Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition
At 16:34 3/24/2009, Jeff Condit wrote: What do you call it when messages are recorded and then retransmission begins right after reception ends? By this definition it would not constitute a simplex repeater, right? That is exactly m y understanding of what simplex repeater means Jeff Condit -- Dave Gomberg, San Francisco NE5EE gomberg1 at wcf dot com All addresses, phones, etc. at http://www.wcf.com/ham/info.html -
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Moderated
At 06:53 PM 03/24/09, Bob Ricci - AF6D b...@af6d.com wrote: Can you tell me if I am on moderation for some reason, or is Yahoo slow today? All new group members are on moderation by default. This is automatic, and is why you see so very little spam on this list - the newbies post their stuff, it's held in limbo until a moderator can review it, and if it's crap it gets deleted, if it's a valid posting it gets approved and distributed. The delay on the appearance of a newbie's post depends on when a moderator can get to it (and currently there are 9 moderators for just under 4400 members). Bob, to answer your specific question you joined on Jan 11, 2009, and were off moderation on January 13. And the Yahoo servers can be weird I've seen messages that I posted come back in a minute and a half, or take 11 hours. 90% of the time it's under 10 minutes. Mike WA6ILQ
[Repeater-Builder] Anyone seen or heard from Justin Ogden N3OG lately?
Back in early March his web site mysteriously disappeared. I sent e-mail but never got a reply. Has anyone seen or heard from him lately? I fear the worst. Bob M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC
HI MIKE. I TRIED THE INFO ON REPEATER BUILDER. THE HEX ADDRESS DOES NOT MACH UP. ..73 BOB --- On Tue, 3/24/09, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 3:51 PM At 04:45 AM 03/24/09, you wrote: HELLO GROUP! ANY BODY OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP ME WITH PROGRAMMING A MARATRAC TO SIX METERS? THANKS BOB See http://www.repeater -builder. com/motorola/ maratrac/ maratrac. html especially the section on the 6m conversion. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Moderated
Yahoo has been slow over the last week or two. Sometimes I've seen my posts replied to before my original post showed up on my computer. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Bob To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:53 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Moderated Can you tell me if I am on moderation for some reason, or is Yahoo slow today?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition
If it transmits and receives on the SAME frequency (SIMPLEX). David On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Jeff Condit wrote: What do you call it when messages are recorded and then retransmission begins right after reception ends? By this definition it would not constitute a simplex repeater, right? Jeff Condit - Original Message - From: Tom Azlin, N4ZPT mailto:n4...@cox.net mailto:n4...@cox.net To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:02AM mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw:[DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Hi Kris, A D-STAR repeater never decodes the voice, it just bitregenerates the signal back to the data stream. Yet it is a repeater forsure per the FCC. I would say a linear transponder or translator is arepeater also. the transmit part is active while the receive part ispicking up the signal. 73, Tom n4zpt Kris Kirby wrote: The only interesting wrinkle in this is that a linear transponder doesn't retransmit . The signal is never decoded to baseband and retransmitted. Or is it? With I+Q demodulation andremodulation, this could be a point of argument. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hblhg3p/M=493064.12016306.12445698.8674578/D=groups/S=1705063108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1237951773/L=/B=jmmBxUPDhEE-/J=1237944573002579/K=n5D6xeNkvRMPlukywGfMiA/A=5579904/R=0/SIG=110vban8o/*http://www.handsonnetwork.org/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition
Simplex and store and forward Best Regards, Chris Carruba (WQIK389) CompuTec Data Systems Custom Written Software, Networking, Forensic Data Recovery From: dmur...@verizon.net dmur...@verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:28:44 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition If it transmits and receives on the SAME frequency (SIMPLEX). David On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Jeff Condit wrote: What do you call it when messages are recorded and then retransmission begins right after reception ends? By this definition it would not constitute a simplex repeater, right? Jeff Condit - Original Message - From: Tom Azlin, N4ZPT To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:02AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw:[DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition Hi Kris, A D-STAR repeater never decodes the voice, it just bitregenerates the signal back to the data stream. Yet it is a repeater forsure per the FCC. I would say a linear transponder or translator is arepeater also. the transmit part is active while the receive part ispicking up the signal. 73, Tom n4zpt Kris Kirby wrote: The only interesting wrinkle in this is that a linear transponder doesn't retransmit . The signal is never decoded to baseband and retransmitted. Or is it? With I+Q demodulation andremodulation, this could be a point of argument. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition
It is a simplex operation but in the commercial world it is called store and forward. Bill - WA0CBW In a message dated 3/25/2009 7:28:55 A.M. Central Daylight Time, dmur...@verizon.net writes: If it transmits and receives on the SAME frequency (SIMPLEX). David On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Jeff Condit wrote: What do you call it when messages are recorded and then retransmission begins right after reception ends? By this definition it would not constitute a simplex repeater, right? Jeff Condit - Original Message - From: _Tom Azlin, N4ZP T_ (mailto:n4...@cox.net) (mailto:n4...@cox.net) To: _Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com_ (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:02AM (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) Hi Kris, A D-STAR repeater never decodes the voice, it just bitregenerates the signal back to the data stream. Yet it is a repeater forsure per the FCC. I would say a linear transponde r or translator is arepeater also. the transmit part is active while the receive part ispicking up the signal. 73, Tom n4zpt Kris Kirby wrote: The only interesting wrinkle in this is that a linear transponder doesn't retransmit . The signal is never decoded to baseband and retransmitted. Or is it? With I+Q demodulation and remodulation, this could be a point of argument. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hblhg3p/M=493064.12016306.12445698.8674578/D=groups/S=1705063108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1237951773/L=/B=jmmBxUPDhEE-/J=1237944573002 579/K=n5D6xeNkvRMPlukywGfMiA/A=5579904/R=0/SIG=110vban8o/*http://www.handsonne twork.org/) **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0002)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition
lol! Yeah-it seemed pretty clear to me, but...common sense isn't as common as you would think! Nate Duehr wrote: Wouldn't it be better if the Amateur community could get it right... without them having to define it? :-) If it walks like a duck... Nate WY0X -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:42 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition It's always good to see a Federal agency get it right!!! Jim WD8CHL
[Repeater-Builder] Telewave TPRD-1554 duplexer for sale.
