RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
To everybody that did the math for Tim, we are 1 meg split here in the country of Texas. Tim, I have some 1 5/8 hard line if you want to make a set of notch duplexers, probably can get you the 80% done set from a buddy. Don Kirchner W5DK -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tahrens301 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:09 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) Hi Folks, I was just wondering if one of you who has the software to do so could look up how much horizontal separation it would take on 6 meters. I have two sites 8 miles apart, and vertically separated by about 30 meters. just wonderin' Thanks, Tim W5FN Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
Boy, that seems excessive to me, even at 500 kHz. My hunch is that you'll have acceptable performance much closer in distance. 1 MHz spacing was mentioned which would obviously be even better. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 12:19 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) Tim, I use CommShop for Windows, a handy package that does much more than duplexer isolation calculations. Go here for more info: www.dcico.com/dcilmr.htm It calculates that you'll need about 93 dB of isolation, which requires more than 19 miles of horizontal separation. This can be reduced by using lower power output, a better receiver and PA, and perhaps directional antennas. Bear in mind that CommShop and similar programs make many assumptions to come up with these estimates, and some or all of those assumption might be invalid. YMMV... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Ahrens Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:21 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) Hi Eric/all, Since this is just a curiosity at this time, let's figure 50 watts, 0.25uV, 500khz split. I figured that was the case about the vertical separation, but threw it in anyway. One site would be a solar site, so it would make sense to make it the RX. Guess it might require a notch can at the rx site, based on what Chris said. BTW, what software package are you using? I've been using Radio Mobile for coverage, it works pretty good. Thanks, Tim W5FN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
I had a quite much longer reply in the buffer and decided to shorten it.. .. but 19 miles for any tx to rx coupling would seem to make the band unusable in a metro area.. due to every radio would swamp every receiver in the market...This is just not the case.. The only influence the tx could have on the rx (500khz spacing) at over maybe a mile or two would be white noise.. as the carrier would be well below desense levels itself at that range The implication is every white noise generator within 19 miles would disrupt the rx site aka every mobile in the band. or base or other repeater.. I can say I am aware of a system that a group here operated a 6m repeater site to site at .5 miles at 300khz with modest filters on the TX end.. The RX site actually had 3 repeater receivers for 3 different clubs... Proper engineering would put at least a single bandpass can and maybe an isolator if possible on the TX site.. to minimize white noise to other users...and by itself should make the system useable within a mile let alone 8...or 19... Doug KD8B At 08:59 AM 1/22/2010, you wrote: Boy, that seems excessive to me, even at 500 kHz. My hunch is that you'll have acceptable performance much closer in distance. 1 MHz spacing was mentioned which would obviously be even better. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon mailto:wb6fly%40verizon.netwb6...@verizon.net To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 12:19 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) Tim, I use CommShop for Windows, a handy package that does much more than duplexer isolation calculations. Go here for more info: www.dcico.com/dcilmr.htm It calculates that you'll need about 93 dB of isolation, which requires more than 19 miles of horizontal separation. This can be reduced by using lower power output, a better receiver and PA, and perhaps directional antennas. Bear in mind that CommShop and similar programs make many assumptions to come up with these estimates, and some or all of those assumption might be invalid. YMMV... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Ahrens Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:21 PM To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) Hi Eric/all, Since this is just a curiosity at this time, let's figure 50 watts, 0.25uV, 500khz split. I figured that was the case about the vertical separation, but threw it in anyway. One site would be a solar site, so it would make sense to make it the RX. Guess it might require a notch can at the rx site, based on what Chris said. BTW, what software package are you using? I've been using Radio Mobile for coverage, it works pretty good. Thanks, Tim W5FN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
