Re: [Repeater-Builder] 440 Repeater Project
How about KJ4LII? Should work OK. --- On Sun, 5/3/09, redleg_8 redle...@yahoo.com wrote: From: redleg_8 redle...@yahoo.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 440 Repeater Project To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 3, 2009, 6:16 PM I have selected hardware, controller, duplexer, antenna, and location. SERA has provided me with available frequency pairs and a blank application. What I CAN'T locate any information on is how to obtain a legal callsign for a individually owned repeater. Thanks, Dean KJ4LII
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood
Our club has 7 of the TK750 and two TK850 repeaters running on several different mountaintops, mostly medium RF intense. They have worked without any issues for a couple of years now. I don't know how they stack up against the vertex, but they seem well suited for what we are doing with them. We replaced mostly Micor mobile conversions with these newer units, and have cut back on maint issues dramatically. Of course the Micors were around 30 years old, too. The Kenwoods are very nice, and easy to program and set up. They mount in a 3.5 rack space, so thats good too. Output power is 35-40 watts, we set ours around 25-30 since they can grind for many hours continuously. Joe --- On Fri, 10/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, October 3, 2008, 8:13 AM Hi Joe, I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they should work fine at the quiet one. That's just it -- they don't work all that well at this mountaintop site with literally hundreds of RF sources. Since we have an opportunity to sell them, it seems like a good time for an upgrade. But if K is no better in this situation than V, you're right, we're going down the wrong path. This is a club that went from Micor vintage equipment that was showing its age to Vertex and now has an opportunity to change once again. The bias is toward new, low-maintenance gear rather than refurbished old commercial gear. 73, Bob -Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 9:50 pm Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they should work fine at the quiet one. Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] com wrote: Hi All, My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF site. A possible deal would move them to a much quieter site, and if that happens we'll need replacements. Members of this list have consistently shown a preference for Kenwoods, and it appears both brands are priced about the same. However, I'm concerned that much of what has been posted falls into the true believer category, and this decision must be based on technical data. How about it, RF gurus? If you have facts, please spill 'em. Thanks! 73, Bob, WA9FBO - - - - - - Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 10075x120938 2257x1200540686/ aol?redir= http://www. walletpop. com/?NCID= emlcntuswall 0001. - - - - - - No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008 7:46 AM Find phone numbers fast with the New AOL Yellow Pages!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: CTCSS highpass filter paper
Walter, that same chip could easily be built up on a small circuit board to give a 2175 notch, with a very sharp response. Could probably build one up for $20 or so. Joe --- On Thu, 9/18/08, ka1jfy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: ka1jfy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: CTCSS highpass filter paper To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 3:17 PM Not real interested in a PL filter, but my agency [hello Joe M] would be REAL interested in a commercial version of the notch filter. We currently put either a Vega passive [$150] or Midian active [$60] 2175 notch in every repeater we build up. Walter KD7BJJ Phoenix, AZ --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com, Kevin Custer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, Reference :http://www.mix- sig.com/Msi5data 12.pdf Repeater Builder (the company) may be interested in building this up and making it available as a add on unit. We had looked at this some time ago, but felt the concept was not understood by our community to the degree that the product would be very successful. We have found that education of the folks interested in the AP-50 has been a challenge at best. Sure, better sounding repeaters has resulted since the release of this little device, but I doubt we'll ever sell enough to make it worth the effort of getting it all together and making it available to the general builder. How many of you would really buy a PL filter like this?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: CTCSS highpass filter paper
The filter we're talking about is sufficiently wide to accomodate any drift, and since the sampling is at a couple of hundred KHz, the filters are very simple. Joe --- On Thu, 9/18/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: CTCSS highpass filter paper To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 9:40 PM Hi All, Please note some items that should be considered when making a commercial version 2175 notch filter. Not all remotes and consoles generate a precise 2175 Hz tone. Older units use LC oscillators that can drift, while newer ones are crystal controlled and are more accurate. A switched capacitor filter IC has a tolerance, expressed as a clock to corner ratio, which can be as much as 1.5%. So you have a encoder that shifts and a decoder that shifts. How do you guarantee that the notch has sufficient depth, say, 50 to 60 dB, regardless of the encoder brand or age so that the operator doesn't complain about the tone in her ear? Rather than build an adjustable decoder, which needs to be calibrated and has insufficient temperature stability, you build a crystal-controlled decoder. And you choose the Q of the filter so it delivers a notch of sufficient depth over a sufficient range of frequencies. And since it's a sampled data system, don't forget the antialias and reconstruction filters. 73, Bob, WA9FBO S-COM, LLC In a message dated 9/18/2008 7:31:15 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, skyislandpage@ yahoo.com writes: Walter, that same chip could easily be built up on a small circuit board to give a 2175 notch, with a very sharp response. Could probably build one up for $20 or so. Joe --- On Thu, 9/18/08, ka1jfy walter.howard. [EMAIL PROTECTED] com wrote: From: ka1jfy walter.howard. [EMAIL PROTECTED] com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: CTCSS highpass filter paper To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 3:17 PM Not real interested in a PL filter, but my agency [hello Joe M] would be REAL interested in a commercial version of the notch filter. We currently put either a Vega passive [$150] or Midian active [$60] 2175 notch in every repeater we build up. Walter KD7BJJ Phoenix, AZ Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: air com
Apparently you've either been there or met Sid somewhere. Joe --- On Tue, 9/16/08, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: air com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 11:10 AM Always makes me think of a Mel Brooks Movie... don't know why. cheers, s. .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] CTCSS highpass filter paper
The best PL filter I ever saw was one I built out of a digital SCF design a couple of years ago. I realize that the paper is referencing commonly available products, but I wish someone would make this thing up for sale. Here is a link to the data sheet: http://www.mix-sig.com/Msi5data12.pdf This thing had essentially flat response from 110% of Fc to the top of the voice band. The cutoff below was superb in the elliptic mode. If Fc was set to 300Hz, tones at 255Hz were 30 dB down. It got better with lower frequencies, and everything below 200Hz was 70+ dB down. If set to Fc of 275Hz, everything was flat above 300, and 234Hz was 30dB down, and everything below 180 Hz was better than 70 dB down. The neat thing is it is totally adjustable and can be built with only two 8 pin ICs and a few cheap parts (caps and resistors). If all of your PL tones are in the lower ranges, Fc can be set to 200Hz (or lower), giving fuller sounding voice audio while still rejecting tones below 170Hz by 30dB or more, a lot more as you go lower. Joe --- On Sat, 9/13/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Repeater-Builder] CTCSS highpass filter paper To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 9:32 PM Hi All, There was a discussion on Repeater-Builder a while ago about the advantages and disadvantages of various commercial CTCSS highpass filters. S-COM's analog guru, Virgil, W0INK, did a careful analysis of five common highpass filter designs: Comm Spec TS-32, Comm Spec TS-64, Micor PL, MSR2000 PL, and GE CG. The results are certainly interesting. His paper can be found at http://www.scomcont rollers.com/ downloads/ ctcsssrejecthpfilters.pdf Enjoy! 73, Bob Bob Schmid, WA9FBO, Member S-COM, LLC PO Box 1546 LaPorte CO 80535-1546 970-416-6505 voice 970-419-3222 fax www.scomcontrollers .com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] CTCSS highpass filter paper
Don't know why that link won't open, I'll try it again without the http. www.mix-sig.com/Msi5data12.pdf --- On Sun, 9/14/08, Joe Montierth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Joe Montierth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] CTCSS highpass filter paper To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 1:15 AM The best PL filter I ever saw was one I built out of a digital SCF design a couple of years ago. I realize that the paper is referencing commonly available products, but I wish someone would make this thing up for sale. Here is a link to the data sheet: http://www.mix-sig.com/Msi5data 12.pdf This thing had essentially flat response from 110% of Fc to the top of the voice band. The cutoff below was superb in the elliptic mode. If Fc was set to 300Hz, tones at 255Hz were 30 dB down. It got better with lower frequencies, and everything below 200Hz was 70+ dB down. If set to Fc of 275Hz, everything was flat above 300, and 234Hz was 30dB down, and everything below 180 Hz was better than 70 dB down. The neat thing is it is totally adjustable and can be built with only two 8 pin ICs and a few cheap parts (caps and resistors). If all of your PL tones are in the lower ranges, Fc can be set to 200Hz (or lower), giving fuller sounding voice audio while still rejecting tones below 170Hz by 30dB or more, a lot more as you go lower. Joe
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood TKR-750 rptr.
Our club now owns six of the low split 750's and they work great. Wouldn't have anything else for the price. Joe --- Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug, Although the K2 repeater is the obvious choice for covering the entire 2m band, the K1 version will probably tune down okay. Unless you have the TKR-750 Service Manual in hand, you may not realize that there are front-end coils that must be tuned to optimize the repeater performance. Once tuned per the manual, the TKR-750 will meet its specifications. There are several Kenwood dealers on the Repeater-Builder list who will gladly work out a deal for you. However, if you plan to purchase a new TKR-750 repeater, do not let yourself be talked into anything but the low-split repeater! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n3dab Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:06 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood TKR-750 rptr. Can the type 1 TKR-750 Rptr. (146-174) be programmed and work on 144.570 Rx and 145.170 Tx (or even down to 143 to work on the MARS freq's.) if they are found to be NTIA compliant. Or should I really be looking for the the Type 2 rptr. (136-150)for this purpose. Also can anyone name a source or 2 for Kenwood rptrs that would give a discount price to Ham Clubs,ARES, etc. Thanks Doug N3DAB Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transistor Switch
A TO220 PNP transistor configured as emitter follower will work for this. Tie the emitter of the new PNP to one fan terminal (the other goes to 12v), the collector to ground, and the base to the sinking point (open collector) of your controller. Any PNP transistor capable of an amp or more of collector current should pretty much work for this app. The current through the controller will be reduced by the gain of the new transistor. IOW, if the gain is 20, then the current will then be 400/20, or 20ma, well within specs of you board. A heatsink probably won't be needed for the TO220 transistor. It may get a little warm when powering the fan, but probably not hot enough to need additional sinking. If it does seem overly warm, put on a small clip on heatsink. You might also put a reverse diode across the fan, like you would do for a relay, to prevent any inductive kick from damaging the transistor. A 1n4002, or basically any type of diode will probably work for that. Joe --- Kevin Natalia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I know this is a silly question, but my brain is dead and I can not remember how I did the other ones. I am in need of a simple transistor switch to ground. I am using a control line in my repeater controller to switch on some cooling fans, the controller will only accept a sink to ground of 150mA, and I am pulling 400mA, thus the switch. I don't want to use a relay, so the transistor would be a better option. Please help. Kevin Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
RE: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Receiver overload
An easy way to check for overload would be to install a HPF before the RX, this would greatly cut down the 104.9 signal. If you have a 2M/440 diplexer, like people use to split or combine antennas, that would probably work, at least for a test to prove or disprove this thought. Just connect antenna to the common port, and RX to HPF port, terminating LPF (2M) port. These things will usually have low insertion loss at 900, but 50+ dB of rejection at 100MHz. Someone around there is likely to have one you can borrow for a test. Joe --- David Epley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Analyzer was connected to the receiver port of the duplexers. The noise floor looked good. The amount of degradation does not seem to change. There are 900mhz pager transmitters on site but none are on full time and I do not see any change as each one transmits. I can also have my transmitter turned off and the degradation is still here. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:19 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Receiver overload David, Your problem might be harmonic related. Might do some calculator work. I can see no muliple of 104.9 related to your 2 frequencies or IF related. There are other 900 MHz stuff around. Would be good to get a spectrum analyzer on your receiver port, but know spectrum analyzers are not easy to come by. Might be noise floor emissions from the FM station which could be on your receiver input. Now this one would be a real problem. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: David Epley [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:depley%40starband.net net Date: 2007/11/22 Thu AM 07:32:46 CST To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Receiver overload I just tried a pair of Celwave 8 inch bandpass cavities with no noticeable improvement. David N9CZV From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown Sent: Thursday, November 22, 20076:13 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder]Receiver overload David,try using one or two band pass only cavaties in the receive side instead of the BpBr type. The BpBr filters often do not discriminate against signals far off the pass frequency, and you may not be getting enough rejection out of your input cavities. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- David Epley [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:depley%40starband.net netwrote: I have a repeater receiver overload problem I am trying to cure. The repeater is a 900mhz 927.7125/902.7125. There is an FM broadcast station 100 yards away 104.9mhz. The repeater works fine at another site. My transmitter is a Motorola Purc 5000 running 75 watts the receiver is a converted maxtrac 800mhz radio. Duplexers are Telwave BpBr 4 cavity. I have 10 to 12 db degradation when plugged into 3 different antennas on the tower. When I use a 900mhz dish antenna pointed away from broadcast tower I only have 3 db degradation. I have tried 3 different maxtrac receivers, added 2 more BpBr cavities in the receiver side and used 3 pole filters in the receivers with no improvement. Today I looked at the signal level getting to the receiver at 104.9. To my surprise I was getting -8 dbm at the receiver. I believe this level is overloading the front end of my repeater. I was wondering if a stub cut for the broadcast frequency would work. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. David Epley, N9CZV Winchester, Indiana __ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ mail.yahoo.com/ Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF PA control line question
A couple of ideas: 1. Build a simple voltage regulator capable of the current you need for the controlled stage. I think about a couple of amps, but you could insert an ammeter and actually measure it. Set your radio to 1.5 watts and then set the voltage to whatever gives you the desired output. 2. Build a 3 dB pad capable of 5 watts or better. The easiest way to do this is a coil of RG58 that is about 30 ft long. RG58 has about 1 dB per 10ft loss at 450MHz. Then you could set your radio to 2.5 watts out, and your amp would see 1.25 watts. Then attach your controlled line to 12v, and set your output power by the GM300 level. The GM300 should work fine at any level above a watt or so. Joe --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I have an application were I am using a 10 watt GM300 to drive a Micor 75 watt PA. I have a couple of concerns about this and I thought it would be better to ask the group than to blow up the PA and the GM300 (good idea, right?) I set the GM300 for 1.5 watts drive (Is 1.5 watts ok for a 0-10 watt GM300?) I connected the control line to A+ ( the book says 6-10 v, but I've told this is OK, I question that logic.) Keyed up, 105 watts! Turned GM300 to 1 watt, got 90, 3/4 watt got 80! OK, I'm blowing smoke, but I'm afraid of white smoke in cabinet! I would like to get this drive back to 1.5 -2 watts (protect the GM300 and prevent spurs) and get this PA back down to 70 watts Any easy way to control the control line? I'm missing something easy here, so flame suit is on! 73, Brian ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Unknown VHF Repeater
Looks like a highband Motran repeater from about 1969 or so. All solid state, about 30 watts out. Something like C43MSY for a partial model number. What freq is it on now? Good RX, kinda of weird TX (by today's standard). Has three old style RF transistors in parallel to make the 30 watts out. This looks like it might have been a base station converted into a repeater. Joe --- rodandkathyjulian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I uploaded some pics of my vhf repeater. I need a manual but I have no clue what the repeater is beyond the fact that it is a Motorola. Can anyone help? The pics are under the alblum named Unknown VHF Repeater. Thank you! Rod KB7WPU __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [Repeater-Builder] duplexer isolation and receiver noise budget
I think you need to identify what your priorities for this project are. If it's not cost, then there are several ways to do this thing. It seems like your biggest concern might be physical size of the cavity package. If that is the case, what I would do would be to get a repeater pair in the 147MHz range, the upper meg of 2M. If that is possible you could get two 2M duplexers, one for the 147 repeater, and another for the 144/145 frequencies. Now you have everything combined into two antenna ports, one for the 144/145 stuff and one for the 147 repeater. Next, you need a way to combine these two ports into one antenna. This could be done with several notch type cavities, or a wideband pass type duplexer. The duplexer solution would be easier, and take less rack space. There is a company called DCI that can build you a custom BP duplexer that would cover the 144/145 on one port and 147 on the other. Should be able to make it with 60 to 70dB of isolation between the two ports, and about 1.5 to 2 dB of insertion loss. Now depending on the duplexers that you choose, it should all fit on less than one standard 6ft rack, maybe even half a rack. You should end up with 75+ dB of isolation from any port to any other, and probably about 3 to 3.5 dB of insertion loss, which is a little much, but acceptable for this type of operation. The bad news is the cost. This could be in the 6K range, give or take, maybe as little as 3K, if you can shop around for the 2 duplexers, and are not overly concerned about the size. Contact www.dci.ca and tell them what you are trying to do, and what they could engineer a solution for the wideband duplexer part of this. They probably can't do anything for the 2 close spaced pairs, and that is where Telewave, dB Products, Sinclair, TXRX, etc will come in. It should work out OK, but using two antennas would be simpler and cheaper, but maybe that isn't an option. Joe --- John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally found some good diagrams for a 3 cavity bandpass filter at Telewave, and it looks like I can get 80db down with 6db of insertion loss using 5 cavities, which may be acceptable as I can make it up at the antenna if needed. Then it seems I can get the last 10db (if not more) by kicking up to a 6 or 8 cavity to steepen the skirts. http://www.telewave.com/pdf/TWDS-5012.pdf So bandpass CAN be made to work. the question then becomes: Is there a way to do it with less than a dozen cavities ?? Using notches seems to be counterproductive as I would need 2-3 notch cavities per radio per frequency to notch (call it 3 recievers vs 2 transmitters, or 6x3 - 18 reject cavitites) Do I really need the cavities on the repeater transmitter (which will never be used for receive). might not a Wilkinson splitter/combiner do the trick, bringing at least that one transmitter down 20db before hitting the cavities for the 3 recievers Bring on the other ideas :-) _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] duplexer isolation and receiver noise budget John, It might be instructive to let the big-name combiner companies make proposals to solve your dilemma. Send a request for proposals to Telewave, TX-RX, and RFS/Celwave to see what they would recommend. Don't try to design it for them; just give them the frequencies, power outputs, receive sensitivities, feedline type and length, and make/model antenna, and let them come up with their own plans. I think you will be surprised that more than one solution may do the job. My gut feeling is that your requirement to use just one antenna may be a killer, cost-wise. I can think of several combining strategies, but I don't think multiple bandpass cavities is going to work. I think you'll need more notches than bandpasses in any viable combining plan. 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 John B Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:51 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] duplexer isolation and receiver noise budget I'm attempting to design a system that will have a VHF repeater (freqs not yet determined) sharing an antenna with 2 packet radios (APRS on 144.39 and Winlink on 145.05, either of which may be active as a digipeater at any time). I'm currently considering a bandpass-only quadplexor to isolate the radios from each other.. each radio running through a bandpass filter tuned to its frequency only (that includes the transmitter and receiver for the repeater), on the theory that it is a lot
Re: [Repeater-Builder] New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 4/17/2007 22:57, you wrote: Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Repeater-Builder group. File: /dual_level_sq.pdf Uploaded by : skyislandpage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description : Micor replicant squelch circuit using regular parts You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/dual_level_sq.pdf I entered the noise filter portion of the schematic (U2A B) into CircuitMaker ran an AC SPICE analysis. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I see 55 dB of gain @ 7.2 kHz! As expected, the transient response is appalling, with lots of 7.2 kHz ringing for several milliseconds. Plots attached. Bob NO6B That might be. I have never run any simulation on the circuit, but I have built two of them and they work fine. 55dB of gain might be about right. The rectified DC is 3 to 4 volts with an input (at that frequency) of 100mV or less. Someone can clean up the filter design, if needed. I do not claim this to be well engineered or an end-all circuit, just something that does work. Tweaking of the resistor or capacitor values might improve things on the simulation. I am not sure if the ringing would affect the operation much, but it probably could be engineered to remove or limit that, but I never saw any problem with the circuit from an operational standpoint. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] mc-3357 mc-3359 squelch circuit
