RE: [Repeater-Builder] HT750 updating firmware.
Hello Eric, Thank you for reply. I used the Non Four Line Display Radio firmware and all of my programming stuff are original from Motorola, RIB, cable and Flash interface Ive start the process and the programming software stop and ask me to do not click on cancel to return to the previous option but I think at this moment it was to late. Right now the radio doesnt power up, completely dead! I have an access to Motorola Online, is it possible to find something to clean the memory and start again? Is it possible to have any program like TK for HT and CDM series? Thanks again to everyone who want to help me with that. 73 Eric VE2VXT /VE7 _ De : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] De la part de Eric Lemmon Envoyé : 12 novembre 2009 10:26 À : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Objet : RE: [Repeater-Builder] HT750 updating firmware. Eric, You'd be surprised how often a radio gets bricked during a firmware upgrade. The primary causes are impatience, where the technician disconnects the cables prematurely because he thinks the operation is complete, and the use of incorrect cables or flashing adapters. A radio or laptop battery that dies at the worst possible moment can also be a problem. Since you appear to be savvy about the long wait between the first and second beep signals, I wonder if you might have used the wrong firmware upgrade package. There are two: Professional Series Portable Firmware R05.14.03 - Four Line Display Radios and Professional Series Portable Firmware R05.14.03 - Non Four Line Display Radios The Non Four Line firmware is for HT750 and HT1250 radios only. The Four Line firmware is for HT1550 radios. Loading the four-line firmware into an HT750 will brick it. Assuming you have the proper cables and adapters for firmware flashing, I suggest trying to load the correct firmware to see if the radio can be recovered. Otherwise, it's a $275 repair at the depot. Be aware that once the radio is flashed to firmware version R05.14.03, you should use HVN9025W CPS (R06.11.05) or later to program the radio. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Vincent Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:11 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] HT750 updating firmware. Hello, I've try yesterday to update the firmware on my Motorola HT750 and right now my radio is dead. The original version was R05.09.11 and the wrong one was R05.14.03 Maybe someone in the group have hint for me? Thank you. Eric VE2VXT /VE7
Re: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB
This whole thread about ACSSB legality reminds me of read it again regarding TV channel 7 digital conversions of a few months ago. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:47:54 AM PST From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB n0fpe wrote: One thing to remember. Amatuers are NOT authorized to use ACSSB above 30mhz. Please check part 97 for the exact modes we are able to use. heck if we were there would be tons of ACSSB repeaters already modified into the ham band. I don't believe that comment on legality. But no, the reason there isn't bunch of those on the ham bands is that many people have tried with no success. The firmware in those doesn't allow out-of-band, and so far no one has had luck hacking it. And there isn't much value in doing it anyway. As Doug said, it didn't work very well, so why try?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB
Interesting thing about part 97. It is written differently than any other part of the rules. In most of the rules they tell you what you can do and if it isn't specifically spelled out then you can't do it. In part 97 it is the other way around. For the most part they tell you what you can't do. So unless it specifically says you can't so it, it is assumed ok. This was done this way to promote experimentation with new modes and new ways to use old modes. I can't speak to this mode specifically but look at it technically as in bandwidth, modulation,... The tech specs that may exclude it from use, not the name or mode itself. JMO. YMMV. Rob Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: DCFluX [mailto:dcf...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 09:13 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject:Re: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB Could you please provide a rule number to back this up? Linear Modulation and ACSSB share 4K00J3E as the emission designator. On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:34 AM, n0fpe n0...@cox.net wrote: One thing to remember. Amatuers are NOT authorized to use ACSSB above 30mhz. Please check part 97 for the exact modes we are able to use. heck if we were there would be tons of ACSSB repeaters already modified into the ham band. 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] HT750 updating firmware.
Eric, I am not aware of any means to clean the memory. If you send the radio to Motorola's repair depot, it will come back with a brand-new chassis- a new radio in an old case- with the latest firmware installed. Of course, you must have the most recent version of CPS to program it. It is cheaper to replace the innards in a few minutes than to troubleshoot and repair the problem- which might take hours. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Vincent Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:55 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] HT750 updating firmware. Hello Eric, Thank you for reply. I used the Non Four Line Display Radio firmware and all of my programming stuff are original from Motorola, RIB, cable and Flash interface Ive start the process and the programming software stop and ask me to do not click on cancel to return to the previous option but I think at this moment it was to late. Right now the radio doesnt power up, completely dead! I have an access to Motorola Online, is it possible to find something to clean the memory and start again? Is it possible to have any program like TK for HT and CDM series? Thanks again to everyone who want to help me with that. 73 Eric VE2VXT /VE7 De : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] De la part de Eric Lemmon Envoyé : 12 novembre 2009 10:26 À : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Objet : RE: [Repeater-Builder] HT750 updating firmware. Eric, You'd be surprised how often a radio gets bricked during a firmware upgrade. The primary causes are impatience, where the technician disconnects the cables prematurely because he thinks the operation is complete, and the use of incorrect cables or flashing adapters. A radio or laptop battery that dies at the worst possible moment can also be a problem. Since you appear to be savvy about the long wait between the first and second beep signals, I wonder if you might have used the wrong firmware upgrade package. There are two: Professional Series Portable Firmware R05.14.03 - Four Line Display Radios and Professional Series Portable Firmware R05.14.03 - Non Four Line Display Radios The Non Four Line firmware is for HT750 and HT1250 radios only. The Four Line firmware is for HT1550 radios. Loading the four-line firmware into an HT750 will brick it. Assuming you have the proper cables and adapters for firmware flashing, I suggest trying to load the correct firmware to see if the radio can be recovered. Otherwise, it's a $275 repair at the depot. Be aware that once the radio is flashed to firmware version R05.14.03, you should use HVN9025W CPS (R06.11.05) or later to program the radio. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -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 Eric Vincent Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:11 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] HT750 updating firmware. Hello, I've try yesterday to update the firmware on my Motorola HT750 and right now my radio is dead. The original version was R05.09.11 and the wrong one was R05.14.03 Maybe someone in the group have hint for me? Thank you. Eric VE2VXT /VE7
RE: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB
Agreed Rob. ACSSB is nothing more than regular old SSB with a few things added. The compandering is simply speech compression on the transmit end and an equivalent expansion on the receive end to restore the dynamic range of the voice. This gives some noise reduction in the circuit. As mentioned before the SEA radios placed the pilot tone in the middle of the band pass. The other guys just inserted some carrier (as I remember) for a pilot. This has been done for many years in the marine radio service on the SSB circuits. The carrier was run at 20 db down from peak power. The repeaters were licensed with a specific ERP and height above average terrain. So combiner loss, cable loss, antenna gain and height above average terrain were all factored in to determine the power output of the repeaters. The biggest problem was the cost of the equipment. They could not get the cost down to be competitive with FM. ACSB started out on the VHF bands with a few channels placed in-between FM two way channels. The problem there was too much interference from the FM side bands that clobbered the ACSSB receivers. Being amplitude based there is no capture or limiting like there is with FM so any little noise is heard. ACSSB can have much better range than FM with a clear channel (no noise) but it is hard to find such. SEA petitioned the FCC for a portion of the 220 band to get ACSSB only channels to get away from the problems with sharing with FM on the VHF channels. It was a good thought but the equipment had other problems, mostly manufacturing at reasonable cost. 73 Gary K4FMX _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Pease Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:01 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB Interesting thing about part 97. It is written differently than any other part of the rules. In most of the rules they tell you what you can do and if it isn't specifically spelled out then you can't do it. In part 97 it is the other way around. For the most part they tell you what you can't do. So unless it specifically says you can't so it, it is assumed ok. This was done this way to promote experimentation with new modes and new ways to use old modes. I can't speak to this mode specifically but look at it technically as in bandwidth, modulation,... The tech specs that may exclude it from use, not the name or mode itself. JMO. YMMV. Rob Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: DCFluX [mailto:dcf...