[Repeater-Builder] msf5000 how to...?

[gueorgui2]

Hi everybody!
some valuable help is needed. i have the RF tray and the controller on the top 
of it SSCB digital capable only (the unit with the led's) 800 mhz 
C85CXB-5103BT. the RF tray is lacking the TX VCO and no cables with RCA ends no 
connector for stearing and power originaly to TX VCO, no IPA in the middle, the 
UNI-BOARD has 14.4 mhz oscilator built in. i'd like to apply power from non 
original power supply to the interconnect board, what the molex is supposed to 
get red and white +14V and black and brown -14V, what about the blue orange and 
green? nothing powers up at this point, the 5V regulator on the interconnect 
board is working, i cheked the 9.6V test point and it has the voltage, the 5V 
check point at the SSCB has no voltage on it and thus no power up... J502A the 
6 pin connector on the interconnect board takes what? 5mhz signal goes where? 
is this receiving station only, can i use it to transmit? how to get it to 
power up? what voltages  i apply at the J603A, J701A, J502A, what the J500 and 
J501 are for? J596A? this info i can not find at repeater-builder. if you can 
hlep me please. thanks!

RE: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

[Gary Schafer]

Absolutely you need some reserve. The same if you are designing a point to
point path. You don't select equipment that will "just do the job". You
always need a certain amount of reserve for changes of equipment etc. the
idea is that some think the repeater  is going to "work better" with more
isolation in the duplexer just because it has more isolation. Once you meet
the isolation requirement and some reserve built in to cover things that
drift etc., then more is not going to help you.

 

73

Gary  K4FMX

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 8:45 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

 






I agree with Kevin. You need a little headroom built in for conditions that
could change. Equipment ages and changes it's operating characteristics.
Temperature swings cause the same issues. Does one need to go overboard?
Probably not. But if you happen to be right on the edge under perfect
conditions, you may be unhappy when something moves a bit out of tolerance.

 

Chuck

WB2EDV

 

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Kevin Custer   

To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 9:30 AM

Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

 

Gary wrote:




Dan Kagabine, the chief engineer at TX-RX systems use to always say that
"once you have enough isolation to overcome any desense, then any more is a
waste of money as it does nothing for you". "If you only need 70 db then a
100 db duplexer does nothing more for you than a 70 db duplexer".



While I'll agree that more isolation, then what is needed to insure no
desense is a waste; if this gentleman is suggesting that isolation in
reserve is a waste, I strongly disagree.  Why?  Operating conditions can
change - snow and especially ice on the repeater antenna can detune the
system and isolation in reserve will allow the repeater to operate without
desense until the reserve is used up.

Kevin Custer

RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diversity FM reception

[Gary Schafer]

The reason FM stations transmit circular polarization is to accommodate
both horizontal and vertical receive antennas. Most fixed receivers are
horizontal and most cars are vertical.

 

You can not transmit both horizontal and vertical polarization at the same
time. Feeding a horizontal antenna and a vertical in phase will give 45
degree polarization. For simultaneous vertical and horizontal the antennas
must be fed as circular. They then contain both the horizontal and vertical
component. They are not doing this for the sake of circular polarization but
only so vertical and horizontal polarizations can be transmitted together.

 

TV has no need to transmit anything other than horizontal polarization as
most TV reception is done with a horizontal antenna.

 

73

Gary  K4FMX

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Sehring
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:51 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Fw: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diversity FM reception

 







I turn out that use of CP in urban & suburban areas results in somewhat more
signal strength on linearly polarized antennas, e.g. vertical whips on cars
& straight rod aerials on portable FM radios.   Due to preferential
scattering of vertically polarized sigs from typical urban structures, there
tends to be more of that available, esp. good for auto FM reception.

The Germans for example are more concerned with signal quality than quantity
& so don't use CP.

However, there is a drawback:  there's more multipath.  So the tradeoff was
made--more signal strength but at lesser quality (due to multipath
distortion).  Well designed FM radios reduce separation intelligently in the
presence of multipath:  first they gradually blend the stereo channels into
mono, high audio frequencies L-R info first, then all audio (L+R) is
gradually lowpass filtered.  This happens dynamically, on the fly.  Works
well IMO when done properly.

