may just be the "spark" to get them interested in becoming a Ham. The inventor of IRLP is a Canadian Ham and is a member of this list, VE7LTD 73 John VE3AMZ (A Ham for 50 years) Waterloo, Ontario - Original Message - From: "Benjamin L. Naber" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:47 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it? > So after reading a few messages, I began to think, what is each person > who gets these messages now going to do about it? > > I guess you have a few options. > > Sit on your butt in front of the idiot box like 90% of all Americans and > not do anything but complain. > -Or- > Do something about like going attending club meetings and begin public > service events. The ARRL has a lot of getting involved with amateur > radio. I read it about five years ago and to this day I still do what I > can which my military time consuming job allows - I still go on the air, > even if it's on the rid home.. > > Read my article in June/July 2004 QST. > > Unless you have a positive thing you are going do, then never mind this > post and do not reply. > > ~Benjamin, KB9LFZ > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it?
Benjamin, The sparse activity seems to be everywhere.One suggestion is to add IRLP to your repeater. When there is no local activity there always seems to be someone listening on the various reflectors all over the world and you can chat with them. Some time back, I was driving to pick up my wife from work at 7 PM here in Ontario, and I came across a fellow Ham in Japan who was also driving but it was 7 AM in the morning there. IRLP activity would certainly be of interest to anyone listening to our Ham repeaters on a scanner and it may just be the "spark" to get them interested in becoming a Ham. The inventor of IRLP is a Canadian Ham and is a member of this list, VE7LTD 73 John VE3AMZ (A Ham for 50 years) Waterloo, Ontario - Original Message - From: "Benjamin L. Naber" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:47 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it? > So after reading a few messages, I began to think, what is each person > who gets these messages now going to do about it? > > I guess you have a few options. > > Sit on your butt in front of the idiot box like 90% of all Americans and > not do anything but complain. > -Or- > Do something about like going attending club meetings and begin public > service events. The ARRL has a lot of getting involved with amateur > radio. I read it about five years ago and to this day I still do what I > can which my military time consuming job allows - I still go on the air, > even if it's on the rid home.. > > Read my article in June/July 2004 QST. > > Unless you have a positive thing you are going do, then never mind this > post and do not reply. > > ~Benjamin, KB9LFZ > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
[Repeater-Builder] Amateur Radio Repeater Usage - what are you going to do about it?
So after reading a few messages, I began to think, what is each person who gets these messages now going to do about it? I guess you have a few options. Sit on your butt in front of the idiot box like 90% of all Americans and not do anything but complain. -Or- Do something about like going attending club meetings and begin public service events. The ARRL has a lot of getting involved with amateur radio. I read it about five years ago and to this day I still do what I can which my military time consuming job allows - I still go on the air, even if it's on the rid home.. Read my article in June/July 2004 QST. Unless you have a positive thing you are going do, then never mind this post and do not reply. ~Benjamin, KB9LFZ
[Repeater-Builder] RC 1000 controller code table
Anyone have a copy of an older version of the code & user tables? I have chip version rev 4.34, and the RB sites text is rev 4.7.. There are some differences apparently and it would be nice to get the correct tables. Randy
Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR600 in Duplex radio?
At 08:31 AM 12/17/08, you wrote: >I know several people have complaints against LMR400 in duplex radio -- >do members of the group feel the same way about LMR600? It's how it's built internally - dissimilar metals. See the second and third article on the Antenna Systems page at www.repeater-builder. >Recommended Coax and Connectors for the iDEN Enhanced Base Transceiver >System Motorola Engineering wrote this three page discussion of >cable types, connector types, with regard to combining, >intermodulation, and other RF performace factors. They concluded that >LMR-nnn and LMR- series cable is specifically NOT recommended in >radio site RF environments, especially duplex environments. While iDEN >is a 900 MHz system the physics is the same at 28 MHz through 1296 >MHz. Worth reading. > HELIAX Coaxial Cable for Low Intermodulation Generation Andrew >Engineering wrote this one page writeup on why foil-braid cable causes >intermod. Yes, you'd expect that conclusion from the makers of Heliax, >but there's a lot more to it than that. Worth reading. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR600 in Duplex radio?
The objection relates to the type of construction - braid over foil. It doesn't matter what the model number is or who makes the cable. That said, some people have managed to have acceptable results using foil/braid cable. Personally, I'd avoid it. I've seen far too many problems when people utilize it in duplex applications, for whatever reason. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: "Kris Kirby" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:31 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] LMR600 in Duplex radio? > > I know several people have complaints against LMR400 in duplex radio -- > do members of the group feel the same way about LMR600? > > -- > Kris Kirby, KE4AHR > But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. > --rly >
[Repeater-Builder] LMR600 in Duplex radio?
I know several people have complaints against LMR400 in duplex radio -- do members of the group feel the same way about LMR600? -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly