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 09:13 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject:Re: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB Could you please provide a rule number to back this up? Linear Modulation and ACSSB share 4K00J3E as the emission designator. On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:34 AM, n0fpe n0...@cox.net wrote: One thing to remember. Amatuers are NOT authorized to use ACSSB above 30mhz. Please check part 97 for the exact modes we are able to use. heck if we were there would be tons of ACSSB repeaters already modified into the ham band. (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch mailto:repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email%20delivery:%20 Digest delivery to Daily Digest | Switch mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change%20deliv ery%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured to Fully Featured Visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder;_ylc=X3oDMTJjdGcyZDNmBF9TAzk 3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDaHBmBHN 0aW1lAzEyNTgxMTcyMjE- Your Group | Yahoo! Groups http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Terms of Use | Unsubscribe mailto:repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe
[Repeater-Builder] Re: ACSSB
To some extent, ACSSB was simply the worst of all worlds, like NBFM with more ignition noise and companding artifacts, or SSB but restricted to channels. It made sense on paper as an analog bandwidth conservation tool compared to NBFM, but sounded really bad in areas of marginal signal, and who's still developing analog techniques these days? In many applied applications (customer vehicles) it sounded bad in fairly decent signal locations. The one impressive demo I experienced was a customer vehicle (a Van) in a Sacramento CSUS (University) Parking lot. With the ignition off (no motor noise) he could easily talk simplex back to his base station in the San Jose Area (better than 100 plus miles) with not much radio power. Start the motor and the radio would hose up on ignition noise and stop working... but with the motor off, very impressive distance for the radio power level used. Life goes on... ACSB will probably not move forward in land mobile applications. cheers, s.
[Repeater-Builder] Min II filters needed
Fellows, I'm on a quest for Minitor II tone filters(KLN7834) for a loal FD. I have a request for CB(371.5) LB(822.2) tones. They'd like to have at least 10 sets. PLEASE check your junk boxes and other stashes and let me know what you have. Thanks, Scott -- Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 474 Barnett Road Boswell, PA 15531
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Min II filters needed
Scott, check out http://www.mdmradio.com/ You know Lefty You know Lefty also check Here http://www.gcomradio.com/ PS The custom Made by You 220 Repeater is still working Great Good Luck Don KA9QJG Fellows, I'm on a quest for Minitor II tone filters(KLN7834) for a loal FD. I have a request for CB(371.5) LB(822.2) tones. They'd like to have at least 10 sets. PLEASE check your junk boxes and other stashes and let me know what you have. Thanks, Scott -- Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 474 Barnett Road Boswell, PA 15531
[Repeater-Builder] Quantar-Nuc paging transmitter GURU
Looking for some ones input on nuc and quantar interchangability. I want to know if the back plane in a paging nuc will allow a quantar controller to plug in and work the same as a quantar backplane, such that a p-25 repeater can be achieved. I have five nuc's sitting and want to make quantars out of them. I know I know wheels have already been invented. Bill . w4oo . atlanta .
[Repeater-Builder] Quantar-Nuc paging transmitter GURU
Looking for some ones input on nuc and quantar interchangability. I want to know if the back plane in a paging nuc will allow a quantar controller to plug in and work the same as a quantar backplane, such that a p-25 repeater can be achieved. I have five nuc's sitting and want to make quantars out of them. I know I know wheels have already been invented. Bill . w4oo . atlanta .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Quantar-Nuc paging transmitter GURU
If you find out before I do, I would love to know. I have not had the time to mess around with my nuke, but I do have some Quantar control boards that could be guinea pigged for the purpose. I would be most concerned about the PA working with it as the Quantar control system knows the little 125 Watt PA units and the Quantro/MSF high power platform (which is two paralleled MSF PA units). James Bill wrote: Looking for some ones input on nuc and quantar interchangability. I want to know if the back plane in a paging nuc will allow a quantar controller to plug in and work the same as a quantar backplane, such that a p-25 repeater can be achieved. I have five nuc's sitting and want to make quantars out of them. I know I know wheels have already been invented. Bill . w4oo . atlanta . Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Dear friend!