Hi group... I got a Telewave TPRD-1554 VHF duplexer for sale. If interested, call me at 251-234-0295. Price is reasonable... THanks de N5NPO Norman Knapp 73
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Asntenna Painting
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: As to painting, the two major things to remember are: 1) color pigments are usually metallic. Avoid them. 2) the coating is fiberglass, and you get one chance, so don't screw up. If necessary, buy a quart of cheap fiberglass and coat a piece of 2 PVC pipe just for the practice and self-training. Along those lines, I recently had an issue of coverage reduction from one of our paging sites on a TV station tower. It swept fine with an FDR, but I could see reduced signal strengths on the SpecAn. I had a tower crew go up and replace it, and when it came down, it was tower orange on one side! (The antenna was a 900MHz DB-589 fiberglass 9dB gain.) The station had a crew paint the tower over the summer, and managed to get paint on our antenna. Replaced the antenna with a DB-809, and all is well again. Anybody got any ideas for removing tower paint from a fiberglass stick without killing the fiberglass?? ;c} Jim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Bob Ricci wrote: I'm going to combine several issues into one email. With the help of this group and individuals like Bob - NO6B, I finally have our first repeater online. It sounds great but of course needs work. We currently have an interference issue from a repeaters whose output is 15 Khz away from our input and pound in at over 100 over S9 and more. My meter cannot read that high. Software reports that their signal is 1146uV (that's as high as it can read.) Coverage prediction software indicates that the RX level over the path should only be 224.5uV if they are transmitting 50 watts into a 6dB gain atenna. Considering that we are over 100 miles away from the other repeater its clear we have a problem that involves working with the other repeater. But alas, this is southern California and not so black and white. Any suggestions are greatly appreciate while I work with the frequency coordinators. I know that an Angle Linear does a good job filtering inband signals, but can it get close enough to effectively notch even some of the interference? 15 Khz is pretty darn close. WTB: I am looking for a GM300 for 6 meters or equivelent. Bob - AF6D The first question I can think of-is the interference you get continuous while the other repeater is transmitting, or do you just hear 'blips' of modulation peaks? If you only hear peaks, either your receiver could use a better IF/detector section, or they are hitting the deviation too hard (much more likely in my opinion.) If it's continuous, again, you might have a receiver issue, or they might be a little dirty. If you have something like a Micor or MastrII rx, and it's working right, then you're about as good as it gets.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition
Jeff Condit wrote: What do you call it when messages are recorded and then retransmission begins right after reception ends? By this definition it would not constitute a simplex repeater, right? Jeff Condit I don't remember ever seeing 'simplex repeater' defined. I would expect that for the most part it would fall in the same category as a packet 'digipeater.' Like others said, 'store and forward' is used in FCC parlance.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC
If the locations don't match, search for the original data values. They'll probably be very close to the locations in the article, or offset by some fixed amount that will be consistent for the other addresses too. Unless of course someone already hex-edited the version you have, in which case the values won't be the same no matter what you do. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:52 AM HI MIKE. I TRIED THE INFO ON REPEATER BUILDER. THE HEX ADDRESS DOES NOT MACH UP. ..73 BOB --- On Tue, 3/24/09, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 3:51 PM At 04:45 AM 03/24/09, you wrote: HELLO GROUP! ANY BODY OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP ME WITH PROGRAMMING A MARATRAC TO SIX METERS? THANKS BOB See http://www.repeater -builder. com/motorola/ maratrac/ maratrac. html especially the section on the 6m conversion. Mike WA6ILQ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps
I can measure one, but it should be about 18 feet (plus or minus, depending on which bandsplit it is). -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k5in Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps Jeff, Well, for that matter anybody that wants to answer. How long is the mast supposed to be on a DB413? I have one with a mast that is 12ft in length. Does it really matter when it is 140ft in the air, 40 inches off the side of a tower? Brian, k5in - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo mailto:j...@broadsci.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:49 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I'd be interested in seeing what you have. Back in the old days of Decibel, they would send you good info if you were able to get to the right person. I haven't had that kind of success since Andrew bought them out. Just this week I came across a non-catalog Decibel antenna on a tower (the one where this DB413 is going). It was a Decibel DB478E-JJ fiberglass omni. I can't find it any of my catalogs, nor on the web. I'm fairly certain it's a 220 MHz antenna based on the -JJ suffix. I also have a DB420 that has a factory label on it that says 450-482 MHz. There's a lot of custom stuff out there from the old Decibel, too bad Andrew has drastically cut back on the special-order products... --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Tom, N6MVT Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 5:10 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps On a somewhat related notes...I had to do some research on the rare (and not currently made) down tilt models from db products. I have some paperwork with measurements and notes on them from their archives. Not complete or easy to read (originally faxed) but it helps to determine if you might have a 4 or 9 degree downtilt harness and other related parts measurements. If someone is in need of them I can either e-mail or perhaps post on this site. Also, I have seen some of the dipoles get modified with short stainless machine screws+nuts drilled through the top bottom of the dipole elements, to help get the Return Loss even better at lower freqs. Not sure what, if any, skewed pattern is introduced by doing the machine screw mod or not. Quite often it's hard to tell any changes in the field unless it is very drastic. Tom No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/21/09 17:58:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel dipole array sweeps
Hi Jeff, that's interesting data. I was more curious whether or not you had any antennas easy to add to the tests, or any locals nearby with different types of Sinclairs around/available to add to the data while you have the test range setup, so to speak. Not important enough to go hunting too hard for them though. The data you shared on the DB antennas is very useful to a lot of folks, I'm sure! Off the top of my head, I have the following in storage that I can eventually get around to sweeping. Let me know which you're interested in seeing. Celwave PD1151 440-450 new Celwave PD455 440-450 new Celwave PD1151 450-460 used Decibel DB420 450-470 new? and used Decibel DB420 406-420 used Decibel DB408 450-470 all used I think Decibel DB420 440-450 new Sinclair 5 dB fiberglass, marked 454.something, used I don't think I have any Sinclair dipole arrays on the ground except for VHF. Lots of yagis, corner reflectors, and other directionals from Sinclair, Celwave, Decibel, Antenex, Maxrad, Larsen, et al. The yagis with adjustable feeds (gammas) probably aren't worth sweeping obviously. I think that covers most of them for UHF anyway. While we're on a related subject, has anyone tried any of the TX-RX (RFI) dipole arrays? I keep meaning to use one on the next project but haven't gotten around to it yet. --- Jeff WN3A
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps
Hi Jeff, I am told it was swept and the VSWR was 1.1 at 445.000. Brian, k5in - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:41 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I can measure one, but it should be about 18 feet (plus or minus, depending on which bandsplit it is). -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k5in Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps Jeff, Well, for that matter anybody that wants to answer. How long is the mast supposed to be on a DB413? I have one with a mast that is 12ft in length. Does it really matter when it is 140ft in the air, 40 inches off the side of a tower? Brian, k5in - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo mailto:j...@broadsci.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:49 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I'd be interested in seeing what you have. Back in the old days of Decibel, they would send you good info if you were able to get to the right person. I haven't had that kind of success since Andrew bought them out. Just this week I came across a non-catalog Decibel antenna on a tower (the one where this DB413 is going). It was a Decibel DB478E-JJ fiberglass omni. I can't find it any of my catalogs, nor on the web. I'm fairly certain it's a 220 MHz antenna based on the -JJ suffix. I also have a DB420 that has a factory label on it that says 450-482 MHz. There's a lot of custom stuff out there from the old Decibel, too bad Andrew has drastically cut back on the special-order products... --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Tom, N6MVT Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 5:10 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps On a somewhat related notes...I had to do some research on the rare (and not currently made) down tilt models from db products. I have some paperwork with measurements and notes on them from their archives. Not complete or easy to read (originally faxed) but it helps to determine if you might have a 4 or 9 degree downtilt harness and other related parts measurements. If someone is in need of them I can either e-mail or perhaps post on this site. Also, I have seen some of the dipoles get modified with short stainless machine screws+nuts drilled through the top bottom of the dipole elements, to help get the Return Loss even better at lower freqs. Not sure what, if any, skewed pattern is introduced by doing the machine screw mod or not. Quite often it's hard to tell any changes in the field unless it is very drastic. Tom No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/21/09 17:58:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition
Just because you call something a repeater doesn't mean it is. A simplex repeater is not a repeater due to two things: 1. It does not simultaneously retransmit, and 2. It transmits on the same frequency. Point #1 was just clarified by the FCC Monday, but point #2 has never been misinterpreted in the FCC definition, AFAIK. Joe M. Dave Gomberg wrote: At 16:34 3/24/2009, Jeff Condit wrote: What do you call it when messages are recorded and then retransmission begins right after reception ends? By this definition it would not constitute a simplex repeater, right? That is exactly m y understanding of what simplex repeater means Jeff Condit
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel DB-4076
If it was originally a 450-470 MHz model, it will work fine at 444/449 without any modifications. If it was for one of the other bandsplits, then you'll need to re-do the harness if you want it to meet spec. --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Randy Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 3:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel DB-4076 Hello Group will the Decibel DB-4076 Tune into the 444xxx 449xxx Amateur band We looking for a Low power 25 watts or so poratable duplexer and come across of of these. Randy No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC
HI BOB! NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT I SEE ON REPEATER BUILDER. THANKS BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 10:54 AM If the locations don't match, search for the original data values. They'll probably be very close to the locations in the article, or offset by some fixed amount that will be consistent for the other addresses too. Unless of course someone already hex-edited the version you have, in which case the values won't be the same no matter what you do. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:52 AM HI MIKE. I TRIED THE INFO ON REPEATER BUILDER. THE HEX ADDRESS DOES NOT MACH UP. ..73 BOB --- On Tue, 3/24/09, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com wrote: From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 3:51 PM At 04:45 AM 03/24/09, you wrote: HELLO GROUP! ANY BODY OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP ME WITH PROGRAMMING A MARATRAC TO SIX METERS? THANKS BOB See http://www.repeater -builder. com/motorola/ maratrac/ maratrac. html especially the section on the 6m conversion. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC
Are you working with the same RSS version: R05.00.00g dated 20-Dec-96? Do you have your hex editor set to INTEL byte-order (little Endian)? Unfortunately you can't just replace one value with another throughout the entire file, as not all locations with a specific value need to be changed. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 2:16 PM HI BOB! NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT I SEE ON REPEATER BUILDER. THANKS BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 10:54 AM If the locations don't match, search for the original data values. They'll probably be very close to the locations in the article, or offset by some fixed amount that will be consistent for the other addresses too. Unless of course someone already hex-edited the version you have, in which case the values won't be the same no matter what you do. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:52 AM HI MIKE. I TRIED THE INFO ON REPEATER BUILDER. THE HEX ADDRESS DOES NOT MACH UP. ..73 BOB --- On Tue, 3/24/09, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com wrote: From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 3:51 PM At 04:45 AM 03/24/09, you wrote: HELLO GROUP! ANY BODY OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP ME WITH PROGRAMMING A MARATRAC TO SIX METERS? THANKS BOB See http://www.repeater -builder. com/motorola/ maratrac/ maratrac. html especially the section on the 6m conversion. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps
I agree, that's what the stock length for the 450-460 version would have been. I suggested in another post that Brian be certain that the mast extends several inches beyond the top-most and bottom-most parts of the elements. Having the mast behind the elements is critical to match the impedance. I think you could still side-mount OK with a shorter-than-standard mast as long as it still meets the above condition. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I can measure one, but it should be about 18 feet (plus or minus, depending on which bandsplit it is). -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k5in Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps Jeff, Well, for that matter anybody that wants to answer. How long is the mast supposed to be on a DB413? I have one with a mast that is 12ft in length. Does it really matter when it is 140ft in the air, 40 inches off the side of a tower? Brian, k5in
Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC
HI BOB! NO VERISON 4.03 THE HEX EDITOR IS INTEL BYTE ORDER.THANKS BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 2:32 PM Are you working with the same RSS version: R05.00.00g dated 20-Dec-96? Do you have your hex editor set to INTEL byte-order (little Endian)? Unfortunately you can't just replace one value with another throughout the entire file, as not all locations with a specific value need to be changed. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 2:16 PM HI BOB! NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT I SEE ON REPEATER BUILDER. THANKS BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo. com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 10:54 AM If the locations don't match, search for the original data values. They'll probably be very close to the locations in the article, or offset by some fixed amount that will be consistent for the other addresses too. Unless of course someone already hex-edited the version you have, in which case the values won't be the same no matter what you do. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:52 AM HI MIKE. I TRIED THE INFO ON REPEATER BUILDER. THE HEX ADDRESS DOES NOT MACH UP. ..73 BOB --- On Tue, 3/24/09, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com wrote: From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 3:51 PM At 04:45 AM 03/24/09, you wrote: HELLO GROUP! ANY BODY OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP ME WITH PROGRAMMING A MARATRAC TO SIX METERS? THANKS BOB See http://www.repeater -builder. com/motorola/ maratrac/ maratrac. html especially the section on the 6m conversion. Mike WA6ILQ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps
I wouldn't go much shorter, even if it was side-mounted. The elements need to be at the right distance spacing from the mast in order for the feed impedance and elevation pattern of each dipole to be correct. So, you couldn't cut off the mast right above the bracket for the upper element and assume that the Z and elevation pattern would still be correct using only the tower leg to provide the missing length, since the tower leg would be at a much greater distance from the element. The same goes for many other kinds of side-mounted antennas, like yagis. It's not a good idea to install a yagi right at the top of the mast with the upper-halves of the elements above the mast; it throws the symmetry off, resulting in beamtilt. It should be mounted (and tuned, if adjustable) with the longest element well below the top of the mast. The extra space at the bottom of the Decibel dipole arrays, below the lowest element, is for the clamp set. You want to keep a good distance between the lowest element and the clamps. And, if you're mounting it on the top of a tower directly to a leg, make sure the lowest element points away from the tower top plate to reduce coupling effects and associated pattern distortion. The Sinclair dipoles have a whole lotta mount space below the lowest element for this purpose; the Decibels cut it kind of close IMO. I also use three sets of clamps on the long DB antennas (DB224, DB420, DB413, etc.) just for added safety. I've had a couple of antennas with only two clamp sets end up leaning at an angle because the clamp rotated around the mast or tower leg under high wind conditions. Going to three clamps seems to have cured that problem. Although not mandatory, I've put stiff-arms at the top of long dipole arrays at high-elevation sites to minimize flexing and to prevent damage from high winds. I always use stiff arms on side-mounted fiberglass omnis, and I generally avoid using fiberglass antennas when top-mounted due to both the liklihood of destruction from lightning and eventual failure due to fractures along the radiating elements due to repeated flexing. Lessons learned the hard (and expensive) way... --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I agree, that's what the stock length for the 450-460 version would have been. I suggested in another post that Brian be certain that the mast extends several inches beyond the top-most and bottom-most parts of the elements. Having the mast behind the elements is critical to match the impedance. I think you could still side-mount OK with a shorter-than-standard mast as long as it still meets the above condition. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com mailto:jd0%40broadsci.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I can measure one, but it should be about 18 feet (plus or minus, depending on which bandsplit it is). -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of k5in Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps Jeff, Well, for that matter anybody that wants to answer. How long is the mast supposed to be on a DB413? I have one with a mast that is 12ft in length. Does it really matter when it is 140ft in the air, 40 inches off the side of a tower? Brian, k5in No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E