A few years ago I designed a dual level squelch circuit that could be a replacement for the Micor type carrier squelch. I built a couple of the prototypes and put them into service, and they worked very well, you really couldn't tell them from the real thing. They were designed around readily available and cheap parts, so replicating it would be very easy. I think total parts costs would be around $5, not counting the board. If anyone is interested, I can supply a PDF of the schematic, or upload it to the site. Somewhere, I have some of the boards, but I don't remember exactly where they went. The schematic I have could probably be simplified even more, it was just an idea that I came up with, and it worked, so I didn't fool around with it anymore. Joe --- skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: mc-3357 mc-3359 squelch circuit Many receivers used the two mentioned chips... in both commericial, Amateur Radio and classic scanner circuits. I've seen both part numbers converted to tk numbers in Yaesu and Uniden Radios. There are a number of working squelch circuits using the back end section of the chip with and without external op amps. While the Hamtronics circuit is/was rather basic it did work pretty well and was easy to experiment with changes/mods. A faster pussycat version of the same circuit can be found in the Spectrum, some (if I remember right) older Maggiore or Melco and Icom Repeater Receiver circuits. External op amp sections were added as gain buffers and high speed switches to enhance the internal circuit operation. The Hamtronics transistor hysterisis circuit works ok so don't discount it as a bad design. The receiver is/was a very basic circuit and could be used in modest low power repeater operation without a lot of grief. If you really were interested in more work with the mentioned chips I can and would be happy to email you some circuit diagrams and manuals related to the chips used in quality well engineered designs/circuits (in pdf file format). As in our poor mans repeater project... sometimes when money is tight you try to use whatever you can get you hands on. cheers, skipp __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DC Power Supply Test Load
--- Don [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes I wonder how in the World did I get a Ham Radio Lic , 25 Yrs ago , Anyway here is what I need Help on I bought a 40 Amp Power Adjustable Power supply with Volt and Amp Meters , I would like to make something to test it Before putting it on a Expensive piece of Communications Equipment Like My Kenwood TS-2000 , I tried a Car Battery Tester but that is a 100 Amp non Adjustable Load , Pined the Amp Meter and Voltage Dropped to 6 Volts . To Much Load, Maybe I will try a Car headlight but that will be Unknown as to how many amps at 13.8, and that is what I need to know Exactly a load that will tell me that, anyone that has done this or has any Ideas I would appreciate it Thanks Don KA9QJG I use a 12v power inverter. They are about 85% efficient, so you can calculate the load pretty good. If you want to load at 20 amps, put two 100 watt light bulbs on the 120v side, and hook the 12v side to your PS. It will draw close to 20 amps, if you want more load, add more light bulbs. Make sure your inverter is good for the power, the small ones are good for 100+ watts, and the mid size ones will do 500+ watts. By judicious selection of bulbs, you can make a continuous duty load of virtually any size for very little money. Bulbs are 4 for $1, or 400+ watts of continuous load for a buck. Most people have these inverters, or have a friend with one. You can buy a mid size unit for about $60, and use it for emergencies or camping, etc. It's also a good way to load test a battery. Put the inverter on and a single 100 watt bulb. A good 100AH battery should run it for about 8+ hours, before the voltage drops below 11v. Joe Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by Green Rating at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] FS Dual Junction isolators High Band
I am interested, sent you a PM. --- Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 4 pcs Antenna Specialists (remember them?) ACJ-2401 J2 dual junction isolators. They don't like to tune down to the ham bands so not of use to me. They came from a VHF tx combiner. Pictures upon request (or they look just like the ACJ-2601J2 440 isolators that were in many of the AS catalogs). Shipped via Priority Mail $60 CONUS. Paypal etc all ok. Mark N2QT 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur
--- Barry C' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, the ASPB602 is four stacked dipoles, just like the DB224. My point again is that resonance is NOT a requirement for an effective and efficient antenna. The wider frequency coverage for this antenna is likely because the dipoles are fabricated from 3/4 in. OD tubing instead of 3/8 in. tubing. or as in many cases of commercial sticks its almost a dummy load in reactance ( think about it) I must admit brandishing model number does no good as I am not familiar , its been a long time since I was at broadcast school so I am unlikly to change methodology now :) Here is a link to the data sheet on the antenna I'm talking about. http://www.telewave.com/pdf/TWDS-7045.pdf These are wideband and high gain. Joe Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur
--- Barry C' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Laryn Lohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antennas that work both in commercial and amateur Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:04:02 - --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Barry C' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well lets look at the riddle , swinging a radiator acree 20 or 30 megs of bandwidth it will tune and still radiate but will it have appreciable gain away from certain design points? I think not . OK, within certain unspecified parameters, I would agree. Let's be more specific. I referred to the ASPB602 in an earlier post, which has 6 or 9 dbd gain, depending on dipole configuration around the mast (normal for four stacked dipoles), and bandwidth of 144-162 mc (wider than most antennas in this range). Just trying to understand Barry, do you agree that these specs are valid? Depending on your answer, we can discuss further... I presume its some sort of stacked arrangment , in chich case it will make that gain at resonance , claims are like water (sic) Laryn K8TVZ We have a couple of the Telewave broadband antennas, and they do seem to exhibit the gain over the advertised bandwidth. They are rated at 138-174, and do have good SWR over that range, and good gain. They replaced DB224 antennas at the same locations on the tower, and give exactly the same coverage. We have radios at 145, 153, and 168MHz on one antenna, and all radios perform the same, no difference in gain was noted. There may be some skewing of the vertical radiation angle at the different frequencies, but we haven't noticed that either. Telewave only makes one model of antenna to cover the whole VHF range. The same antenna is sold to those who use it at 170 as those who use it at 140, and no gain changes are noted in the literature. I'm sure there are differences in the gain, but they are miniscule, certainly nothing major. There are lots of antennas that have gain and wide bandwidth, the two are not mutually exclusive. A Stationmaster and SuperStationmaster look similar, and have similar gain, but the SSM will have 8MHz of bandwidth on VHF compared to less than 2 for the SM. Joe Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood TKR750v2
There is a place in the programming where you can make the TA audio flat. I will try to find where it is in the programming, and let you know here. Joe --- Yahoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, the TA remains hot but I need flat audio. I can call Kenwood tomorrow but was hoping to finish this tonight. It could be a firmware problem. I can't imagine why they would purposely mute the line when QT encode is programmed. Jeff -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Arck Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 6:17 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood TKR750v2 At 06:05 PM 1/23/2007, you wrote: I have a TKR-750v2 base/repeater and attempting to connect it to a DSP223 control panel. The problem I am having is if the base is programmed with encode QT/DQT it mutes the (TD) TX data input line when the (EPTT) External PTT is used. Hoping someone has run into this. ---Are you wanting to use flat audio in and that's why you're using the TD for audio instead of TA? Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Battery backup
The simplest way is just to get the IOTA supply and float it across the battery. Thats it, nothing else needed. Get an IOTA big enough to power whatever you have, and still have some left over for charging. You don't need (or want) diodes, resistors, or relays. It shouldn't be that easy, but in this case it is. I have some commercial sites that we run this way without problems. We have some with big Astron supplies, but we are changing them out to the IOTA. The new supplies will pay for themselves in a couple of years due to higher efficiency over the linear Astrons. The Astrons will also work well, with very minor mods. You still don't need the diodes. We have used the Astrons for over 12 years this way, the IOTAs for about 2.5 . Joe --- Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had a similar experience: I had a couple of deep cycle batteries in an outdoor steel enclosure that I would charge periodically by connecting a standard automotive charger. At times I would forget it was connected, so eventually the batteries were cooked. After some research on the web, I settled on an IOTA DLS-15 power supply with an IQ4 smart charge controller. It is connected full time to the (new) batteries, and I only have to add water every couple of months. I have not noted any kind of noise generated by the charger. This setup works very well for me. Richard, N7TGB -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:26 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Battery backup I have to agree with Dave. Using the proper charger or power supply for keeping the batts up. I have my batteries housed in a stainless steel enclosure that is anchored into concrete outside my ham shack. I learned the hard way about using the proper charger... I just tapped into my repeaters 25amp power supply to keep the batteries charged till I could make a charging circuit ... a, big mistake. That charging circuit - oops, I forgot... about a month of operation, I was working around the tower and smelled what smelled like battery acid. Sure enough, I cooked both flooded lead acid batteries and they were fuming acid vapor. Lucky the box is a comercial built ss box. Now, after that incident, I have been using a marine (boat) smart charger which automatically determines wether to charge or float. Since battery chargers are, ummm, quite noisy and not all that nice on batteries due to most of them only using a half wave recifier ( AC is not nice on batteries ). I added a 25A bridge rectifier and added extra filtering which is just a big Motorola mobile power filter block from the Micor dayz. It is also isolated using some BIG diodes - like Dave's, the threaded case type diodes which is bolted to a heatsink. The system is running well in this configuration. If using flooded type batteries, do a monthly check on acid levels ! I recomend AGM batteries ( Absorbed Glass Mat ) or if that is a little pricy, get marine deep cycle batteries - do not use automotive batteries unless you just absolutely half to. Dave / N9NLU www.kmcg.org On 1/9/07, ve7ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have had good luck using a pair of diodes to isolate a power supply from a charging circuit. I essentially have a Statpower 10amp battery charger (specifically designed for the flooded cells I am using). The batteries float on the charger voltage when the AC power is available. The battery positive lead then feeds through a diode and joins the positive power bus of my repeaters. Using a proper charger is the most important part so you dont boil off the electrolyte in your batteries. The positive power bus is fed from a large GE power supply. The positive lead from the power supply feeds through a diode to feed the power bus. The idea of using a diodes is to keep the higher voltage of the power supply from passing current into the batteries when AC is available, and vice versa when AC is off. However, if you are using a high power PA or your repeater draws more than about 20 AMPs on TX, you have to be careful of your choices of diode. I use large feedthrough diodes, mounted on large heatsinks, but on lower current draw you could get away with using a smaller bridge rectifier mounted to an unpainted metal piece in your repeater cabinet with some heatsink compound. Dave Cameron VE7LTD --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wm5c [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, New member here. Thanks for allowing me to join. Our club has acquired some large lead-acid 12v batteries we would like to use to back up our repeater in emergency situations. Does anyone
[Repeater-Builder] FYI: FCC officially issues RO dropping code requirement today
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf Techs get tech+ privs, code test gone for general and extra. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] FYI: FCC officially issues RO dropping code requirement today
--- Dave Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Question about this order is it effective imidiately that the code is no longer required for new licencing and the licenced techs (w/o code) are now equal to tech + (with code) ? OR is there an effective on after date? New rules will become effective 30 days after publication in the federal register. This could take several weeks. Best guess is about 60 days from now. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Micor 800MHz Base Stations?