Dear friend, How are you doing recently? I found a good website last week: www.etstrade.com. They do internationa business and they sell different kinds of electronic products. Such as laptops, digital cameras, phones, notebooks and so on. Their products are new and original and have 3 years international warranty, so we can fix the product in our own country for free. Now , the Cristmas day is coming,they are promoting their products. So the prices are very competitive. I am sure it will be a good choice for us. Greetings!
[Repeater-Builder] Guess this will make some happy!!
Nothing in the rules will state ACSSB is not allowed or ACSSB is allowed. The rules give the technical parameters for signals on a band. Any more that meets those technical parameters - and is publicly documented - is permitted. ACSSB would seem to meet those requirements. 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Regulatory Information Manager ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio#153; 860-594-0236 dhender...@arrl.org
[Repeater-Builder] Maxon smp4000
Hi guys .I have a maxon stand alone programmer and I have some sm4450 NE,SD and I have tried to program the eproms with two frequencies .one 507 with no problems and one with 517megs and it comes up with frequency max error .does anyone know thee password to access the parameters to charge the frequency max setting Thank You, Ian Wells, Kerinvale Comaudio, 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715 Ph 0749922449 or 0409159932 or 0749922574 www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Dear friend!
Butch Kanvick wrote: Dear friend, Measures have been taken so this won't happen again - from this member. Kevin Custer List Owner
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Dear friend!
At least you're more on the ball about taking care of spammers than other yahoo! lists I'm on... Thank you sir for the wonderful service. -Brian / KF4ZWZ On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Custer kug...@kuggie.com wrote: Butch Kanvick wrote: Dear friend, Measures have been taken so this won't happen again - from this member. Kevin Custer List Owner
[Repeater-Builder] Very low TX audio on Spectra D44
Oh, great wise wizards of radio land... As the subject line says. Changed mics, adjusted deviation and mic gain settings. Also used test mode. Audio including PL and signalling is less than a tenth KHz deviation. Common problem? Ready solution? I know about the time bomb caps - is this a typical symptom? Thanks Mike/W5JR
[Repeater-Builder] Re: ACSSB
duh-because when repeaters were first authorized for 2M, they were only allowed from 146 to 148. 144.5-145.5 didn't come into existence until the 80's. Close, but not exactly. When repeaters first came to be used on the ham bands in the late '50s/early '60s the 2m band from 144 to 148 Mc was only available to General class licensees and above. Novice (yes, Novice had some 2m voice privileges at that time) and Technician licensees were only allowed to operate in the 2m band from 145 to 147 Mc. Therefore if a repeater owner wanted to make his repeater available to the widest audience he had to keep both input and output within the 145 to 147 range. Interestingly, there was a repeater in the S. F. Bay area (somewhere down the Peninsula, I believe, maybe Stanford) that did have it's input and output on 144 and 147+ with the clearly stated reason that Novices and Techs. were not welcome. Never seemed to bother anyone I knew; that group carried on some pretty stuffy conversations anyway and there were enough 145 to 147 machines to go around including at least one AM repeater. However the only repeater at the time (that I know of) using 600Kc separation was the WB6AAE repeater in the foothills east of Oakland on Grizzly Peak. If they had a role in establishing the later standard, I have no idea Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wd8chl wd8...@... wrote: Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis wrote: wonder why the fcc does not allow acssb above 30 mhz on the ham bands? seems to me they would want to promote more efficient modes through all the ham bands. another interesting thing would be to see 2 meter repeaters go to 2 or 3 mhz splits and employ some form of efficient modulation mode instead of the same old 10 khz fm. and i am sure we will be all dead before this happens :) one can imagine though. better tx/rx isolation, cleaner signals, employ some form of narrow band modulation scheme and we could even ease congestion on 2 meters. i still can't imagine how the 600 khz split was decided for 2 meters when there is room for at least a 2 mhz split. duh-because when repeaters were first authorized for 2M, they were only allowed from 146 to 148. 144.5-145.5 didn't come into existence until the 80's. No-2M is too populated to do any changes. Not gonna happen until they just flat stop making FM gear. Not in my life time, not in your kids lifetimes, probably not in your grandkids lifetimes either. Same with the 150-174 LMR band...WAY to much gear out there to try to standardize input/output. Look at the bright side-at least the ham band HAS a standard. There is none in the LMR segment.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: ACSSB