We have one in place right now on the 600 KHz split at 25 watts from a MastrII... Very noticeable desense... Not very happy with the setup... But we're doing the best we can with what was on the hill when we started... Oh well lol. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, ve7fet yahoogro...@woldanski.com wrote: Actually, the comment below isn't quite true. The Q2220E is a Res-Lok duplexer, but there are no machined coupling ports between the cavities. I just took the loops out of one to confirm. The coupling between the cavities is a function of the pickup loop inside the cavity, and the coax between them. However, in the C2034 type Res-Lok combiners, there ARE coupling ports machined between the bandpass section cavities (confirmed that too). Of interesting note on the Q2220E, the docs from Sincliar show two different harnesses available, presumably one for high split, and one for low. I have two Q2220E's here, one factory 143/148 and the other 152/157. They both have the same harness on them (320mm inter-cavity of RG400), and the pickup loops are the same size too (110mm). If you run the numbers for 320mm and a velocity factor of 0.695, you get a center frequency for the harness of 163MHz. If you wanted to optimize the tuning for the best response in the ham band, you may want to consider re-building the harness and changing the inter-cavity lengths to 355mm. I wouldn't change the lengths of the pickup loops as that is going to significantly change the response. Also note, the Q2220E makes a good candidate to modify for 220MHz... just ask Dave Cameron... http://www.irlp.net/duplexer Cheers! Lee --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Part of the problem is that the Q2220E duplexer uses the Res-Lok design, wherein the coupling between cavities of each pair is via a machined port between them, rather than a cabled coupling loop that can be adjusted.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition
Simplex repeater being somewhat of an oxymoron, I believe the proper definition would be a store and foward system since the message of whatever nature (digital or analog) is stored and then fowarded (retransmitted). It's easier to call it a simplex repeater to convey the end result of the operation. Milt - Original Message - From: Dave Gomberg da...@wcf.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:33 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] FCC Ruling on Repeater Definition At 16:34 3/24/2009, Jeff Condit wrote: What do you call it when messages are recorded and then retransmission begins right after reception ends? By this definition it would not constitute a simplex repeater, right? That is exactly m y understanding of what simplex repeater means Jeff Condit -- Dave Gomberg, San Francisco NE5EE gomberg1 at wcf dot com All addresses, phones, etc. at http://www.wcf.com/ham/info.html - Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.278 / Virus Database: 270.11.25/2019 - Release Date: 03/23/09 18:51:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC
Version 5 is out there on some web sites. It might be worth trying to find it. Then things will line up. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 3:16 PM HI BOB! NO VERISON 4.03 THE HEX EDITOR IS INTEL BYTE ORDER.THANKS BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 2:32 PM Are you working with the same RSS version: R05.00.00g dated 20-Dec-96? Do you have your hex editor set to INTEL byte-order (little Endian)? Unfortunately you can't just replace one value with another throughout the entire file, as not all locations with a specific value need to be changed. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 2:16 PM HI BOB! NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT I SEE ON REPEATER BUILDER. THANKS BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo. com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 10:54 AM If the locations don't match, search for the original data values. They'll probably be very close to the locations in the article, or offset by some fixed amount that will be consistent for the other addresses too. Unless of course someone already hex-edited the version you have, in which case the values won't be the same no matter what you do. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:52 AM HI MIKE. I TRIED THE INFO ON REPEATER BUILDER. THE HEX ADDRESS DOES NOT MACH UP. ..73 BOB --- On Tue, 3/24/09, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com wrote: From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 3:51 PM At 04:45 AM 03/24/09, you wrote: HELLO GROUP! ANY BODY OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP ME WITH PROGRAMMING A MARATRAC TO SIX METERS? THANKS BOB See http://www.repeater -builder. com/motorola/ maratrac/ maratrac. html especially the section on the 6m conversion. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC
HI BOB! NO LUCK 73 BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 4:44 PM Version 5 is out there on some web sites. It might be worth trying to find it. Then things will line up. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 3:16 PM HI BOB! NO VERISON 4.03 THE HEX EDITOR IS INTEL BYTE ORDER.THANKS BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo. com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 2:32 PM Are you working with the same RSS version: R05.00.00g dated 20-Dec-96? Do you have your hex editor set to INTEL byte-order (little Endian)? Unfortunately you can't just replace one value with another throughout the entire file, as not all locations with a specific value need to be changed. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 2:16 PM HI BOB! NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT I SEE ON REPEATER BUILDER. THANKS BOB --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo. com wrote: From: Bob M. msf5kg...@yahoo. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 10:54 AM If the locations don't match, search for the original data values. They'll probably be very close to the locations in the article, or offset by some fixed amount that will be consistent for the other addresses too. Unless of course someone already hex-edited the version you have, in which case the values won't be the same no matter what you do. Bob M. == --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Kafarski radiotwo1955@ yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:52 AM HI MIKE. I TRIED THE INFO ON REPEATER BUILDER. THE HEX ADDRESS DOES NOT MACH UP. ..73 BOB --- On Tue, 3/24/09, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com wrote: From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] MARATRAC To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 3:51 PM At 04:45 AM 03/24/09, you wrote: HELLO GROUP! ANY BODY OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP ME WITH PROGRAMMING A MARATRAC TO SIX METERS? THANKS BOB See http://www.repeater -builder. com/motorola/ maratrac/ maratrac. html especially the section on the 6m conversion. Mike WA6ILQ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites. A 5 KHz deviated signal doesn't really fit into 15 KHz of channel space, this is well-known. But why is their output on top of your input like that? Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
California does a lot of things like that, with 15KHz outputs away from inputs in the 2 meter repeater band. It does work if your keep the deviation down to under 4.5 KHz. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:21:03 PM PDT From: Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites. A 5 KHz deviated signal doesn't really fit into 15 KHz of channel space, this is well-known. But why is their output on top of your input like that? Nate WY0X
[Repeater-Builder] FT 2800
I have a new 2800 and cable for programming but have no idea how this is used for the program..not really computer literate..Please help 73s Bob -- Robert(Bob) Oke VE1YM 91 Allison Dr Moncton NB E1E 2T7 506-855-4184 cell 506-863-5876
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps
Jeff, I know you know more about this than I do; maybe you can tell me why I've seen this. In the past, I've modeled a simple 4el yagi to answer this same question for myself: does a conductive mast, placed behind the reflector element, affect the yagi's pattern or feedpoint Z? The modeling that I did told me that it did not affect the antenna at all. Did I arrive at this conclusion in error somehow? 73 Paul - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps It's not a good idea to install a yagi right at the top of the mast with the upper-halves of the elements above the mast; it throws the symmetry off, resulting in beamtilt.
[Repeater-Builder] Re:Antenna Spacing
On a mobile antenna installation I try to have 24 between mounts, I was told this by a Motorola FTR 30 Years ago. As far as mounting on a tower I would think that 4 to 5 Ft would be a good start. That seems to be what I have seen on managed roof top antenna grid installations. On the AON building in Chicago the grid system the antennas are mounted 10Ft apart on the roof top. Paul R. Dumdie Jr. 73 W9DWP/R IRLP-NODE-4455 443.025/2A 145.270/1B/1Z/NAC-293 ARC-Radio-8 KCARES KCAPS HERD546 EX WB9QWZ WQGG738-462.725 AAR5CU/T www.riflesandradios.com www.theherd.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Back in the day, a channel was 30 kHz wide. When they were split to meet demand, California was not the only coordination jurisdiction which chose to put the half channels upside down. From what I gather from the old-timers, it was easier to protect your input from a single, consistent signal, (the other repeater's output,) 15 kHz off your input but far away, than it was to deal with an ever-changing pool of users who could be right under your site, trying to work the distant repeater with high power and frequency tolerance inferior to the distant repeater. California had to be first in finding solutions to many band-crowding issues. Maybe hams there will be the first to narrow-band? 73, Paul, AE4KR -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:21:03 PM PDT From: Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites.