--- Kris Kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Mike Perryman wrote: I have no idea about a tube version... but I have a Micor 75W solid state PA for 800 if you are interested lemme know.. Not really. What I'm thinking is that a tube-type PA would have less noise generated as a result of amplification which would mean less heat expended in the duplexers and harmonic filters. -- Kris Kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even if a solid state TX at 100 watts only had the spurious and harmonics down 20dB, that would only be 1 watt of additional heat generated. Most transmitters have such things reduced by at least 60dB, which would make the additional heat generated at something less than a milliwatt, hardly worth mentioning. The heat comes from the loss of the device. A 1 dB loss will introduce about 20 watts of heat from a 100 watt TX. Joe Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Two CTCSS Tones out of One TX
Hi All, I am wanting to use one TX from our repeater site, to link to two link RX's, these are on opposite sides of the repeater. I was thinking about having two different CTCSS tones, one for each, and then having the TX generate the two tones together. This way I can use one freq., but still have some form of control over the links by switching either, or both CTCSS tones off/on as required. Any ideas, or comments on this setup would be helpful Regards Kev. As has been pointed out, there are some problems with running two different PL tones at the same time, both on the TX and at the RX sites. It can be done, but it also can have some problems. Here is a thought, a possible solution to the problem. Run a single tone at the TX site, but selectable from 3 choices, say 100.0, 107.2, and 114.8. This can easily be done by diode switching on a Comm-Spec or similiar type encoder. At each RX site, have 2 decoders, one set to a common tone, maybe 100.0. When this PL is selected, both sites will be active. At site A, there will also be a parallel decoder on 107.2, and at site B there will be a parallel decoder on 114.8. So to run both sites, 100.0 is selected at the TX site. For site A only, run 107.2, and for site B only, run 114.8. This solution will cost a little more, but will be much easier to implement and keep running without problems, using any type of decoder. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF MIcor P.A. Woes.
--- John Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello to the group. My friend and I have a 75 Micor station on UHF that I was trying to resurrect to donate to a young local ham that has a UHF machine that needs to be replaced. The station in question was already in the ham bands, 444.xxx tx, 449.xxx rx. The previous owner had trouble with the PA dying all of the time, so he said, get rid of it, I've had it with this thing. Well, I began to check this thing out and confirmed that the output was non-existent. I threw another PA in and still no output. So, I checked and tuned the circulator, checked and replaced the tripler/LLA, and now I have a clean and healthy 2 watts out of the LLA to the PA. The problem is, out of 5 different spares I have here, I get nothing, no go, no outty putty. I have checked the power control logic wire and the voltage seems to swing as it should during adjustment of the pot and changes during tx. Voltage to the main PA feed is a solid 14.3 volts on tx. My question is: How much power will the Micor PA take for input if I want to bench test these things? Can I just ground the PA control wire during testing? What is the reccomended bench test arrangement. I am having a bit of trouble believing that out of 5 spares, all are bad. I know that one was soft, one other was intermittent, but I thought that I had three solid spares. Maybe Not! Maybe my coffee hasn't kicked in and made the brain get going yet. Thanks in advance.John My recollection is that the control wire needs a positive voltage on it. Tie the control to 12v, and test with 1 watt of input. You should see 80+ watts out of the PA, right at the output BNC connector. If you don't see big power, something wrong with PA. You can bypass the internal stages individually and test them one at a time, if need be. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna gurus?
Because of the frequency band, and the size of the antennas, the spacing may have to be several wavelenghts. Remember at this frequency a wavelength is about 4 inches, and spacing is measured center to center. I think you would be better off just getting a panel antenna with 12 dBi of gain and the approx 70 degree horizontal beamwidth. Joe --- Laryn Lohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, lcradio2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stacking them vertically will compress the vertical radiation pattern, which is what you want. I think the proper spacing would be closer to 1/2 wavelength. Tracy I think the spacing should be closer to .85-1.0 wavelength. As an example, the DB224 and others similar in configuration, no matter what the band, will use this spacing. Laryn K8TVZ Yahoo! Groups Links [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] MICOR the meaning of it.....
Then MOTRAC must stand for More Old Tubes, Reeds, And Crap :) Joe --- Kevin Custer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was recently introduced to a Gentleman by the name of Robert Swoger, K9WVY. Bob was in the original MICOR Mobile design team from 1969 on. He was at Motorola from 1965 until he retired in 2002. Not only did he design new MICOR radios, he later designed and FIXED designs of standard and custom MICOR Mobile and Bases. When he rapped it up, he was in the design team of Saber, Cosmos and Spectra radios. I recently asked Bob what MICOR stands for, as I have never known its true meaning. Bob wrote back: MICOR stands for More Integrated Circuits for Optimum Reliability. Bob __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Two-Tone Sequential Coding Standard
The frequency stamped on the tone has nothing to do with the tolerence range of it. PL tones are stamped to .1 Hz, but will generally work +- 1% or so, and are spaced at 3-4% intervals. This is probably a similiar tolerence, given the fact that PL and 2 tone come from the same era and started by using the same technology reeds. I would guess that +-1% should work fine for seting off a 2tone decoder, maybe even more- for sure the tones don't have to be right on or even within .1% for reliable operation. Joe --- Bob M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's pretty much what I figured as well, but maybe the tolerance isn't as tight as the freqs are spec'd to. They could have done that to throw us off. PL tones can be off by close to one cycle and still work properly, but they're spaced apart by 3-4 cycles, so I'd say the tolerance on those is likely +/- 1-2 Hz. Similar logic on the paging tones would show they're spaced 30-60 Hz apart, so the tolerance might still be 0.5-1% or so, which would be easier to deal with than under 0.1%. As long as the tones aren't harmonically related, even with the tolerance at one end. Just my $0.02 worth. Bob M. == --- Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, Well, I guess the Rosetta Stone document is not as valuable as I had hoped. I went through it carefully, but found no statement of tone tolerance. However, I can infer from the printed frequencies- which are specified to 1/10 Hz- that the tolerance is +/- 0.1 Hz or better. That jibes with your assumption of well under one percent. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY Bob M. wrote: I think all we wanted to find out was the frequency tolerance. Is that in the document? The general consensus seemed to be well under 1 percent, just based on the odd frequencies in use. Bob M. == --- Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A week ago, there was an exchange of postings regarding the specifications of the two-tone sequential paging format. After some searching of my Motorola archives, I found a document which I believe is the Rosetta Stone we seek. It is Motorola Publication 6881103C80, entitled Two-Tone Sequential Tone Coding. This seven-page document includes the timing and deviation specifications, along with charts listing the various code plans. It costs about $3 from Motorola Parts. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Two Tone Sequential Paging
Pretty loose, I'd say about +- 1% would still work. Thats about all the tolerance they could get with mass produced reeds. Even more might work, but they definately don't have to be dead on. Joe --- dallasreact112 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anybody in group know the frequncy tolerance of generated audio tones used in two tone sequential paging? I know one can get away with +/- 1hz on PL encoding and it will generally still work. 73 Bernie Parker K5BP Yahoo! Groups Links [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GLB Id'er programming
--- Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does any one have the proceedure for programming the GLB ID chips.. I believe its just a 2713. I have the programmer but need help with the code. Dave N3CNJ The GLB ID'er used a 2716 eprom. The way it was programmed was to start at address 0 and step up one bit of the ID code at a time. The unit had 8 output lines, but for simplicity it is easier to program all of them the same. A 0 in the programming produced a tone, a 1 produced no tone. The addresses are stepped through at a 10ms-100ms rate, depending on the code speed desired. You need to break the code desired down into dits, dahs, and spaces, then program accordingly, leaving 2 blank bits at the beginning of the programming. For example SOS would be di di di dah dah dah di di di where each di would be one bit programmed to 0, and each dah would be three consecutive bits programmed to 0 (since a dah is three times longer than a di). Spaces are programmed as a 1. Your binary output, starting at memory add and advancing one address each time, would look like: 1101010111000100010001110101011 Once you program your desired ID, the rest of the chip gets filled with 1s. This is the default state when you erase a 2716, its all 1s. Since the chip programs in hex, you will essentially be writing FF or 00 in each address. Again, writing SOS into the chip would look like this: FF FF 00 FF 00 FF 00 FF FF FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF FF FF 00 FF 00 FF 00 FF FF FF FF That is all you need to program, the rest of the bits in the chip will stay at FF, which is the erased position. If you want to program different things on the different lines, it becomes more complex, but I think you see the pattern here. Joe __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Solar Panel Question