another interesting thing would be to see 2 meter repeaters go to 2 or 3 mhz splits and employ some form of efficient modulation mode instead of the same old 10 khz fm. Actually, it's happening now. There's a very dedicated (and, apparently, very wealthy) group of hams using the Public Safety P25 digital protocol on both VHF HB and UHF ham bands with some discussion of trying it on 900 as well. Even on the ham market, that equipment isn't cheap and well out of my area of interest. As for the wider splits, performance is such that I see no reason to change now. In the '60s, that may have been a good idea. Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis kc8...@... wrote: wonder why the fcc does not allow acssb above 30 mhz on the ham bands? seems to me they would want to promote more efficient modes through all the ham bands. another interesting thing would be to see 2 meter repeaters go to 2 or 3 mhz splits and employ some form of efficient modulation mode instead of the same old 10 khz fm. and i am sure we will be all dead before this happens :) one can imagine though. better tx/rx isolation, cleaner signals, employ some form of narrow band modulation scheme and we could even ease congestion on 2 meters. i still can't imagine how the 600 khz split was decided for 2 meters when there is room for at least a 2 mhz split. i like the idea of injecting the 100 hz tone into a ssb carrier and using it to lock the rit. - Original Message - From: n0fpe n0...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:34 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB One thing to remember. Amatuers are NOT authorized to use ACSSB above 30mhz. Please check part 97 for the exact modes we are able to use. heck if we were there would be tons of ACSSB repeaters already modified into the ham band. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: ACSSB
I believe the OP is essentially correct. The 2M sub-band didn't come until much later - I was thinking it was the late 70s, but it could have been the early 80s. Your point was why the 146 MHz pairs were more popular - because the techs could not use the 147 MHz pairs. The 146 MHz segment was originally 60 kHz channels (146.610, 146.670, 146.730, Etc.), then went to 30 kHz in most areas - going to 20 kHz channels in some, then the 30 kHz was again broken down into 15 kHz channels. The sub-band was always 20 kHz until some areas changed that, too. Check out some of the older RDs for more info. Some of the early 70s ones even listed the Input/Output modulation, such as 5/5 or 15/5 or 15/15 (meaning deviation in / deviation out). Joe M. wb6dgn wrote: duh-because when repeaters were first authorized for 2M, they were only allowed from 146 to 148. 144.5-145.5 didn't come into existence until the 80's. Close, but not exactly. When repeaters first came to be used on the ham bands in the late '50s/early '60s the 2m band from 144 to 148 Mc was only available to General class licensees and above. Novice (yes, Novice had some 2m voice privileges at that time) and Technician licensees were only allowed to operate in the 2m band from 145 to 147 Mc. Therefore if a repeater owner wanted to make his repeater available to the widest audience he had to keep both input and output within the 145 to 147 range. Interestingly, there was a repeater in the S. F. Bay area (somewhere down the Peninsula, I believe, maybe Stanford) that did have it's input and output on 144 and 147+ with the clearly stated reason that Novices and Techs. were not welcome. Never seemed to bother anyone I knew; that group carried on some pretty stuffy conversations anyway and there were enough 145 to 147 machines to go around including at least one AM repeater. However the only repeater at the time (tha t I know of) using 600Kc separation was the WB6AAE repeater in the foothills east of Oakland on Grizzly Peak. If they had a role in establishing the later standard, I have no idea Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wd8chl wd8...