TV broadcasters tried CP as well but couldn't live the extra multipath:  it
was easily visible as more ghosting.

See for example:  http://www.ham-radio.com/k6sti/
for more on this.

--John

--- On Fri, 8/21/09, larynl2  wrote:


From: larynl2 
Subject: Fw: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diversity FM reception
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 9:08 PM

  

In reference to below, what would be the real advantage to using CP antennas
in addition to the V and H you'd have already? Any signal that arrives will
excite a V and/or H antenna according to it's arriving polarization, and I
don't see where CP would be a help.

Most FM broadcasters use CP. Those that don't are licensed for only V or H
or choose to use a less-expensive single-polarization antenna. And many of
them look like rototillers, and other shapes.

Laryn K8TVZ

--- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups.. com, John Sehring  wrote:
> 
> There's more to be done with polarization as well:  Circular, both RH &
LH.  It is possibile to make omnidirectional CP antennas.  FM broadcasters
use a lot of them.  They look like a bunch of arrows.
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 06:45 AM 08/23/09, you wrote:

I agree with Kevin. You need a little headroom built in for 
conditions that could change. Equipment ages and changes it's 
operating characteristics. Temperature swings cause the same issues. 
Does one need to go overboard? Probably not. But if you happen to be 
right on the edge under perfect conditions, you may be unhappy when 
something moves a bit out of tolerance.


Chuck
WB2EDV


Or when you want to add a preamp to the system.

From the Antenna Systems page at repeater-builder (under "System Engineering")

>In most repeaters the duplexer provides a certain amount of isolation
>between the receiver and the transmitter (some systems, like those
>that use two antennas, or even two sites, don't use duplexers). If the
>amount of isolation, however it is acquired, is greater than what is
>required (the excess is sometimes referred to as "headroom"), then the
>system design is adequate for the job (see the article Some thoughts
>on Repeater Receiver-to-Transmitter Isolation below). That situation
>is fine until they decide to add a preamp to help out the handheld
>users. Then they discover that the amount of isolation isn't enough.
>They forgot that you need (at least) the same amount of extra
>isolation ("headroom") as the amount of gain the preamp provides,
>since it raises the apparent noise floor as well as the signal of
>interest. In most cases you will have to fight with desense when you
>add a preamp (a top-quality preamp like an AngleLinear will help).
>Always have enough extra headroom in your receiver, transmitter and
>duplexer to handle any of a couple of situations: First, the site
>owner adds additional repeaters to the site, or second, that you want
>to add a preamp later on. If the duplexer is your primary provider of
>receiver-to-transmitter isolation do not scrimp on the duplexer. Next
>to a good antenna and feedline the duplexer is the most critical part
>of a good repeater system. Long ago I gave up on four-cavity duplexers
>(two cavities on each side) on VHF/2m, 222 MHz and UHF, I use the six
>cavity pass/reject type exclusively. Duplexer tuning is very, very
>critical. A return loss bridge is preferred, a spectrum analyzer with
>a tracking generator is the second choice. And don't tune the duplexer
>on the ground, then transport it to the site over a bumpy
>four-wheel-drive road, and expect it to be as precisely tuned when you
>get there. Always have the test gear with you at the site to verify
>final tuning after mounting it in the system rack.

Another situation is when the radio site landlord added another tenant - and
he installs a 330w paging transmitter.

Been there, had that happen.

A reasonable amount of extra headroom is always a good thing.

Mike WA6ILQ

  

[Repeater-Builder] ACC RC-850 Tone Panel Suggestions

[John D. Lewis, NF3Q]

Greetings,

I'm wondering if anyone would have any suggestions on current market 
tone panels that will reasonably accommodate interfacing with ACC 
controllers.  Particularly, I recently acquired an RC-850 (3.8 w/CIB) 
which I would like to accept both PL and DPL.  Price is not an issue in 
either case-- I'm simply looking for something reliable, of decent 
quality which will passively do its job without hindering the 
controller's functionality.  In addition, I have two RC-96 controllers 
(without the optional CTCSS boards) that I'm interested in finding some 
sort of tone panel or board that might reasonably hide in the case.  I 
welcome your constructive criticism!