Exactly my feeling. We've got low-band fire here with channels close-spaced and high power TX and desense on an adjacent channel is rarely an issue. Usually you've got to be within one or two blocks from the 1/4K before it gets noticed. Chuck - Original Message - From: Doug Bade To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) I had a quite much longer reply in the buffer and decided to shorten it.. .. but 19 miles for any tx to rx coupling would seem to make the band unusable in a metro area.. due to every radio would swamp every receiver in the market...This is just not the case.. The only influence the tx could have on the rx (500khz spacing) at over maybe a mile or two would be white noise.. as the carrier would be well below desense levels itself at that range The implication is every white noise generator within 19 miles would disrupt the rx site aka every mobile in the band. or base or other repeater.. I can say I am aware of a system that a group here operated a 6m repeater site to site at .5 miles at 300khz with modest filters on the TX end.. The RX site actually had 3 repeater receivers for 3 different clubs... Proper engineering would put at least a single bandpass can and maybe an isolator if possible on the TX site.. to minimize white noise to other users...and by itself should make the system useable within a mile let alone 8...or 19... Doug KD8B At 08:59 AM 1/22/2010, you wrote: Boy, that seems excessive to me, even at 500 kHz. My hunch is that you'll have acceptable performance much closer in distance. 1 MHz spacing was mentioned which would obviously be even better. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 12:19 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) Tim, I use CommShop for Windows, a handy package that does much more than duplexer isolation calculations. Go here for more info: www.dcico.com/dcilmr.htm It calculates that you'll need about 93 dB of isolation, which requires more than 19 miles of horizontal separation. This can be reduced by using lower power output, a better receiver and PA, and perhaps directional antennas. Bear in mind that CommShop and similar programs make many assumptions to come up with these estimates, and some or all of those assumption might be invalid. YMMV... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Ahrens Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:21 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) Hi Eric/all, Since this is just a curiosity at this time, let's figure 50 watts, 0.25uV, 500khz split. I figured that was the case about the vertical separation, but threw it in anyway. One site would be a solar site, so it would make sense to make it the RX. Guess it might require a notch can at the rx site, based on what Chris said. BTW, what software package are you using? I've been using Radio Mobile for coverage, it works pretty good. Thanks, Tim W5FN -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2638 - Release Date: 01/22/10 02:34:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
Thanks to all for the great response! Well, since we are 1meg splits here -thanks Don-, that should help some also. (I had looked up a couple of repeaters around here saw .5 split, so thought that's how it was). Anyhow, it's just in the thinking stages. Thanks again, Tim W5FN
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
Hi Larry and Joe, If your not wanting to do P25 the Master 3 is a good repeater but my vote would be a Quantar or MTR2000. cant get much better than that. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ 6886 Sage Ave Firestone, Co 80504 303-954-9695 Home 303-954-9693 Home Office Fax 303-718-8052 Cellular _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of burkleoj Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions Larry, You know how much I love Motorola and especially the Micor radio series. But... I think if I were in your position and it was OK with the site owners, I would look real seriously at the Mastr III units. Very nice equipment and still factory supported. These are showing up for under $1000 on the open market. Just my .02 cents worth. Joe - WA7JAW PS. I would not be surprised if the MTR2000 units with the optional front end filter would not work very well for you also for all 4 boxes. --- In Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, larryjspamme...@... lar...@... wrote: Our site owner wants us to upgrade our old Motorola MICOR 2-Meter and UHF ham Repeaters to something much newer. We're looking at replacing them with something like new Motorola Quantar repeaters, which will also save us some floor space - we should be able to mount all of them in one open rack. The people paying for these want to make sure they have any future needed features like P25 capability, etc. We need a 2-Meter Repeater, two - UHF (440-450 MHz range) Repeaters, and one - link (420-430 MHz range) station. The 2-Meter and 440 Repeaters don't need duplexers, since they'll be on some transmit combiner/receive multicoupler systems. The 420 MHz unit needs to be full duplex, and it will be using a duplexer feeding its own dedicated link yagi antenna. Maybe a Quantar isn't necessary for the 420 MHz link repeater - an MTR-2000 (or MTR-3000) would be sufficient. Has anyone here on the list put together a similar order, and might have all of the necessary model numbers, option numbers, etc? I've looked at some of the on-line brochures, but it would be nice to verify with someone who has been through this excercise already. Thanks, LJ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
Tim, I plugged the same values as before into CommShop, but this time with a 1 MHz split, and the result is about 85 dB isolation, which can be met with about 7.75 miles of horizontal separation. The developer of CommShop was calculating distances that would result in NO desense, using radios available at that time. Many repeater owners simply put up with a small amount of desense, either because they have no means to measure it or they say that the repeater is working fine. I'll readily admit that many repeaters will work fine with some desense, and their owners get on with their lives. I daresay that a split-site 6m repeater using Micor or Mastr II radios will supremely outperform a similar system using Alinco or similar mobile radios that have broadband front ends. Doug Bade made a very good point that some desense may result from other stations that may be closer to your receive site than your transmitter; in this case, horizontal separation between your sites is meaningless. Obviously, a neighboring transmitter that is only 500 kHz away from your receive frequency will completely swamp your transmitter that is 1 MHz away. The definitive method for testing whether your transmitter is causing desense to your receiver is to radiate a weak signal to your receive antenna that results in a 12 dB SINAD reading on your service monitor with your transmitter off. Then, energize your transmitter. If the SINAD reading drops, you have desense. As others have pointed out, the use of one or more bandpass cavities on either or both ends may greatly reduce or eliminate desense. You may be pleasantly surprised. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Ahrens Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 6:57 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) Thanks to all for the great response! Well, since we are 1meg splits here -thanks Don-, that should help some also. (I had looked up a couple of repeaters around here saw .5 split, so thought that's how it was). Anyhow, it's just in the thinking stages. Thanks again, Tim W5FN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, larryjspamme...@... lar...@... wrote: Our site owner wants us to upgrade our old Motorola MICOR 2-Meter and UHF ham Repeaters to something much newer. We're looking at replacing them with something like new Motorola Quantar repeaters, which will also save us some floor space - we should be able to mount all of them in one open rack. The people paying for these want to make sure they have any future needed features like P25 capability, etc. Frankly, I would likely tell him to go pound salt. He needs a RALY good reason to force you to change out perfectly good equipment. Interference issues are about the only legit reason. Hams are NOT subject to the narrowbanding requirements of business and public safety users, so that doesn't hold water. I would say unless your current equipment is defective and causing interference, f he really want you to upgrade, he should fork over most of the money. WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
k7...@skybeam.com wrote: Hi Larry and Joe, If your not wanting to do P25 the Master 3 is a good repeater but my vote would be a Quantar or MTR2000. cant get much better than that. The newer vintage MIII's can do P25. Look for the ones with DSP audio processing...I'm not sure if ALL of those can do it, but certainly any made in the last 5 years I think will. Just a feature option upgrade. WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
Frankly, I would likely tell him to go pound salt. He needs a RALY good reason to force you to change out perfectly good equipment. I was thinking the same thing. Did they give you a reason they wanted you to change? A properly set up Micor is as good and clean as anything new out there, and in some respects can argue better. Is it a power consumption issue? Maybe you can agree to settle on replacing just the Micor power supply (I am assuming that's what you have in there) with a new more efficient good quality switch mode? Tom W9SRV