[Repeater-Builder] Big Shanty Repeater Group
Hi All, I'm looking for someone with the Big Shanty Repeater Group in Atlanta to drop me an email off-list. Thanks! -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps
Jeff, I know you know more about this than I do; maybe you can tell me why I've seen this. In the past, I've modeled a simple 4el yagi to answer this same question for myself: does a conductive mast, placed behind the reflector element, affect the yagi's pattern or feedpoint Z? The modeling that I did told me that it did not affect the antenna at all. Did I arrive at this conclusion in error somehow? 73 Paul If the yagi elements are directly in-line with the mast, then it won't affect the azimuth (horizontal) pattern. However, most yagis have some kind of a clamp/mount that attaches the yagi's boom to the side of the vertical mast, so the elements being offset a bit (maybe an inch or two depending on the design of the mount), so it's not always practical to keep the elements and mast perfectly inline. So, as far as your model goes, did you put the mast directly in-line with the elements, or did you offset it a bit as you would have in the real world? With the reflector between the mast and the driven element, there's much less interaction with the mast than if there would be if there were only directors and a driven element. How much effect the mast has is a function of a number of things, probably most significant of which is the distance to the closest element (reflector). What I was commenting on originally is the mounting location along the mast. If the yagi is right at the top, with the upper-halves of the elements above the mast, it's going to create some elevation (vertical) pattern distortion. How significantly it affects the elevation pattern again depends on a number of factors, and also again, it's influenced a lot less due to the reflector being there. But if you want to be safe, keep the yagi somewhere mid-mast instead of right at the top. Yagis with a practical number of elements have a pretty wide beamwidth in both the E and H planes to start with, so some minor variations in the pattern caused by the mast, assuming the yagi is rear-mounted, would likely go unnoticed. As far as Z goes, it's mostly dictated by the length and spacing to the reflector and driven element, and to a lesser degree on the geometry of the driven element itself (assuming it was properly-matched to start with). What happens behind the reflector would likely have a fairly minor affect on Z. I've tuned a yagi mounted mid-mast and then moved it to the top of the mast and saw only slight changes to the Z. That's not to say that *every* yagi would be well-decoupled from the mast when rear-mounted; I'm just saying that the one I experimented behaved this way. The above comments are mostly related to yagis with elements parallel to the mast, e.g. a vertically-polarized yagi on a vertical mast. With the elements perpendicular to the mast (Hpol yagi on vertical mast), there's much less influence. Probably the worst thing you can do to a vertically polarized yagi is to mount it mid-boom on a vertical mast (coughCUSHCRAFTcough). --- Jeff
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps
Jeff, Thanks for the information: The top element is several inches below the top of the mast with the conicle top on the mast. The bottom element is 20-24 inches above the bottom of the mast which doesn't appear to have been cut. It will be side mounted and about 40 inches or so out from the tower. Thanks, Brian, k5in - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:00 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I wouldn't go much shorter, even if it was side-mounted. The elements need to be at the right distance spacing from the mast in order for the feed impedance and elevation pattern of each dipole to be correct. So, you couldn't cut off the mast right above the bracket for the upper element and assume that the Z and elevation pattern would still be correct using only the tower leg to provide the missing length, since the tower leg would be at a much greater distance from the element. The same goes for many other kinds of side-mounted antennas, like yagis. It's not a good idea to install a yagi right at the top of the mast with the upper-halves of the elements above the mast; it throws the symmetry off, resulting in beamtilt. It should be mounted (and tuned, if adjustable) with the longest element well below the top of the mast. The extra space at the bottom of the Decibel dipole arrays, below the lowest element, is for the clamp set. You want to keep a good distance between the lowest element and the clamps. And, if you're mounting it on the top of a tower directly to a leg, make sure the lowest element points away from the tower top plate to reduce coupling effects and associated pattern distortion. The Sinclair dipoles have a whole lotta mount space below the lowest element for this purpose; the Decibels cut it kind of close IMO. I also use three sets of clamps on the long DB antennas (DB224, DB420, DB413, etc.) just for added safety. I've had a couple of antennas with only two clamp sets end up leaning at an angle because the clamp rotated around the mast or tower leg under high wind conditions. Going to three clamps seems to have cured that problem. Although not mandatory, I've put stiff-arms at the top of long dipole arrays at high-elevation sites to minimize flexing and to prevent damage from high winds. I always use stiff arms on side-mounted fiberglass omnis, and I generally avoid using fiberglass antennas when top-mounted due to both the liklihood of destruction from lightning and eventual failure due to fractures along the radiating elements due to repeated flexing. Lessons learned the hard (and expensive) way... --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I agree, that's what the stock length for the 450-460 version would have been. I suggested in another post that Brian be certain that the mast extends several inches beyond the top-most and bottom-most parts of the elements. Having the mast behind the elements is critical to match the impedance. I think you could still side-mount OK with a shorter-than-standard mast as long as it still meets the above condition. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com mailto:jd0%40broadsci.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps I can measure one, but it should be about 18 feet (plus or minus, depending on which bandsplit it is). -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of k5in Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Decibel dipole array sweeps Jeff, Well, for that matter anybody that wants to answer. How long is the mast supposed to be on a DB413? I have one with a mast that is 12ft in length. Does it really matter when it is 140ft in the air, 40 inches off the side of a tower? Brian, k5in No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E
Re the Sinclair RES-LOC Q2220E Duplexer, they make a much better version, the Q2330E model. We use one here on VE3KSR, 146.970 It has 100 Db of Tx - Rx isolation at 500 Khz and midband isolation of 55 Db as opposed to 30 Db in the Q2220. Power rating is 350 watts on each unit. The Q2330E has three cavities on each side. 73 John VE3AMZ - Original Message - From: AJ To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E We have one in place right now on the 600 KHz split at 25 watts from a MastrII... Very noticeable desense... Not very happy with the setup... But we're doing the best we can with what was on the hill when we started... Oh well lol. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, ve7fet yahoogro...@woldanski.com wrote: Actually, the comment below isn't quite true. The Q2220E is a Res-Lok duplexer, but there are no machined coupling ports between the cavities. I just took the loops out of one to confirm. The coupling between the cavities is a function of the pickup loop inside the cavity, and the coax between them. However, in the C2034 type Res-Lok combiners, there ARE coupling ports machined between the bandpass section cavities (confirmed that too). Of interesting note on the Q2220E, the docs from Sincliar show two different harnesses available, presumably one for high split, and one for low. I have two Q2220E's here, one factory 143/148 and the other 152/157. They both have the same harness on them (320mm inter-cavity of RG400), and the pickup loops are the same size too (110mm). If you run the numbers for 320mm and a velocity factor of 0.695, you get a center frequency for the harness of 163MHz. If you wanted to optimize the tuning for the best response in the ham band, you may want to consider re-building the harness and changing the inter-cavity lengths to 355mm. I wouldn't change the lengths of the pickup loops as that is going to significantly change the response. Also note, the Q2220E makes a good candidate to modify for 220MHz... just ask Dave Cameron... http://www.irlp.net/duplexer Cheers! Lee --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Part of the problem is that the Q2220E duplexer uses the Res-Lok design, wherein the coupling between cavities of each pair is via a machined port between them, rather than a cabled coupling loop that can be adjusted.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E