If the panels are isolated by a diode, it shouldn't matter if they are different makes/models/sizes etc. as long as their open circuit output voltages are somewhat above that required by the regulator. The simplest VR for a panel would be a high power zener diode (or equivalent). The zener would conduct at the max charge voltage for the battery, and dissipate any excess charge as heat. For large arrays, this could be cumbersome, and a PWM type of charger would be better. Joe --- Kevin Custer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not trying to start a fight, Eric, just answer a few questions. Unless you are pointing the dissimilar panels in different directions [Unless we have two or more suns, the panels should be in the same plane, pointing in the same direction. Since the angle for optimum operation in the winter is steeper than in summer, it is generally a good idea to use the winter angle year around. In summer, there is usually an excess of solar energy, so the winter angle is more than adequate.] Around here, some folks are experimenting with the east to west alignment of several panels. Most of us are not fortunate enough to have a sun tracker mount, and just as it's important for summer/winter declination, folks are seeing that there are instances where several smaller panels in a east to west alignment will have advantage over one large stationary panel. [I have bought panels from Siemens, Solarex, Shell, and Phillips, and *none* of them included a diode on the output. An output diode is *not* the same thing as a diode embedded within the panel itself. Okay, so what is the embedded one for? Remember that one of the tasks performed by a good solar controller is to shunt all of the excess power produced by the panels, once the batteries are fully charged. Can you elaborate on this, Eric? [Most of the better solar charge controllers have three basic functions: 1. To regulate the current going to the battery so that it is not overcharged; 2. To disconnect the load when the battery voltage falls to a level where either the battery or the load can be damaged ; 3. To shunt excess energy from the solar panels, so that high voltages cannot damage the load equipment. It's important to note that the solar panels, the battery, and the load are independently connected to the controller so that it has complete control over the power distribution. One instance I see where the shunt function is very valuable is, *if* a large battery bank is not used (or none at all) excess energy could over voltage the load. I'm I on the right track? Kevin __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Combining questions
--- Jed Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey guys, Alright, educate me on this a little bit. I know of a few sights with ham repeaters, but they are combined with commercial stuff. How is that done? I mean, I know they use combiners, but do they really make some antennas that are tuned for both amateur and commercial? I didn't think this was possible. I know of one sight where there are a few commercial and amateur receivers on one antenna. Any ideas of how they do it? Thanks, Jed At our ham repeater site we have an RX only antenna at the top of the tower that covers 138-174 MHz, with about 6 dB of gain. Most of the VHF RX in the building are split from this one antenna. We have 2 2M RX, one at 154, one at 161, and one at 168. We could add more if we wanted. The same thing happens at UHF, where we have 22 RX's on a single UHF RX only antenna. You can do the same for TX's, but usually not as many per antenna, and uses more equipment, and is more costly. Joe Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] IOTA Switched Power Supply and Noise?
Dave's points are good, I'd like to point out a couple of other things. We have used Astron supplies for years, and overall have been happy with them. There are some drawbacks, mainly the analog design is very wasteful of power, and the units get very warm (hot). I have done some measurements, and a RM-50 will waste as heat about 480 watts when putting out 40 amps at 13.5 volts. An IOTA DLS-45 will waste about 136 watts as heat under the same conditions. Note that the RM-50 is only rated at 37 amps continuous, while the DLS-45 will put out 45 amps all day long. If you do the calculations on wasted heat, this comes to an additional 4147 KWh per year on the Astron, and an additional 1175 KWh/ year on the IOTA. If you live in an area with 10 cents/KHh power (typical) then your power savings in one year will be almost $300. Many of you do not run this kind of power continuously, but we do. Even at lower duty cycles you will probably realize these savings within 5 years, if you are paying for power out of your pocket. Even if I could not fix these power supplies, and even if I had to change it once a year, I would still be money ahead with the IOTA. Also, we do not use ours on commercial power, we use it at a generator site where our cost to generate power is about 30 cents/KWh. Did I mention that the Astron weighs 50 lbs and the Iota weighs 5.5? Joe --- Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:43 AM 7/19/2005, Gran Clark wrote: Joe Carefully consider expanding into switchers. The designs are quite varied. To repair them you really need a good high frequency scope, shielded isolation transformer, 0.18 ohm 1000 watt resistor load, and most of all a good schematic. Switcher parts are hard to find especially the low ESR capacitors (a common failure). Fixing an analog supply is a slam dunk compared to a switcher. I would not put one at a repeater site unless the site happens to be my home. On the other hand, a well designed switcher can easily outlast a linear. Heat kills, and a switcher dissipates a LOT less heat on any given load, than a linear supply. Jim Williams of Analog Devices, published a formula for predicting capacitor life in a given design. There are a number of factors that go into it, but the temperature term decreases the projected life of the caps by half, for every 10C rise in ambient temperature. This is true wether the cap is used in a switcher, or a linear supply. Without the formula, you can simply predict a cap's life in a moderate application, by using it's rated lifetime and the application temperature. If you look at Digi-Key's site, you'll see that each type of cap has a rating in so many hours, and so many degrees C. A cap rated for 2000 hours at 85C is going to fail roughly 4x faster than one rated at 2000 hours at 105C. Both will last twice as long if you run them 10C under their ratings. For the large electrolytics in a switcher, you can estimate ripple current requirements by the output current and the number of caps in parallel. Say an output cap in my IOTA died. I would replace the output caps, output diode, and probably the switching transistor as well, before even turning on the supply. To pick a new cap, I would look up the ratings on the existing ones in Digi-Key, and pick a similar, but higher lifetime unit. But, let's say that I couldn't find the ratings.. Ok, so it's a 55A output, and maybe there are three caps in parallel across the output. (I haven't opened it up) I divide 55A by 2 ( N-1 to be conservative) and look for caps rated at 25V and 27A, of roughly the same uF rating. Then I take what I find, and use the lowest ESR and longest lifetime ratings that will fit the case. If I can't satisfy that, then I use 55A/3 and try again. It's very unlikely that you can't find a similar or better cap to replace it with. If the original design used 16V parts on the output, I could stick with that, but I prefer more margin there. Always remember, the original manufacturer was cost constrained, and you really aren't. Adding another $1 to the cost is really not an issue to you, but adding another $0.05 may have been a real battle for the designer. The waste heat may also be affecting other devices in your system, depending on how you deal with removing it. Replacement caps do need to be chosen properly, but as time goes on, caps get better and better. Today's so-so caps have roughly the same ratings for ripple current and ESR as the exceptionally good caps of a few years ago. Similar for transistors and diodes. By the time yours fail, odds are that if they used state-of-the-art parts in the design, those parts are now good or average. Switcher parts are generally available through Digi-Key, or other similar sources. As to what you need to repair them, I disagree. Just plain common sense, and an
Re: [Repeater-Builder] IOTA Switched Power Supply and Noise?
The easiest way to tell would be to measure the AC current draw in idle. Then measure the DC current draw in idle. You can get a pretty close watt figure by multiplying the amps times the voltage (115v) on the input side, and doing the same thing on the DC side. The difference between the two is your wasted heat. If you convert the watts to kilowatts (divide by 1000), then multiply your results by 8760, that will tell you the number of wasted KWH in one year. Example: .72 amps draw at 115 volts, 1.3 amps draw at 13.5 volts. .72 x 115 = 83 watts in. 1.3 x 13.5 = 17.5 watts delivered. This means 65.5 watts are wasted, or about 574 KWh/year. Joe --- Dexter McIntyre W4DEX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone have an idea how much power would be saved by running a MSF-5000 that is idle most of the time from a switcher instead of the stock heavy iron power supply?. The transformers produce a lot of heat just in standby mode. I have several of these machines on line and also a GE repeater with a big transformer. Dex, W4DEX Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] IOTA Switched Power Supply and Noise?