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
I plugged the same values as before into CommShop, but this time with a 1 MHz split, and the result is about 85 dB isolation, which can be met with about 7.75 miles of horizontal separation. snip The definitive method for testing whether your transmitter is causing desense to your receiver is to radiate a weak signal to your receive antenna that results in a 12 dB SINAD reading on your service monitor with your transmitter off. Then, energize your transmitter. If the SINAD reading drops, you have desense. As others have pointed out, the use of one or more bandpass cavities on either or both ends may greatly reduce or eliminate desense. You may be pleasantly surprised. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY On 6m, it's pretty hard to find a site with a noise floor low enough that you will ever realize the bench sensitivity of the receiver. More often than not, the math says that you will have desense due to insufficient transmitter noise supression, but in the real world you never notice it because that Tx noise is hidden in the ambient noise floor. FWIW, I have a split-site 6m repeater (actually, it's off the air currently) on two high rise buildings in Philadelphia. Tx and Rx are Mastr II, TPO is 110 watts, antennas were originally HyGain V6R's but are being replaced by Kreco co-plane. The two rooftops are equal height, and are about 150 yards apart. There is no additional filtering at either the Tx or Rx. No desense. However, the difference between the receiver's bench sensitivity and the effective sensitivity at the site is about 12 dB (i.e. 12 dB SINAD is about -106 dBm) when connected to an antenna. Quite often I see effective sensitivity on 6m as being up in the microvolt range, so you might want to plug in higher sensitivity values for the receiver spec (rather than 0.3 uV) when doing the math. FWIW, GE's duplex isolation curves show that you need 59 dB of Tx noise supression and 45 dB of carrier supression for a Mastr II lowband station at 50 watts and 0.2 uV, 1 MHz split. --- Jeff WN3A
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
Jeff, I completely agree with your conclusions. The calculations of CommShop, while remarkably close to reality for 2m, 220, and 440 applications, are misleading at 6m and lower frequencies. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff DePolo Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 11:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers) I plugged the same values as before into CommShop, but this time with a 1 MHz split, and the result is about 85 dB isolation, which can be met with about 7.75 miles of horizontal separation. snip The definitive method for testing whether your transmitter is causing desense to your receiver is to radiate a weak signal to your receive antenna that results in a 12 dB SINAD reading on your service monitor with your transmitter off. Then, energize your transmitter. If the SINAD reading drops, you have desense. As others have pointed out, the use of one or more bandpass cavities on either or both ends may greatly reduce or eliminate desense. You may be pleasantly surprised. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY On 6m, it's pretty hard to find a site with a noise floor low enough that you will ever realize the bench sensitivity of the receiver. More often than not, the math says that you will have desense due to insufficient transmitter noise supression, but in the real world you never notice it because that Tx noise is hidden in the ambient noise floor. FWIW, I have a split-site 6m repeater (actually, it's off the air currently) on two high rise buildings in Philadelphia. Tx and Rx are Mastr II, TPO is 110 watts, antennas were originally HyGain V6R's but are being replaced by Kreco co-plane. The two rooftops are equal height, and are about 150 yards apart. There is no additional filtering at either the Tx or Rx. No desense. However, the difference between the receiver's bench sensitivity and the effective sensitivity at the site is about 12 dB (i.e. 12 dB SINAD is about -106 dBm) when connected to an antenna. Quite often I see effective sensitivity on 6m as being up in the microvolt range, so you might want to plug in higher sensitivity values for the receiver spec (rather than 0.3 uV) when doing the math. FWIW, GE's duplex isolation curves show that you need 59 dB of Tx noise supression and 45 dB of carrier supression for a Mastr II lowband station at 50 watts and 0.2 uV, 1 MHz split. --- Jeff WN3A
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: current state of our lightning struck repeater.