Any suggestions for improving the situation with our existing Q2220E duplexer? We could turn the P/A down even further, but there's not much more room to work with with this 40 watt P/A from it's current 25 watt level without causing spurs... On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, John J. Riddell ve3...@earthlink.netwrote: *Re the Sinclair RES-LOC Q2220E Duplexer, they make a much better version, * *the Q2330E model.* ** * We use one here on VE3KSR, 146.970* ** *It has 100 Db of Tx - Rx isolation at 500 Khz and midband isolation of 55 Db* *as opposed to 30 Db in the Q2220.* ** *Power rating is 350 watts on each unit.* ** *The Q2330E** has three cavities on each side.* ** *73 John VE3AMZ* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - Original Message - *From:* AJ aj.grant...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E We have one in place right now on the 600 KHz split at 25 watts from a MastrII... Very noticeable desense... Not very happy with the setup... But we're doing the best we can with what was on the hill when we started... Oh well lol. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, ve7fet yahoogro...@woldanski.comwrote: Actually, the comment below isn't quite true. The Q2220E is a Res-Lok duplexer, but there are no machined coupling ports between the cavities. I just took the loops out of one to confirm. The coupling between the cavities is a function of the pickup loop inside the cavity, and the coax between them. However, in the C2034 type Res-Lok combiners, there ARE coupling ports machined between the bandpass section cavities (confirmed that too). Of interesting note on the Q2220E, the docs from Sincliar show two different harnesses available, presumably one for high split, and one for low. I have two Q2220E's here, one factory 143/148 and the other 152/157. They both have the same harness on them (320mm inter-cavity of RG400), and the pickup loops are the same size too (110mm). If you run the numbers for 320mm and a velocity factor of 0.695, you get a center frequency for the harness of 163MHz. If you wanted to optimize the tuning for the best response in the ham band, you may want to consider re-building the harness and changing the inter-cavity lengths to 355mm. I wouldn't change the lengths of the pickup loops as that is going to significantly change the response. Also note, the Q2220E makes a good candidate to modify for 220MHz... just ask Dave Cameron... http://www.irlp.net/duplexer Cheers! Lee --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Part of the problem is that the Q2220E duplexer uses the Res-Lok design, wherein the coupling between cavities of each pair is via a machined port between them, rather than a cabled coupling loop that can be adjusted.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E
AJ, the only suggestion that I have is to add a regular cavity on each side if you have some availablethat 2220 is probably never going to work very well at 600 Khz. If your PA is causing spursput an antenna tuner on the output of the TX between the TX and the Duplexer, and tune it for minimum VSWR...that should clean it up GE did this with a device they called a Z Matcher. John VE3AMZ - Original Message - From: AJ To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E Any suggestions for improving the situation with our existing Q2220E duplexer? We could turn the P/A down even further, but there's not much more room to work with with this 40 watt P/A from it's current 25 watt level without causing spurs... On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, John J. Riddell ve3...@earthlink.net wrote: Re the Sinclair RES-LOC Q2220E Duplexer, they make a much better version, the Q2330E model. We use one here on VE3KSR, 146.970 It has 100 Db of Tx - Rx isolation at 500 Khz and midband isolation of 55 Db as opposed to 30 Db in the Q2220. Power rating is 350 watts on each unit. The Q2330E has three cavities on each side. 73 John VE3AMZ - Original Message - From: AJ To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E We have one in place right now on the 600 KHz split at 25 watts from a MastrII... Very noticeable desense... Not very happy with the setup... But we're doing the best we can with what was on the hill when we started... Oh well lol. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, ve7fet yahoogro...@woldanski.com wrote: Actually, the comment below isn't quite true. The Q2220E is a Res-Lok duplexer, but there are no machined coupling ports between the cavities. I just took the loops out of one to confirm. The coupling between the cavities is a function of the pickup loop inside the cavity, and the coax between them. However, in the C2034 type Res-Lok combiners, there ARE coupling ports machined between the bandpass section cavities (confirmed that too). Of interesting note on the Q2220E, the docs from Sincliar show two different harnesses available, presumably one for high split, and one for low. I have two Q2220E's here, one factory 143/148 and the other 152/157. They both have the same harness on them (320mm inter-cavity of RG400), and the pickup loops are the same size too (110mm). If you run the numbers for 320mm and a velocity factor of 0.695, you get a center frequency for the harness of 163MHz. If you wanted to optimize the tuning for the best response in the ham band, you may want to consider re-building the harness and changing the inter-cavity lengths to 355mm. I wouldn't change the lengths of the pickup loops as that is going to significantly change the response. Also note, the Q2220E makes a good candidate to modify for 220MHz... just ask Dave Cameron... http://www.irlp.net/duplexer Cheers! Lee --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Part of the problem is that the Q2220E duplexer uses the Res-Lok design, wherein the coupling between cavities of each pair is via a machined port between them, rather than a cabled coupling loop that can be adjusted.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E
If you want it to work well, then replace the Q2220E with a better duplexer. If you are willing to accept a compromise in performance, then continue using it and add extra cavities onto it. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:40:17 PM PDT From: AJ aj.grant...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E Any suggestions for improving the situation with our existing Q2220E duplexer? We could turn the P/A down even further, but there's not much more room to work with with this 40 watt P/A from it's current 25 watt level without causing spurs... On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, John J. Riddell ve3...@earthlink.netwrote: *Re the Sinclair RES-LOC Q2220E Duplexer, they make a much better version, * *the Q2330E model.* ** * We use one here on VE3KSR, 146.970* ** *It has 100 Db of Tx - Rx isolation at 500 Khz and midband isolation of 55 Db* *as opposed to 30 Db in the Q2220.* ** *Power rating is 350 watts on each unit.* ** *The Q2330E** has three cavities on each side.* ** *73 John VE3AMZ* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - Original Message - *From:* AJ aj.grant...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E We have one in place right now on the 600 KHz split at 25 watts from a MastrII... Very noticeable desense... Not very happy with the setup... But we're doing the best we can with what was on the hill when we started... Oh well lol. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, ve7fet yahoogro...@woldanski.comwrote: Actually, the comment below isn't quite true. The Q2220E is a Res-Lok duplexer, but there are no machined coupling ports between the cavities. I just took the loops out of one to confirm. The coupling between the cavities is a function of the pickup loop inside the cavity, and the coax between them. However, in the C2034 type Res-Lok combiners, there ARE coupling ports machined between the bandpass section cavities (confirmed that too). Of interesting note on the Q2220E, the docs from Sincliar show two different harnesses available, presumably one for high split, and one for low. I have two Q2220E's here, one factory 143/148 and the other 152/157. They both have the same harness on them (320mm inter-cavity of RG400), and the pickup loops are the same size too (110mm). If you run the numbers for 320mm and a velocity factor of 0.695, you get a center frequency for the harness of 163MHz. If you wanted to optimize the tuning for the best response in the ham band, you may want to consider re-building the harness and changing the inter-cavity lengths to 355mm. I wouldn't change the lengths of the pickup loops as that is going to significantly change the response. Also note, the Q2220E makes a good candidate to modify for 220MHz... just ask Dave Cameron... http://www.irlp.net/duplexer Cheers! Lee --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Part of the problem is that the Q2220E duplexer uses the Res-Lok design, wherein the coupling between cavities of each pair is via a machined port between them, rather than a cabled coupling loop that can be adjusted.
[Repeater-Builder] Data link to repeater controller
Just the other day I thought how cool it would be to have a data connection to a bells and whistles repeater controller, so that configuration or even software updates could be done remotely. If an internet connection is available at the repeater site this should not be a very big deal. But often this isn't, so how about establishing a packet-like data connection via the repeater input? Does anyone know if something like this has ever been done, or has at least been tried? I would be curious to learn about it! Regards Martin
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Data link to repeater controller
Cool right up until the point when a user keys up over your control signal on the input and you're trying to do something, or worse... they're maliciously trying to stop you from controlling your repeater. Far smarter/easier to keep repeater control stuff out of band... either via a control receiver, an IP link to the hill, or even a venerable old phone modem... Has someone probably done something nifty on the input with packet, or whatever... sure. Probably. The real question is: Is that smart? Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Data link to repeater controller
At 12:34 PM 3/25/2009, cruizzer77 wrote: Just the other day I thought how cool it would be to have a data connection to a bells and whistles repeater controller, so that configuration or even software updates could be done remotely. If an internet connection is available at the repeater site this should not be a very big deal. But often this isn't, so how about establishing a packet-like data connection via the repeater input? Does anyone know if something like this has ever been done, or has at least been tried? I would be curious to learn about it! ---I do this now with diskless Linux computers and 802.11 links Ken -- 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] cat1000 controller and alinco dr235t remote issue
I was wondering if anyone in the group has ever used a alinco 135/235/435 radio as a remote base with a cat 1000 controller. I have a issue with this setup not broadcasting what the remote receives. The radio broadcast what the repeater sends but does not go the other way. I am using the 9 pin connector on the radio. Thanks Joe Landers Ke4eue
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E