@... wrote: Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis wrote: wonder why the fcc does not allow acssb above 30 mhz on the ham bands? seems to me they would want to promote more efficient modes through all the ham bands. another interesting thing would be to see 2 meter repeaters go to 2 or 3 mhz splits and employ some form of efficient modulation mode instead of the same old 10 khz fm. and i am sure we will be all dead before this happens :) one can imagine though. better tx/rx isolation, cleaner signals, employ some form of narrow band modulation scheme and we could even ease congestion on 2 meters. i still can't imagine how the 600 khz split was decided for 2 meters when there is room for at least a 2 mhz split. duh-because when repeaters were first authorized for 2M, they were only allowed from 146 to 148. 144.5-145.5 didn't come into existence until the 80's. No-2M is too populated to do any changes. Not gonna happen until they just flat stop making FM gear. Not in my life time, not in your kids lifetimes, probably not in your grandkids lifetimes either. Same with the 150-174 LMR band...WAY to much gear out there to try to standardize input/output. Look at the bright side-at least the ham band HAS a standard. There is none in the LMR segment. Yahoo! Groups Links 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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: ACSSB
Oh, my point was that the techs had access to the entire 2M band before there were repeaters in the sub-band (144.5 - 145.5 MHz), so the sub-band had no impact on the techs, or vice versa. I remember when the sub-band was the black sheep of the 2M band. Joe M. MCH wrote: I believe the OP is essentially correct. The 2M sub-band didn't come until much later - I was thinking it was the late 70s, but it could have been the early 80s. Your point was why the 146 MHz pairs were more popular - because the techs could not use the 147 MHz pairs. The 146 MHz segment was originally 60 kHz channels (146.610, 146.670, 146.730, Etc.), then went to 30 kHz in most areas - going to 20 kHz channels in some, then the 30 kHz was again broken down into 15 kHz channels. The sub-band was always 20 kHz until some areas changed that, too. Check out some of the older RDs for more info. Some of the early 70s ones even listed the Input/Output modulation, such as 5/5 or 15/5 or 15/15 (meaning deviation in / deviation out). Joe M. wb6dgn wrote: duh-because when repeaters were first authorized for 2M, they were only allowed from 146 to 148. 144.5-145.5 didn't come into existence until the 80's. Close, but not exactly. When repeaters first came to be used on the ham bands in the late '50s/early '60s the 2m band from 144 to 148 Mc was only available to General class licensees and above. Novice (yes, Novice had some 2m voice privileges at that time) and Technician licensees were only allowed to operate in the 2m band from 145 to 147 Mc. Therefore if a repeater owner wanted to make his repeater available to the widest audience he had to keep both input and output within the 145 to 147 range. Interestingly, there was a repeater in the S. F. Bay area (somewhere down the Peninsula, I believe, maybe Stanford) that did have it's input and output on 144 and 147+ with the clearly stated reason that Novices and Techs. were not welcome. Never seemed to bother anyone I knew; that group carried on some pretty stuffy conversations anyway and there were enough 145 to 147 machines to go around including at least one AM repeater. However the only repeater at the time (th a t I know of) using 600Kc separation was the WB6AAE repeater in the foothills east of Oakland on Grizzly Peak. If they had a role in establishing the later standard, I have no idea Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wd8chl wd8...@... wrote: Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis wrote: wonder why the fcc does not allow acssb above 30 mhz on the ham bands? seems to me they would want to promote more efficient modes through all the ham bands. another interesting thing would be to see 2 meter repeaters go to 2 or 3 mhz splits and employ some form of efficient modulation mode instead of the same old 10 khz fm. and i am sure we will be all dead before this happens :) one can imagine though. better tx/rx isolation, cleaner signals, employ some form of narrow band modulation scheme and we could even ease congestion on 2 meters. i still can't imagine how the 600 khz split was decided for 2 meters when there is room for at least a 2 mhz split. duh-because when repeaters were first authorized for 2M, they were only allowed from 146 to 148. 144.5-145.5 didn't come into existence until the 80's. No-2M is too populated to do any changes. Not gonna happen until they just flat stop making FM gear. Not in my life time, not in your kids lifetimes, probably not in your grandkids lifetimes either. Same with the 150-174 LMR band...WAY to much gear out there to try to standardize input/output. Look at the bright side-at least the ham band HAS a standard. There is none in the LMR segment. Yahoo! Groups Links 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