Hello Eric, The fifth can is a bandpass/bandreject. Rich K8JX _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:09 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: current state of our lightning struck repeater. Rich, Was that fifth can a bandpass cavity or a bandpass/bandreject cavity? I ask because a bandpass cavity imposes a DC ground on the transmission line, while a bandpass/bandreject cavity shows a DC open. If the antenna and/or feedline is experiencing triboelectric charging (i. e., motion static), the bandpass cavity will effectively impose a DC ground and drain the static charge. A BpBr cavity won't help the static problem, but it will clean up some spurious emissions from your PA. 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 Richard MI Ranta Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: current state of our lightning struck repeater. I thought I'd better update the list on what was found. First off, the entire repeater was taken in to the shop for exhaustive testing. The can's were taken apart, inspected and cleaned. All that was visibly found was a little carbon. The two service monitors showed they were working ok. But, when placed back into service at the site, the transmit side leaked into the receiver side. It presented a crackling noise, like saran wrap being crushed. I don't know if the technicians tested the repeater at full power, ( 110 watts) during testing, but I think so. We did solve part of the problem. A fifth can was put into line, on the transmit side and by golly, it did the trick. The repeater is sounding better than before the strike. Interesting enough, there are two or three UHF repeaters also in the site, and none were affected? We're now looking for a 6 can set and controller. I'll share with you when we finally find out where the problem is. Rich K8JX www.w8usa.org
[Repeater-Builder] LCS 2000 Motorola mobile radios
Hi everyone, Just got few of this mobile radio, wonder if can be given a good use in Ham radio, any info appreciated; or if any interest in them let me know in direct reply. Model: M10UGD6DC5BN Type: LCKA Thanks. JT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] LCS 2000 Motorola mobile radios
JT: Batlabs has some information on converting GTX / LCS 2000 units into 900mhz Ham use, but your model number doesn't match anything that batlabs offers for conversion information. http://www.batlabs.com/gtx.html On second look, your M10 is a 800mhz unit. No Ham radio bands there. I'd look for a M11 unit at a minimum if you're serious about using LCS2000 units. -Brian On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:51 PM, JT xe...@grupocimsa.com wrote: Hi everyone, Just got few of this mobile radio, wonder if can be given a good use in Ham radio, any info appreciated; or if any interest in them let me know in direct reply. Model: M10UGD6DC5BN Type: LCKA Thanks. JT Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
On 1/22/2010 8:46 AM, k7...@skybeam.com wrote: If your not wanting to do P25 the Master 3 is a good repeater but my vote would be a Quantar or MTR2000. cant get much better than that. Why do you not recommend the MASTR III in P25 service, Mike? The newer ones do it with the appropriate cards. There were some early ones that needed modifications, I thought. The P25 option wasn't anywhere near being CHEAP though... Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
On 1/22/2010 11:00 AM, wd8chl wrote: --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, larryjspamme...@... lar...@... wrote: Our site owner wants us to upgrade our old Motorola MICOR 2-Meter and UHF ham Repeaters to something much newer. We're looking at replacing them with something like new Motorola Quantar repeaters, which will also save us some floor space - we should be able to mount all of them in one open rack. The people paying for these want to make sure they have any future needed features like P25 capability, etc. Frankly, I would likely tell him to go pound salt. He needs a RALY good reason to force you to change out perfectly good equipment. Interference issues are about the only legit reason. Hams are NOT subject to the narrowbanding requirements of business and public safety users, so that doesn't hold water. I would say unless your current equipment is defective and causing interference, f he really want you to upgrade, he should fork over most of the money. WD8CHL Yeah, I meant to make a similar comment. I would have at least asked him, What's wrong with them? If it's all about the looks they're getting from his smarty-pants customers in the same space (lots of assumptions here) or even he just doesn't like how they look, offer to re-rack them in modern computer racks with solid doors. If he has a legitimate technical beef, I'd be surprised. Of course, he who has the land, makes the rules... at the end of the day. All of the above would have been asked RESPECTFULLY by Yours Truly, if I were in the same situation. All of our MASTR II's are racked in nice new non-GE cabinets at most of the club sites, and no one thinks they look old. A little damp towel and wiping the dust off once in a while goes a long way too. Seriously... Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] LCS 2000 Motorola mobile radios