Thank you kindly,

John, NF3Q

Re: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

[MCH]

I'll second what Kevin said and add:

What if you want to upgrade? If you only purchased what you needed 
before, it may no longer be adequate for your new system which may have 
more power or a higher sensitivity receiver.

Better to buy extra isolation now and not need it than to buy less and 
have to buy more later. Usually, you end up spending more than you 
recoup from your initial investment selling the first duplexer. IOW, 
spend X now vs spend 2/3 X now, X later, and get a fraction of your 2/3 
X expense back.

Think of it as 'desense insurance' if you have more than you need.

Joe M.

Kevin Custer wrote:
> 
> 
> Gary wrote:
> 
>> Dan Kagabine, the chief engineer at TX-RX systems use to always say 
>> that “once you have enough isolation to overcome any desense, then any 
>> more is a waste of money as it does nothing for you”. “If you only 
>> need 70 db then a 100 db duplexer does nothing more for you than a 70 
>> db duplexer”.
> 
> 
> While I'll agree that more isolation, then what is needed to insure no 
> desense is a waste; if this gentleman is suggesting that isolation in 
> reserve is a waste, I strongly disagree.  Why?  Operating conditions can 
> change - snow and especially ice on the repeater antenna can detune the 
> system and isolation in reserve will allow the repeater to operate 
> without desense until the reserve is used up.
> 
> Kevin Custer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 07/31/09 
> 05:58:00
> 






Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Squelch action on 10 m FM

[Al Wolfe]

Won't happen with a properly set up system. Think "and" squelch.

Since there are only four repeater pairs on ten shared with everyone, 
shame on anyone for using carrier squelch there.

>  Because CTCSS falses on the random noise.
>  Been there, done that, gave
>  away the t-shirt.


Al, k9si 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

[Jeff DePolo]

> While I'll agree that more isolation, then what is needed to 
> insure no desense is a waste; if this gentleman is suggesting 
> that isolation in reserve is a waste, I strongly disagree.  
> Why?  Operating conditions can change - snow and especially 
> ice on the repeater antenna can detune the system and 
> isolation in reserve will allow the repeater to operate 
> without desense until the reserve is used up.
> 
> Kevin Custer

Aso, if you're going to err on the side of being conservative in your
isolation requirements, such as contemplating a 6 cavity duplexer instead of
4 if you think you're on the hairy edge, consider using bandpass cavities
instead of pass-reject for that added cavity on each side.  The extra
out-of-band rejection that a true bandpass cavity will give you will afford
more protection to/from other co-located or nearby stations, including those
that might show up months or years down the road...

Spend the extra money on the added isolation if there's any doubt.  A few
tenths of a dB of added insertion loss from an extra cavity is never going
to be noticed by users, but desense most certainly will be.

--- Jeff

Fw: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diversity FM reception

[larynl2]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, John Sehring  wrote:
>
> Oh, I forgot...circular polarization would be excellent to use on VHF and UHF 
> repeater.  We want the extra signal strength & the multipath would be way 
> less;


CP has always intrigued my for amateur repeater use, although I've not tried it 
yet.

Yes there would be less multipath fading, but the "extra signal strength" 
woulnd't appear unless you keep the same ERP in both H and V.  And that 
requires a larger antenna or double the transmitter power.

John is it really true that CP causes MORE multipath distortion in FM 
broadcast??  And TV??  

Laryn K8TVZ

[Repeater-Builder] Schematic for HTX-245 R.S. Portable HH.

[ve5uj]

I have downloaded the S. Manual from two different sources but the schematic 
seems to be incomplete.  I am having signal loss near the audio output but that 
part of the schematic is not visible. 
Reading the posts from 2006, I assume that what I have now is as good as it 
gets. Just thought some one else might have been over this road and might 
remember something pertinent. 
This group has been a wealth of info. for those of us operating repeaters in 
the "hinterland". Many thanks,   . . .  Gordon.

RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diversity FM reception

[Jeff DePolo]

> In reference to below, what would be the real advantage to 
> using CP antennas in addition to the V and H you'd have 
> already? Any signal that arrives will excite a V and/or H 
> antenna according to it's arriving polarization, and I don't 
> see where CP would be a help.

If you're going to use CP on a repeater, I don't see why you would want to
also mix in linear H and/or V, nor why you would want both LHCP and RHCP.
The users are all going to be using linear polarization.  As long as you are
using one rotation of CP, that's all you need.

> Most FM broadcasters use CP. Those that don't are licensed 
> for only V or H or choose to use a less-expensive 
> single-polarization antenna. And many of them look like 
> rototillers, and other shapes.

Most FM uses CP - true.  Why some FM stations use only V or only H or some
ellipitical ratio where H <> V is for a variety of reasons, but here are the
most common:

1.  Historically, FM, like TV, was predominantly horizontally polarized.
The regulations, to this day, still favor the use of horizontal
polarization, and with few exceptions (especially #2 below), you have to
have at least as much horizontal power as vertical power.  Commercial
stations in the non-reserved band (i.e. above 92 MHz) that are still running
horizontal-only are doing so by choice, not by rule.  It wasn't until car
radios with vertical whip antennas started to gain popularity did vertical
polarization start to become important, and CP resulted as a solution to
satisfy listeners using either horizontal or vertical antennas, while
improving multipath performance as a side-benefit.  Of course this also
meant that broadcasters needed 2X the transmitter power, or 2X the number of
antenna bays, to achieve the same amount of ERP, to convert from H to CP.

2.  Non-commercial stations in the reserved band (i.e. below 92 MHz) that
are within the "affected area" of a channel 6 TV station are required to
protect that channel 6 station.  The rules regarding how this protection is
accomplished are the most twisted, tangled mess of lawerese engineering that
ever came out of the FCC IMHO.  Anyway, in order to afford protection to
channel 6 TV, which is horizontal, non-comm FM's often end up being
restricted to less H than V (or sometimes V only) in order to get the
population within the interference area down to allowable levels.  The
Channel 6 rules of 47 CFR 73.525 are the cause for probably the majority of
cases where FM stations have more V than H.

3.  Directional antennas.  In cases where stations are using a directional
antenna to meet protection requirements, the measured pattern of the
directional antenna may have been such that the peak horizontal power may
have been different than the peak vertical power, and, as such, the licensed
H and V ERP values reflect that difference.  The station where I'm typing
from currently has a directional antenna that was designed supposedly such
that H = V, but when they put it on the antenna range, the measured pattern
came out with H <> V in the major lobe, resulting in it being licensed for
12.5 kW horizontal and 11 kW vertical.

--- Jeff WN3A

RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT:THE MOBILE TELEPHONE

[Robert Pease]

I saw somewhere someone had taken old phones, desk and mobile and put cell 
phone guts in them with a pic processor to decode the rotary dial and was 
selling them.  On the outside they looked like the real thing!


Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)


 -Original Message-
From:   John Sehring [mailto:wb...@yahoo.com]
Sent:   Sunday, August 23, 2009 01:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject:Fw: [Repeater-Builder] OT:THE MOBILE TELEPHONE

What I recall about these mobile telephones (at least in NJ when I lived there) 
was that they didn't put quarter-wave VHF whips on roof or trunk but used a 
genuine coaxial dipole on about a 2 foot long mast installed on a fender.  I 
guess they felt that a better way.


--John

--- On Fri, 8/21/09, Joe  wrote:

From: Joe 
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] OT:THE MOBILE TELEPHONE
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 5:37 PM






 





  http://www.wb6nvh.. com/Carphone. htm



This is from another list.  It is an interesting trip down memory lane 

about the evolution of the mobile telephone.



73, Joe K1ike


 

  




 

















  

Since 1974, the award-winning Alpert JFCS has helped families of all faiths 
throughout most of Palm Beach County, FL, via counseling, seniors services, 
residences for the disabled, mentoring children, support groups and a lot more.

SOLUTIONS FOR LIVING 
www.JFCSonline.com 

Please take note of our new website and E-Mail Addresses. Please update your 
contacts ASAP.
 