--- Mike Morris WA6ILQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did this at a friend house and we ended up with about 20 plugged into a half-dozen power strips and totalling about 2 and a half amps of AC... He's got 112-114v of AC at his house so using 113 we get 255.2w ... divide by 1000 and times 8760=2235.5, or 2.2kw just in wall wart wastage. Except that the formula is already in KWh, IOW not 2.2 but 2235 KWh per year! If he's burning that much juice (255 watts) then he's using a KWh every four hours! That's 60 cents a day just to run wall warts. Joe Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT: NC man charged with 'driving a cop car' due to ham antennas
http://www.jars.net/ This shows a picture of the car, and the text of the law. From what I read, the car doesn't meet the criterion because it has no lights. Also, the use of the car must be with the intent to impersonate a police officer. I don't know what this guy was doing when he was stopped for this citation, but unless it was something that would make you think he was a cop, I don't think the state has much to stand on. Maybe we don't know the whole story. Joe --- Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have a link to the article? Richard, N7TGB -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of mch Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:05 PM To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] OT: NC man charged with 'driving a cop car' due to ham antennas This is slightly off topic, but I wanted everyone to be aware of what is happening to a NC man who equipped his Chevy Caprice Classic with ham antennas. He is now *charged* with driving a car that resembles a law enforcement vehicle. Apparently that is a law in NC. Details here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GovtVShams/ This will be my only post on the subject. Please direct any discussion there. This could be you if you have many antennas on your car (as many of us do) and drive through NC in anything close to the same model car LE uses (Caprice, Crown Vic, Intrepid, Impalla, Etc, or even any of the clones such as Park Ave or anything based on the same frame). Joe M. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Micor (mobile) spur
--- Glenn Little WB4UIV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul 910 Kc is twice the 455 Kc IF. Possibly there is a clue here. Motorola had problems with spurs in the Metrum VHF ham transceiver. It also used one crystal for both transmit and receive. I guess that this is a good data point as to why mobiles should not be used as repeaters. The repeater and base station is a complete redesign and uses separate crystals for transmit and receive. Probably they saw the problem and made the intelligent decision to keep the spurs at ground level in the mobiles and use a clean transmitter for base stations and repeaters. I have used lots of Micor mobiles as repeaters and never seen this problem. How far down is the spur from the TX carrier? The Micor does not use a 455KHz IF. It is a single conversion RX with IF at 11.7MHz. My thought is that the 910KHz is too co-incidental. Look at the RX that you are using to see if it has a 455 KHz IF, if it does, it's probably not a spur, but an image of the 455 IF. Follow me for a moment. If you have a standard 10.7/455 IF system in the radio you are using to see this spur, you will have an oscillator at 10.245 (the same would occur with any high IF, be it 21.4 or 31.2, etc; the oscillator will be 455KHz removed from the high IF. 10.7 is only used as an example). This means that a signal coming through the 10.7 (or whatever) filter that is 910KHz lower will also be demodulated at the 455KHz IF (10.245-.455= 9.79). The only attenuation will be whatever the high IF filter has at that freq, maybe around 60-80 dB or so. Now, if you are listening on your radio at 444.910, an incoming signal on this freq will produce a 10.7 MHz signal, which is what is desired. But a signal coming into the RX at 444.00 (your RPT TX) will produce an output on 9.79MHz, which will also be heard by your 455 demod, although at a much lower level. Joe Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor VHF/UHF Mobile Question
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Can a VHF Micor mobile use an UHF Micor RX'er in a direct swap out? Or to say it a different way, I want an UHF RX'er in a VHF Micor. They appear to be a direct swap out, but are there any pitfalls? They both use their own channel elements, audio amps are the same. What am I missing? Any ideas would be nice! Respectfully, Brian, WD9HSY I have done this many times. There is one jumper on the RX that you have to put in to get voltage on the right pin (look at schematic to see the difference), and the brace across the center of the mobile micor has to be removed to allow the UHF RX to drop in, otherwise the brace will hit the UHF preselector. Once you do that, you have UHF RX, and VHF TX. I have done this for high band paging TX's that have a UHF link RX. One nice package. Joe __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] best radios for 2 meter repeater
We have been using the TKR-750's for a couple of years with good results. They are rated at 50 watts intermittant, or 25 continuous. We run ours at about 30 watts with no problems, not quite the 40 you were asking for, but close. Joe --- BOB UNICK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yea yet me know how it turns out. I'll do some research on the TKR-740, I'm not familar with it. Thanks! Maire-Radios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:we are going to use a Kenwood TKR-740 with amplifier. It is a high end repeater like the one's we use on UHF(TKR-840) for some time with no problems. If you like I will let you know how it works out. John - Original Message - From: BOB UNICK To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:33 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] best radios for 2 meter repeater We are looking at replacing our old 2 meter repeater and wanted to get ideas on what would be some good radios that have %100 duty at around 40 watts. We have a motorola service center here in town so that is a plus. Thanks! Bob __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] IOTA Switched Power Supply and Noise?
I have one of the 75 amp supplies working at a remote site. We have not seen any noise from the unit, but our equipment is all VHF and UHF, haven't checked it down in HF, but at UHF we have seen no problems. We have 20 UHF RX's and 6 VHF and have not seen any degradation. These IOTA's run much cooler than the analog Astron's, and are much smaller. I will probably be changing out all of the Astrons to these in the next few years, as conditions warrant. Joe --- Nick Papadonis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Folks, I'm considering purchasing a 45A IOTA Switched Power supply to power a UHF Micor and am concerned about switch PS noise. Has anyone tried these supplies with UHF radios? Is noise experienced? Insight greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Nick KB1GZN Boston, MA __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re DB224
--- wa9ba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We put a DB 224 up after loosing 2 Diamond 510 antennas and a station master to lightning about 5 years ago. One of the advantages of a four-bay dipole antenna over a fiberglass vertical of similar gain is that the vertical bandwidth is remarkably superior. This makes the dipole antenna work better for close-in portables and mobiles that are below the main lobe of the pattern. It's also much less prone to wind-induced noise. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY According to the specs, most of the fiberglass antennas and dipole antennas in the 6 dB range have similiar main lobes, the type of antenna doesn't seem to affect the lobe, it's more a function of gain. Most 3 DB omni antennas will have about 36 degrees of vertical lobe; 6 db will be 18, and 9 db will be 9 degrees. Some slight variations to these numbers will occur, but they'll be close. Dipole arrays are not always better than fiberglass sticks, they both have their places, and pros and cons. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] WTB: 4 identical UHF receiver's in the 430 Mhz Range
--- DCFluX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about speaking FCC rules, but Auxilliary use (Link Radios) is only allowed above 222.5 MHz. I think you missed the point of the UHF to lo-band downconverter. The lo-band radios would only be used as IF and demod. Joe Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola MSY
Our club just removed from service an MSY station. It is minus the tube PA, so is probably only 10 watts or so. RX and TX were working fine when removed, currently on 447.825 TX, 442.825RX. We were running it on external power, so no idea if the PS is working, but it's there. Was using external controller, so we were only using the TX and RX strips. Thing is very heavy, and not in a cabinet. If interested, make offer, and I will relay to club officers. Currently in SE AZ. Joe --- mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all If anyone has a UHF MSY transmitter strips laying around, I am looking for one to complete a project. Even if there in pieces that would be fine. Thanks in advance Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor mobile transmitter
I have not done this on a 420 Micor, but I have on a 450 Micor, which is essentially the same. As Neil pointed out, all the interstage coupling is done at 50 ohms, so you only need to decide how much power you need, and modify accordingly. The controlled stage will put out 2 to 7 watts, if you put your output there. The next stage will put out 6 to 15 watts or so. The next stage will put out 20-45 watts, and the whole thing will put out 110 watts. If you want to go for less than 10 watts out, you need to modify the power control board by changing a couple of resistors (or paralleling them on the board, which is easier). If you can get by with 10-15 watts, I would bypass the last two stages, and the radio will run cool as a cucumber, no fan needed (and draw a lot less power). Joe --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a couple of 100-Watt, 406-420 MHz MICOR Mobile radios. I picked them up at Dayton a few years ago since they were very inexpensive, and hoped that I could use them as some link radios. I'd like to find out how to use just the low power sections of the 100-watt mobile PA deck, as they would be running a high duty cycle. For the distance I'd be covering, 25 -50 watts or even much less would be overkill. Trying to find 406-420 MHz range 25 or 45 watt PAs to swap out has so far been impossible, so I'm hoping someone has disabled the last few PA deck sections to run them at lower power, and still has some notes on how they did any matching, etc. Larry __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 6dB - 10W attenuator
http://www.tessco.com/products/getProductInfo.do?sku=12628 Joe --- n9wys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK... I'm needing one of these animals. Of course, I'd prefer to have one out of the box as opposed to trying to fabricate one out of a number of feet of coax, both for esthetics as well as functionality. I tried to find one on the Tessco site, but apparently they aren't called attenuators - so what is the proper technical term for this item? The reason for this is: I want to drive an MSR 2000 PA with a Kenwood repeater. Output of the Kenwood is ~2.5W. (Max 7W - apparently it was specified as a low power unit...) Anyhiow, to reduce the output to a level where the MSR PA will take it, I need to attenuate the signal by 6dB. That should give me the ~700 mW I need for the proper drive level, and I can adjust the Kenwood to be certain of that. Mark - N9WYS Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] I need to take 5 volts to 8 volts, and one have a schematic