JT, The model number identifies a 10-channel 15 watt mobile radio that can receive 851-870 MHz and transmit 806-870 and 851-870 MHz. It is a dual-mode trunked radio for 20-25 kHz channel spacing on a clear Smartnet system. It is designed for standard +/- 4 kHz deviation channels and 16K0F3E or 15K6F1D emissions. It is programmable with RVN4156 RSS. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JT Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 2:52 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] LCS 2000 Motorola mobile radios Hi everyone, Just got few of this mobile radio, wonder if can be given a good use in Ham radio, any info appreciated; or if any interest in them let me know in direct reply. Model: M10UGD6DC5BN Type: LCKA Thanks. JT
[Repeater-Builder] LCS 2000 Motorola mobile radios
Thanks Eric and Brian for your info, will see what to do with them, maybe eBay?? JT Asunto: RE: [Repeater-Builder] LCS 2000 Motorola mobile radios JT, The model number identifies a 10-channel 15 watt mobile radio that can receive 851-870 MHz and transmit 806-870 and 851-870 MHz. It is a dual-mode trunked radio for 20-25 kHz channel spacing on a clear Smartnet system. It is designed for standard +/- 4 kHz deviation channels and 16K0F3E or 15K6F1D emissions. It is programmable with RVN4156 RSS. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- Subject: [Repeater-Builder] LCS 2000 Motorola mobile radios Hi everyone, Just got few of this mobile radio, wonder if can be given a good use in Ham radio, any info appreciated; or if any interest in them let me know in direct reply. Model: M10UGD6DC5BN Type: LCKA Thanks. JT
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 6 Meter Repeater spacing (no duplexers)
Eric/Jeff/Chuck/... thanks for all of the good info. As the receiver site will be solar ( there's nothing electrical of any kind for quite a ways), I guess the site should be pretty quiet. Now start looking for some hardware. thanks again! Tim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, larryjspamme...@teleport.com wrote: Our site owner wants us to upgrade our old Motorola MICOR 2-Meter and UHF ham Repeaters to something much newer. We're looking at replacing them with something like new Motorola Quantar repeaters, which will also save us some floor space - we should be able to mount all of them in one open rack. The people paying for these want to make sure they have any future needed features like P25 capability, etc. What's the root of the issue? Space or power? I know the Mastr II and Micor both have ferroresonant power supplies, which contributes to a higher electrical bill. Although you answered the question: the people paying for these. If it's someone else's money, by all means... We need a 2-Meter Repeater, two - UHF (440-450 MHz range) Repeaters, and one - link (420-430 MHz range) station. The 2-Meter and 440 Repeaters don't need duplexers, since they'll be on some transmit combiner/receive multicoupler systems. The 420 MHz unit needs to be full duplex, and it will be using a duplexer feeding its own dedicated link yagi antenna. Maybe a Quantar isn't necessary for the 420 MHz link repeater - an MTR-2000 (or MTR-3000) would be sufficient. Good luck in this endeavor. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Nate Duehr wrote: All of our MASTR II's are racked in nice new non-GE cabinets at most of the club sites, and no one thinks they look old. A little damp towel and wiping the dust off once in a while goes a long way too. A MastrII only looks old because the housing is stereotypical 1930s-1950s engineering: form follows function, and strong to boot! A Chatsworth rack isn't going to make it any prettier. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Quantar 2M UHF Repeater Ordering Questions
A Chatsworth cabinet with doors (and proper ventilation) will, however :P -Brian On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Kris Kirby k...@catonic.us wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Nate Duehr wrote: All of our MASTR II's are racked in nice new non-GE cabinets at most of the club sites, and no one thinks they look old. A little damp towel and wiping the dust off once in a while goes a long way too. A MastrII only looks old because the housing is stereotypical 1930s-1950s engineering: form follows function, and strong to boot! A Chatsworth rack isn't going to make it any prettier. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Hamtronics COR-3 to TS-64
Anyone have a diagram or point to point description for connecting a TS64 tone board (encode and decode) to a Hamtronics COR-3 board? I'm dealing with one feeding two Mitreks, with + voltage on PTT and COR, and I am stumped. de NA4IT
[Repeater-Builder] Hamtronics COR-3 to TS-64
I am in need of help in adding a TS-64 tone board to a Hamtronics COR-3. It is connected to 2 Mitreks, with COS and PTT both positive voltage for action. Anyone have a diagram or point to point description? de NA4IT