 
 
 

 
 
NOTICE:
 
This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely 
for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and 
confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
the sender immediately by replying to this message and please delete it from 
your computer.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

[Chuck Kelsey]

I agree with Kevin. You need a little headroom built in for conditions that 
could change. Equipment ages and changes it's operating characteristics. 
Temperature swings cause the same issues. Does one need to go overboard? 
Probably not. But if you happen to be right on the edge under perfect 
conditions, you may be unhappy when something moves a bit out of tolerance.

Chuck
WB2EDV



  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin Custer 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 9:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] isolation




  Gary wrote:


Dan Kagabine, the chief engineer at TX-RX systems use to always say that 
"once you have enough isolation to overcome any desense, then any more is a 
waste of money as it does nothing for you". "If you only need 70 db then a 100 
db duplexer does nothing more for you than a 70 db duplexer".


  While I'll agree that more isolation, then what is needed to insure no 
desense is a waste; if this gentleman is suggesting that isolation in reserve 
is a waste, I strongly disagree.  Why?  Operating conditions can change - snow 
and especially ice on the repeater antenna can detune the system and isolation 
in reserve will allow the repeater to operate without desense until the reserve 
is used up.

  Kevin Custer



  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

[Kevin Custer]

Gary wrote:

Dan Kagabine, the chief engineer at TX-RX systems use to always say 
that "once you have enough isolation to overcome any desense, then any 
more is a waste of money as it does nothing for you". "If you only 
need 70 db then a 100 db duplexer does nothing more for you than a 70 
db duplexer".



While I'll agree that more isolation, then what is needed to insure no 
desense is a waste; if this gentleman is suggesting that isolation in 
reserve is a waste, I strongly disagree.  Why?  Operating conditions can 
change - snow and especially ice on the repeater antenna can detune the 
system and isolation in reserve will allow the repeater to operate 
without desense until the reserve is used up.


Kevin Custer

Re: [Repeater-Builder] isolation

[Kevin Custer]

Eric, and list...

> Kevin,
>
> I agree with your conclusions- provided that the exciter meets your expected
> performance.  I would never assume that I could automatically subtract 22 dB
> from the proposed isolation, merely because it was a PLL exciter, without
> knowing for certain that its performance met or surpassed the
> specifications.  It doesn't happen very often, to be sure, but I have found
> PLL exciters that were considered to be working perfectly by their owners,
> but were producing less than perfect outputs.

And I don't disagree with your assumptions; especially since we are 
talking about equipments that were manufactured years ago and could be 
running outside its intended tuning range.  IE: 150.8 to 174 PLL exciter 
being used in the ham band without the proper VCO slug and BPF 
installed.  Since I commonly won't cut corners, my assumptions are that 
things are operating per book specification - I think we all do, and if 
not - we fix them.


>   Maybe I'm getting too cranky in my old age, but I don't feel like "making 
> another trip to the mountain"
> because I did not do my homework thoroughly.

No, you have always erred on the side of caution, and that has helped 
make you a valuable resource.  I was showing the side to the other 
extreme.  We don't know where this dude lives, but if it is where snow 
and ice occurs, your suggestion is much more likely to continue to allow 
desense-less operation when things are less than perfect.

Kevin Custer

Fw: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair UHF Receive Antenna Multicoupler Question

[ka1jfy]

But what the OP asked about was a multi-coupler, not a tower top amplifier.

WalterH

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, John Sehring  wrote:
>
> Let's never forget that ANY loss between the antenna and the receiver will 
> degrade the rx's noise figure.� That means feedline, duplexer, cavities, 
> connectors, Polyphasers, etc.
> 
> Noise figure degradation means less sensitivity, period.� There's no way to 
> make up for that EXCEPT with a preamp at the antenna.� If that preamp's 
> gain just equals the losses downstream from it, you've got a wash.� 
> However, you will lose on strong signal performance, IM, 3rd order intercept, 
> etc., i.e. the preamp may be prone to overload by strong sigs. depending on 
> its design.
> 
> --John
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/21/09, ka1jfy  wrote:
> 
>Long SNIP>