--- w9mwq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wonder if anyone has a simple diagram to build a small circuit from 5 volts to about 8 volts. Was told I could use an opto isolator, but am not familiar with them. I'm getting ready to interface the Kenwood TM- V7 radios to the RVS-8 voter, am told it needs at least 8 volts to run it. The TM-V7a I know has 5 volts out of the packet controller connection. I will also need to take a 3 volt up to 8 volts from my GE receiver. Any suggestions. Thanks. Mathew What you are needing is level translation of digital levels from one voltage to another. You can do it with transistors and resistors, op-amps, or other chips designed to do this. Depending on how many receivers you need to do will determine the actual easiest and cheapest solution. I did a similiar thing with an RVS-8, and used 2 LM324 op-amps to do the level shifting. Besides the 2 chips, a few resistors were required. I built the whole thing on a RS proto board. Or you could use a ULN2003 or similiar chip. Another solution is to run a 47K pullup from the RVS-8 input to 12v, and a series zener diode of about 3.9 volts to the RX COR out. This will change your 0 to 5 volt logic to 3.9 to 8.9 volt logic, which is enough to make the RVS unit work. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] I need to take 5 volts to 8 volts, and one have a schematic
--- Bob Dengler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But this begs another question: why does the RVS-8 require such a high COS voltage? I don't think I own a radio that supplies that much voltage on COS, nor have a ever used a controller that required 8 volts of COS voltage. Bob NO6B The RVS8 basically uses 12v logic to switch on input multiplexers. These are CMOS type parts that can run from less than 5v to 15 volts, they chose to use 12v rather than the more common 5v. For these inputs to work, they must see something higher than half the supply voltage. For a couple of bucks more they could have put in the level translation, but they chose not to. You can see a copy of the schematic at their website. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] voting receivers with simulcast transmitters
The killer on these simulcast systems is in the overlap areas. If the transmitters are only a few miles apart, you could see some real problems, since most everywhere is an overlap area. A rule of thumb is that a simulcast system will never sound as good as a non-simulcast system in the overlap areas. If the transmitters were further apart, and the overlap area fell into no man's land, then it might work OK. We have one here, and in the overlap areas audio sounds funny or buzzy, etc. If there is anyway around a simulcast system, it might be better. These systems tend to be costly and hard to set up, and keep aligned. Read this article for some more insight, but remember that it was written by the president of Simulcast Solutions. http://www.simulcastsolutions.com/PDF/Simulcast.pdf Joe --- Daron Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm familiar with the simulcast paging, this is not paging. This is public safety police analog repeaters. The proposal is to put three in a row down the town, about 3-4 miles apart, voting receivers at the two south ones linked back to the 'main' site via UHF control links and a voting controller there. So, they would vote the best receiver and simulcast the output of all three repeaters. Not paging, I know how paging works, I have a VHF pager on a simulcast system. What I'm looking for is somone who has seen an installation like this or has experience with it. Personally, I think it will multipath like crazy and the recovered audio will be crappy. But, if it is a good thing as suggested in the recommendation, there must be operating systems out there to listen to. Thanks, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daron -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finch Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 7:07 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] voting receivers with simulcast transmitters Daron, I will tell you what I know about analog simulcast systems. There is basically two manufactures of this equipment, Motorola and Quintron/Glenayre. If you want it to be a fairly good sounding system stay away from Motorola equipment. I worked in paging back when there was still a lot of analog pagers on the air, half our systems were Motorola, the other half Quintron. We finally gave up on the Motorola systems running analog, you could set them one day and they may work OK but the next day they would not. There is a problem how the built their FSK modulators, they were not matched like Quintron's. The Quintron modulators were matched to .2 of a dB between them, Motorola did no matching. The trick that will help the most with either system is; try and keep the overlaps where people will not be using the system. There is other problems with Motorola's simulcast system but that is what kept them from having a good (as possible) running simulcast system. There is still a company in Quincy Il. that sells the Quintron (now Glenayre) line, their company name is ISC Technologies. They have the manufacturing rights for most of the Quintron/Glenayre line or they may have some used equipment available. Paul -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 2:00 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] voting receivers with simulcast transmitters Daron- Most all your 150 MHz or 900 MHz paging systems are going to be simulcast. If there are any 150 MHz analog paging systems around, try listening to them. -- Original Message -- Received: Tue, 03 May 2005 01:26:06 AM CDT From: Daron Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] voting receivers with simulcast transmitters Hello Folks, I'm looking over a radio study done by consultants for our small coastal community. The recommendation includes three simulcast repeaters with voting receivers. We live on the coast, the terrain is covered with tall trees that make wonderful reflectors and contribute tons of multipath when wet, and it rains plenty. I can't think of any place with terrain issues where I have seen a simulcast VHF repeater system built out. If you have any references (for or against) a simulcast system like this, please drop me a note. I suspect a fair amount of multipath problems and not real great audio for the mobile units based on their location, but I wouldn't be able to prove it until the thing got installed. Ideas? Thanks, __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to:
Re: [Repeater-Builder] astron rs50
Yes, that will work just fine. Make sure you put in fuses, and set the current limit down somewhat if you are feeding a big battery bank. Joe --- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on the repeater builder website there is a mod for the astron rs35 where you go into it and cut a trace then add a resistor then adjust the power supply's output voltage to what the float charge rate of the battery I have done this to an rs35 and have not had any problems I am just wondering if it is okay to do it to the rs50 - Original Message - From: Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] astron rs50 At 12:08 PM 4/8/2005, David wrote: no you can buy it build it and hook up external to the rs50 it can be built into the rm50 but I don't have the rm 50 I have the rs50 and am wondering if I should spend the $45 for the battery backup kit or if the mod for the rs35 on the repeater builder website will be acceptable since I do plan on fusing both positive and negative lines from the rs50 to the batteries and again from the batteries to the load What does this mod do exactly? What we've done, and I've used this at home for years, is to set the power supply to 14.4V, and connect the backup batteries directly in parallel. Mechanically, the power supply leads (both of them!) run direct to the battery, and in through a 30A fuse, then back out from the battery through another 30A, to a distribution panel with fuses sized for each device. Everything's powerpoled of course. I've run batteries this way for 8 years with no problems, the trick is to adjust the float voltage for your particular battery. SLA isn't the same as Gell, and so on. They are pretty close, and slightly under is better than slightly over. Reduced charge state as opposed to electrolyzing the water and loosing it. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] astron rs50
500 AH would be large. --- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what do you consider large??? I have 3 25ah gel cells - Original Message - From: Joe Montierth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] astron rs50 Yes, that will work just fine. Make sure you put in fuses, and set the current limit down somewhat if you are feeding a big battery bank. Joe --- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on the repeater builder website there is a mod for the astron rs35 where you go into it and cut a trace then add a resistor then adjust the power supply's output voltage to what the float charge rate of the battery I have done this to an rs35 and have not had any problems I am just wondering if it is okay to do it to the rs50 - Original Message - From: Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] astron rs50 At 12:08 PM 4/8/2005, David wrote: no you can buy it build it and hook up external to the rs50 it can be built into the rm50 but I don't have the rm 50 I have the rs50 and am wondering if I should spend the $45 for the battery backup kit or if the mod for the rs35 on the repeater builder website will be acceptable since I do plan on fusing both positive and negative lines from the rs50 to the batteries and again from the batteries to the load What does this mod do exactly? What we've done, and I've used this at home for years, is to set the power supply to 14.4V, and connect the backup batteries directly in parallel. Mechanically, the power supply leads (both of them!) run direct to the battery, and in through a 30A fuse, then back out from the battery through another 30A, to a distribution panel with fuses sized for each device. Everything's powerpoled of course. I've run batteries this way for 8 years with no problems, the trick is to adjust the float voltage for your particular battery. SLA isn't the same as Gell, and so on. They are pretty close, and slightly under is better than slightly over. Reduced charge state as opposed to electrolyzing the water and loosing it. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] astron rs50
Whatever you got. .25 watt or bigger is OK. Joe --- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what wattage 1k pot to parallel r4 - Original Message - From: Joe Montierth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] astron rs50 Yes, that will work just fine. Make sure you put in fuses, and set the current limit down somewhat if you are feeding a big battery bank. Joe --- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on the repeater builder website there is a mod for the astron rs35 where you go into it and cut a trace then add a resistor then adjust the power supply's output voltage to what the float charge rate of the battery I have done this to an rs35 and have not had any problems I am just wondering if it is okay to do it to the rs50 - Original Message - From: Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] astron rs50 At 12:08 PM 4/8/2005, David wrote: no you can buy it build it and hook up external to the rs50 it can be built into the rm50 but I don't have the rm 50 I have the rs50 and am wondering if I should spend the $45 for the battery backup kit or if the mod for the rs35 on the repeater builder website will be acceptable since I do plan on fusing both positive and negative lines from the rs50 to the batteries and again from the batteries to the load What does this mod do exactly? What we've done, and I've used this at home for years, is to set the power supply to 14.4V, and connect the backup batteries directly in parallel. Mechanically, the power supply leads (both of them!) run direct to the battery, and in through a 30A fuse, then back out from the battery through another 30A, to a distribution panel with fuses sized for each device. Everything's powerpoled of course. I've run batteries this way for 8 years with no problems, the trick is to adjust the float voltage for your particular battery. SLA isn't the same as Gell, and so on. They are pretty close, and slightly under is better than slightly over. Reduced charge state as opposed to electrolyzing the water and loosing it. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Astron parts