Are you using the PM exciter or PLL exciter on the M2? If PM, switching to PLL will reduce the transmitter noise supression requirement of your duplexer by 22 dB. Otherwise, your best bet is to add another pass/reject cavity to each side of the duplexer closest to the repeater equipment (i.e. don't add new cavities connected to antenna tee). --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AJ Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:20 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E We have one in place right now on the 600 KHz split at 25 watts from a MastrII... Very noticeable desense... Not very happy with the setup... But we're doing the best we can with what was on the hill when we started... Oh well lol. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, ve7fet yahoogro...@woldanski.com mailto:yahoogro...@woldanski.com wrote: Actually, the comment below isn't quite true. The Q2220E is a Res-Lok duplexer, but there are no machined coupling ports between the cavities. I just took the loops out of one to confirm. The coupling between the cavities is a function of the pickup loop inside the cavity, and the coax between them. However, in the C2034 type Res-Lok combiners, there ARE coupling ports machined between the bandpass section cavities (confirmed that too). Of interesting note on the Q2220E, the docs from Sincliar show two different harnesses available, presumably one for high split, and one for low. I have two Q2220E's here, one factory 143/148 and the other 152/157. They both have the same harness on them (320mm inter-cavity of RG400), and the pickup loops are the same size too (110mm). If you run the numbers for 320mm and a velocity factor of 0.695, you get a center frequency for the harness of 163MHz. If you wanted to optimize the tuning for the best response in the ham band, you may want to consider re-building the harness and changing the inter-cavity lengths to 355mm. I wouldn't change the lengths of the pickup loops as that is going to significantly change the response. Also note, the Q2220E makes a good candidate to modify for 220MHz... just ask Dave Cameron... http://www.irlp.net/duplexer http://www.irlp.net/duplexer Cheers! Lee --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Part of the problem is that the Q2220E duplexer uses the Res-Lok design, wherein the coupling between cavities of each pair is via a machined port between them, rather than a cabled coupling loop that can be adjusted. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Let's wrap this with a bow. I have tested this interference on 7 radios. 6 of them here and all 7 hear the interference. Simply stated the interfering station is over 100 miles away and is breaking squelch 10 Khz away on a Bendix-King 5102X with a rubber ducky. Yep. 100 miles away on a rubber ducky 10 Khz off frequency. Someone is wide, loud, and powerful. The receiver is a Yaesu VX4100 with 85dB adjacent channel selectivity at 20 Khz. That should be about 80 @ 15. If I have to switch to like GM300's what guarantee do I have that the problem will be any better if the other party is running excessive power and wide deviation? I have a complaint in with the coordinator and have not received any acknowledgement that the issue has been received. I also emailed the trustee and have not received a reply. I like to keep this cool and cooperative. Back to the question, though. Will something like a Angle Linear get in close enough to knock down interference that close? --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Paul Plack pl...@... wrote: Back in the day, a channel was 30 kHz wide. When they were split to meet demand, California was not the only coordination jurisdiction which chose to put the half channels upside down. From what I gather from the old-timers, it was easier to protect your input from a single, consistent signal, (the other repeater's output,) 15 kHz off your input but far away, than it was to deal with an ever-changing pool of users who could be right under your site, trying to work the distant repeater with high power and frequency tolerance inferior to the distant repeater. California had to be first in finding solutions to many band-crowding issues. Maybe hams there will be the first to narrow-band? 73, Paul, AE4KR -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:21:03 PM PDT From: Nate Duehr n...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Nope. No matter how tight the filter response, it has slopes, and one side will overlap your receiver's desired bandpass. You'll have to solve this one using political means. - Original Message - From: Bob Ricci To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:08 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Back to the question, though. Will something like a Angle Linear get in close enough to knock down interference that close?
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
I just got this from Chip: I tight band pass filer ((http://anglelinear.com/filters/coax_filters.html) followed by an Hi dynamic range Bipolar preamplifier (http://anglelinear.com/bipolar/bipolar.html) then into the crystal filter (-7 db) then in to your receiver. That will eliminate the Catalina repeater. The hi level preamplifier can handle the big signal. There are companies that make the crystal filters, special order of course as we do not. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Paul Plack pl...@... wrote: Nope. No matter how tight the filter response, it has slopes, and one side will overlap your receiver's desired bandpass. You'll have to solve this one using political means. - Original Message - From: Bob Ricci To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:08 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Back to the question, though. Will something like a Angle Linear get in close enough to knock down interference that close?
[Repeater-Builder] Re: simplex repeater
These setups would simultaneously transmit on the same frequency. Has anyone else seen such application notes or booklets??? Burt VE2BMQ None other than our own Mike WA6ILQ co-wrote a book on repeaters a number of years ago and referenced with an illustration and text how such a repeater would work. Would be fun to play with sometime... Still good reading by the way. Laryn K8TVZ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
About the only device that has a sharp enough response is a front-end crystal filter. While very effective, they are lossy and cost between $350 and $500 each. Here is more info: www.mtronpti.com/pdf/21334133Filter_datasheet81007.pdf 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Paul Plack pl...@... wrote: Nope. No matter how tight the filter response, it has slopes, and one side will overlap your receiver's desired bandpass. You'll have to solve this one using political means.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Wow. I've never seen piezo filters used that close in with success, but Chips is a much better source than I am. Let us know how it works out, and what it costs. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Bob Ricci To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:00 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB I just got this from Chip: I tight band pass filer ((http://anglelinear.com/filters/coax_filters.html) followed by an Hi dynamic range Bipolar preamplifier (http://anglelinear.com/bipolar/bipolar.html) then into the crystal filter (-7 db) then in to your receiver. That will eliminate the Catalina repeater. The hi level preamplifier can handle the big signal. There are companies that make the crystal filters, special order of course as we do not. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Paul Plack pl...@... wrote: Nope. No matter how tight the filter response, it has slopes, and one side will overlap your receiver's desired bandpass. You'll have to solve this one using political means. - Original Message - From: Bob Ricci To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:08 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Back to the question, though. Will something like a Angle Linear get in close enough to knock down interference that close?
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
At 3/25/2009 14:19, you wrote: Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? No, that is our bandplan, is by design. Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites. Nope. We routinely place repeaters less than 50 miles apart 15 kHz away have no adjacent channel interference. One of our more recent coordinee's systems was built by me has outputs + AND - 15 kHz from his input only 30 miles away. No ACI. A 5 KHz deviated signal doesn't really fit into 15 KHz of channel space, this is well-known. ...which is why we mandate 4.2 kHz peak deviation, along with a modulation bandwidth spec of 3 kHz max w/-20 dB rolloff @ 4.4. kHz. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
At 3/25/2009 15:35, you wrote: Back in the day, a channel was 30 kHz wide. When they were split to meet demand, California was not the only coordination jurisdiction which chose to put the half channels upside down. From what I gather from the old-timers, it was easier to protect your input from a single, consistent signal, (the other repeater's output,) 15 kHz off your input but far away, than it was to deal with an ever-changing pool of users who could be right under your site, trying to work the distant repeater with high power and frequency tolerance inferior to the distant repeater. Precisely, Paul. Glad to see others have figured out the reasoning behind our oft-trashed bandplan. The best part is that with a little extra planning spec'ing, 60 or even 40 mile separation isn't necessarily required to make it work, although you've got to use good equipment - no 30 kHz channel-spec'd radios without modifications. California had to be first in finding solutions to many band-crowding issues. Maybe hams there will be the first to narrow-band? Our 4 D-Star pairs are spacing @ 10 kHz; no interference complaints so far. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
At 3/25/2009 19:33, you wrote: About the only device that has a sharp enough response is a front-end crystal filter. While very effective, they are lossy and cost between $350 and $500 each. Here is more info: www.mtronpti.com/pdf/21334133Filter_datasheet81007.pdf 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY IMO front-end crystals filters do little to eliminate adjacent-channel interference when the interfering signal center is only 15 kHz away. The specs for the narrowest filter above are only 20 dB down @ 30 kHz, so 15 kHz away the rejection will be rather low, maybe only a few dB higher than the insertion loss. The key to reducing adjacent channel interference is to apply the correct amount bandwidth of IF filtering, and to use a receiver of good IF design so that distortion does not occur in the IF amplifier stages. I've had good success with G.E. MVP Mastr II receivers. They have 10 poles of 11.2 MHz crystal IF filtering (the G.E. needs to have a missing IF filter retrofitted, otherwise it's only 8 poles) which often gets the job done, but for tougher adjacent channel problems I go with the ComSpec filter retrofit kit (http://www.com-spec.com/narrow.htm). I typically don't use the whole kit, but only install the filters needed to get the receiver down to -50 dB @ +/- 10 kHz, which is TASMA's specification for receiver IF response. BTW, you can try a simple test to see if your receiver meets the above spec: open squelch inject an on-channel unmodulated signal that results in 20 dB quieting, then move your sig. gen. + or - 10 kHz off frequency see how much more signal you have to put into the receiver to obtain the same amount of quieting. You may be unpleasantly surprised. If it doesn't meet spec, you need to consult with the manufacturer to see if they offer any narrower IF filters for it, or check the above link to see if any of those filters can be swapped for your wider IF filter. I once retrofitted a 15 pole 455 kHz IF filter in a Yaesu FT-227R (the old Memorizer). It's -70 dB point was +/- 8 kHz. I could park that RX 10 kHz away from most repeater outputs hear very little; absolutely nothing bothered it 15 kHz away. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: simplex repeater
I believe you're talking about a passive repeater. Joe M. Burt Lang wrote: Somewhere in my pile of data books I have an application note that refers to a simplex repeater being used in commercial applications. The booklet was from either dB Products or Pye as I recall. The purpose of their simplex repeater was to fill local coverage holes. The equipment described consisted of 2 beam antennas, one pointed at the source and the other pointed at the hole with an amplifier and filter between them. The antennas were adjusted for maximum isolation and the amplifier gain was set to be considerably less than the isolation between the antennas. Similar setups were used in the early days of television to give coverage in behind mountains. These setups would simultaneously transmit on the same frequency. Has anyone else seen such application notes or booklets??? Burt VE2BMQ MCH wrote: Just because you call something a repeater doesn't mean it is. A simplex repeater is not a repeater due to two things: 1. It does not simultaneously retransmit, and 2. It transmits on the same frequency. Point #1 was just clarified by the FCC Monday, but point #2 has never been misinterpreted in the FCC definition, AFAIK. Joe M. Dave Gomberg wrote: At 16:34 3/24/2009, Jeff Condit wrote: What do you call it when messages are recorded and then retransmission begins right after reception ends? By this definition it would not constitute a simplex repeater, right? That is exactly m y understanding of what simplex repeater means Jeff Condit Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
Bob Ricci wrote: Let's wrap this with a bow. I have tested this interference on 7 radios. 6 of them here and all 7 hear the interference. Simply stated the interfering station is over 100 miles away and is breaking squelch 10 Khz away on a Bendix-King 5102X with a rubber ducky. Yep. 100 miles away on a rubber ducky 10 Khz off frequency. Someone is wide, loud, and powerful. The receiver is a Yaesu VX4100 with 85dB adjacent channel selectivity at 20 Khz. That should be about 80 @ 15. If I have to switch to like GM300's what guarantee do I have that the problem will be any better if the other party is running excessive power and wide deviation? I have a complaint in with the coordinator and have not received any acknowledgement that the issue has been received. I also emailed the trustee and have not received a reply. I like to keep this cool and cooperative. Back to the question, though. Will something like a Angle Linear get in close enough to knock down interference that close? No. The issue is at the IF level. Improving adjacent channel rejection is done in the low IF just before the detector. I had no problem listening to a distant repeater on 146.82 with a 146.805 about 1 mile away-in the path to the distant repeater, with a Motrac base-after the repeater was properly adjusted to not exceed +/- 5KHz deviation total. It had been throwing peaks close to +/-20 KHz.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: simplex repeater
Basically, what you describe is called a 'BDA', or Bi-Directional Amplifier, used a lot for hole fills. TX-RX and EMR are main sources of good units. Wilson is a source of not-so-good ones. There was a real simplex repeater in CA for a while. rom what I understand, it was more or less 2 transceivers on 146.82 simplex on opposite sides of a BIG mountain. There was enough isolation between the two sites that it was impossible to talk simplex from one to the other. The radios were cross-connected, wire-line I presume, so that someone on one side transmitting would be retransmitted on the other side on the same freq. Burt Lang wrote: Somewhere in my pile of data books I have an application note that refers to a simplex repeater being used in commercial applications. The booklet was from either dB Products or Pye as I recall. The purpose of their simplex repeater was to fill local coverage holes. The equipment described consisted of 2 beam antennas, one pointed at the source and the other pointed at the hole with an amplifier and filter between them. The antennas were adjusted for maximum isolation and the amplifier gain was set to be considerably less than the isolation between the antennas. Similar setups were used in the early days of television to give coverage in behind mountains. These setups would simultaneously transmit on the same frequency. Has anyone else seen such application notes or booklets??? Burt VE2BMQ
[Repeater-Builder] maratrac to 6 meters
the software i have is 4.03 it dose not match anything that is on batlabs site when i put this hex workshop. is batlabs version for 4.02 not 4.03! i am missing something? thanks bob
Re: [Repeater-Builder] cat1000 controller and alinco dr235t remote issue
Make sure you have the pull up resistors in the CAT 1000. We are using the DR235 in our operation 146.655 in Illinois and works great. The Alinco in common collector cor and you have to put the pull up resistors in the controller to make it see the cor input. 73 Ralph Zancha WC9V - Original Message - From: Joe Landers To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:25 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] cat1000 controller and alinco dr235t remote issue I was wondering if anyone in the group has ever used a alinco 135/235/435 radio as a remote base with a cat 1000 controller. I have a issue with this setup not broadcasting what the remote receives. The radio broadcast what the repeater sends but does not go the other way. I am using the 9 pin connector on the radio. Thanks Joe Landers Ke4eue -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.28/2022 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E
Currently using the PM exciter - haven't had a chance to track down a PLL exciter yet. Didn't realize the noise supression figures were that different - Wow... The receiver I currently has (as built, still surveying the system we've inherited) the UHS pre-amp in place... Guessing that isn't helping things much either LOL :) On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com wrote: Are you using the PM exciter or PLL exciter on the M2? If PM, switching to PLL will reduce the transmitter noise supression requirement of your duplexer by 22 dB. Otherwise, your best bet is to add another pass/reject cavity to each side of the duplexer closest to the repeater equipment (i.e. don't add new cavities connected to antenna tee). --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AJ Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:20 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E We have one in place right now on the 600 KHz split at 25 watts from a MastrII... Very noticeable desense... Not very happy with the setup... But we're doing the best we can with what was on the hill when we started... Oh well lol. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, ve7fet yahoogro...@woldanski.com yahoogroups%40woldanski.com mailto: yahoogro...@woldanski.com yahoogroups%40woldanski.com wrote: Actually, the comment below isn't quite true. The Q2220E is a Res-Lok duplexer, but there are no machined coupling ports between the cavities. I just took the loops out of one to confirm. The coupling between the cavities is a function of the pickup loop inside the cavity, and the coax between them. However, in the C2034 type Res-Lok combiners, there ARE coupling ports machined between the bandpass section cavities (confirmed that too). Of interesting note on the Q2220E, the docs from Sincliar show two different harnesses available, presumably one for high split, and one for low. I have two Q2220E's here, one factory 143/148 and the other 152/157. They both have the same harness on them (320mm inter-cavity of RG400), and the pickup loops are the same size too (110mm). If you run the numbers for 320mm and a velocity factor of 0.695, you get a center frequency for the harness of 163MHz. If you wanted to optimize the tuning for the best response in the ham band, you may want to consider re-building the harness and changing the inter-cavity lengths to 355mm. I wouldn't change the lengths of the pickup loops as that is going to significantly change the response. Also note, the Q2220E makes a good candidate to modify for 220MHz... just ask Dave Cameron... http://www.irlp.net/duplexer http://www.irlp.net/duplexer Cheers! Lee --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%2540yahoogroups.com , Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Part of the problem is that the Q2220E duplexer uses the Res-Lok design, wherein the coupling between cavities of each pair is via a machined port between them, rather than a cabled coupling loop that can be adjusted. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1970 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
[Repeater-Builder] Data link to repeater controller
Just the other day I thought how cool it would be to have a data connection to a bells and whistles repeater controller, so that configuration or even software updates could be done remotely. If an internet connection is available at the repeater site this should not be a very big deal. But often this isn't, so how about establishing a packet-like data connection via the repeater input? Does anyone know if something like this has ever been done, or has at least been tried? I would be curious to learn about it! Regards Martin