--- Jeff Corkren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where is the best place (other than Astron) to purchase 2N3771 pass transistors for a Astron power supply ? Anybody had luck using subs ? If so what part number ? Thanks ! Jeff Corkren/W5PPB Raymond, Mississippi Go here and search for 2N3771 : http://www.digikey.com/ $2.64 each, there is a $5 handling charge for orders under $25. There may be cheaper places, but Digikey is very reliable. You might also order the diodes to have as spares, and also the regulator chip. Those are the most common things that fail. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola welded rod yagis
Check this out and see if it is the antenna you're referring to: http://www.rfsworld.com/RFSGlobal/datasheet.asp?PN=688S%2D1FAM=BaseStationAntennas IIRC, years ago, PD made the antennas for Motorola. I know this unit looks just like a Mot antenna I have. Joe --- wn1b8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skipp, I would be very interested in these dimensions when you get them. Thanks, Scott Madison, WN1B --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Motorhead (Motorola), Cellwave and now RFS make a very strong end-mounted yagi for 450-470 MHz operation. It's all welded Al Rod on a thick ~1 tube. I picked up what measures out to be a 418-420 MHz range version of this same type/style antenna. Anyone have the model number and the specs? ... or a location there-of? Once I ID the yagi, I'll make my drawings available to all (as done with the DB-408 antennas from before) to Mike for posting to the RB Web Page. Thanks for your replies... skipp skipp025 at yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] want to trade 450 Vertex for a lo-band vertex
--- na6df [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If any one is interested, I could use a 42-50 mhz vertex. Older ftl- 1011 is OK, 4 channels plenty. For swap I have a nice condition Vertex VX-2000 with bracket, mic, power cord in good shape. Would also consider a radius or maxtrac, as long as it's something I can program up on 52.525. thanks 7treez.. dave NA6DF I think I have a few of the 4 channel 1011's sitting somewhere. Would be happy to trade one (or more). If interested, let me know direct, and I will get one and check it out, etc. I think I have 5 or 6 sitting in a box somewhere with some highband vertex radios that I bought used. I don't know if I have brackets, power cord, or mike, but maybe those too. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: portable/mobile GMRS repeater antenna
--- Laryn Lohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Al Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've always thought good quality RG-8X was an oxymoron. use good quality RG-8X type cable for Al, K9SI Right Al, an oxymoron especially when used in duplex service. Any braided coax used in duplex service should be silver plated braid. Message 48346 from just a couple of days ago spells out some of the grief to be found when using RG-8X or any other non-silver plated cable in duplex service. Good job Bob! Laryn K8TVZ I would mostly agree with this statement, but the person asking about this is looking for answers that will work in a specific application. I have used RG-8X and even RG-58 with excellent results in duplex systems, especially when the power is relatively low. I suppose the thing to do would be to use a DB-420 and 7/8 inch heliax, but this would be impractical for most mobile/portable repeater setups. There are lots of possiblities of things that could work for this application, I am only speculating on one thing that I personally know will work, not saying it is the best, or most desireable, but something that could be looked at for this particular scenario. Quarter inch or half inch superflex would work too, just don't know how much money a person has to invest in a particular project. People that are contemplating a project need to be given some direction by people who have done similiar things, that way everyone doesn't have to re-invent the wheel. The more ideas people are given, the better they are able to asess which will fit their needs best. When someone categorically says that won't work I'm often first in line to see if it will (or won't). Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: portable/mobile GMRS repeater antenna
Something you might look at would be one of the lightweight fiberglass base station antennas made by Antennex, Maxrad, etc. These only weigh about 4 or 5 pounds, you could also get several 6ft sections of telescopic aluminum tubing to support it, much less weight and size than the TV masting. For a short run of cable like that, you could probably use good quality RG-8X type cable for less weight and good storability. Joe --- rtoplus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The little DB-404 works very well we use it for bike-a-thons and walks and so on. We park my SUV in a good spot at the event. And leave it all day during the event. We also have a repeater we install on a high reach for events we need more range. It uses a DB-408 on that unit. 73, Russ Ham, W3CH. GMRS, WPYK-254. Ok...I have a Dodge Caravan (no snickers please) that I'll be using for an emergency vehicle. Russ, on your setup, using the DB-404, what flavor of feedline do you use? Also, what kind of height do you achieve with your setup. I can envision on my vehicle some sort of mounting clamp I guess attached to the rear bumper (which is plastic) and then running the feedline into the vehicle through one of the rear window openings. When in transit, I guess I could strap 3 or 4 5' TV antenna masts and the antenna to the luggage rack, but I'm curious about the feedline...hardline would be great of course, but with repeated coiling and the possibility of kinking I wonder if something like Andrew CNT-400 would be better. Also, would standard TV masts be useable (safely) for a DB-404? Also, my vehicle has a total (right now) of 5 radios installed...1 lowerpower UHF Spectra for GMRS and public service frequencies, 1 Icom 2 meter mobile for ham stuff, 1 VHF maratrac for part 90, mutual aid stuff and some ham stuff, 1 Radio Shaft VHF 19-2100 (or whatever the model is...the old mobile 2 channel business dot radio) I use it for MURS, and an 800 MHz STX smartnet handheld with a convertacom. So obviously, I'm a rolling RF cannon...course, rarely though does more than 1 radio get keyed at a time. Battery/power issues are another topic. thoughts? (please don't suggest a motor home or something like that unless you want to do the paypal thingie to mehehehe) Bob, GMRS WPVV845, Amateur KG4WAD, LMRS WPXC892 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Inside a Flag pole Tower
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1st off that was not a put down! I will not blow my on horn but I can say if it works for you then use it. BUT! It is not how antenna physics work. Just think how much better a system will work when we do not try to change the laws and rules of antenna physics? Dean Westbrook, EE,PE Then don't try to change the laws of trigonometry either. 100ft tower, 40 miles out, what's the angle? For that matter, figure at 5 and ten miles also. At those short antenna heights you will usually want the maximum gain, unless your prime coverage is in the first half mile or so. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Inside a Flag pole Tower
Dean specified 100ft AAT, which takes into account the ground elevation, thats not very high off the ground. I own a 140 ft tower, with antennas that have relatively high gains. I can sit at the bottom of the tower (which should be the worst null) and still hear and get into the repeater. I can move .5 mile away with the same results. I can move 3 or 5 miles away with the same results. The null zones created by high gain antennas are usually so close to the antenna (when at 100 ft) that it makes no difference. By the time you get into the major lobe of the antenna, you will less than a mile or so away from the tower; as you get further away, you just get more and more into the beamwidth, not less. A high gain antenna may have a pattern that is 8 degrees, that would be 4 degrees above the horizon, and 4 degrees below the horizon. With an antenna 100 ft AAT, you would come into the major lobe just a little over a quarter mile from the antenna. I think most people would agree that if you're closer than .25 miles to an antenna at 100 ft, you won't have a lot of problem hearing (or getting into) the attached repeater. I too, have worked in the RF field for a long time, and seen some strange stuff. One thing I consistantly see is that a high gain antenna will almost always outperform a lower gain antenna at the fringes, or near the horizon. It doesn't seem to matter if it is a 100 ft tower, or a ten thousand foot mountain. Even on the 10,000 ft mountain it is hard to make the nulls of much consequence, since they are such an angle, reference the major lobe. This is from real-world experience also. Pehaps the laws of physics and trigonometry are different out east, I am only relying on wild west observations. :) Joe --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry Joe but Dean is correct. I believe you might be forgetting about the angle of radiation off the antenna and the null zones it creates. Higher gains create larger near field null zones so you have to pick a gain that gives good coverage but won't exclude mobiles that are near the site. The other factor that you have to take into consideration is the elevation that the flag pole is going to be erected at. Now add to that the flag poles are smaller in foot print diameter than normal cell phone towers which places the antennas inside them in closer proximity to each other and you have to minimize interaction with each other. Using high gain antenna's causes more problems with interaction so you have to reach a happy medium. Sorry to say Trig is one thing but real world RF is another. I have worked in the RF field almost as long as Dean and have seen many strange things happen. Mike K1EG - Original Message - From: Joe Montierth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Inside a Flag pole Tower --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1st off that was not a put down! I will not blow my on horn but I can say if it works for you then use it. BUT! It is not how antenna physics work. Just think how much better a system will work when we do not try to change the laws and rules of antenna physics? Dean Westbrook, EE,PE Then don't try to change the laws of trigonometry either. 100ft tower, 40 miles out, what's the angle? For that matter, figure at 5 and ten miles also. At those short antenna heights you will usually want the maximum gain, unless your prime coverage is in the first half mile or so. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PART 95 Type Accepted (putting me to sleep)
--- skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would hope Kevin would let the discussion continue, as it is of VITAL importance to anyone putting a non-ham repeater on the air. ..zzz..! Sorry, I was snoring. skipp :-) Thats the way I am feeling about the Vocaline and Twin Vee threads. At least people are still using micors for repeaters, don't know how many Twin Vee strips are still being used. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Can you hear 3db?
--- Jim B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mch wrote: Actually, 3 dB is the point at which you can first notice a change in the signal. As far as whether it is worth it is up to the individual. If a signal is 'fine', lowering it 3dB should not make it unusable. The change should be noticable, but that's about all. Of course, that all depends on the baseline of 'fine'. Joe M. And remember-dB is relative. A 3dB change in power output will seldom result in a 3dB change in signal strength at the other end. For these kind of measurments, you need to do it with a sig gen in a 'closed' circuit, ie, plug the coax directly in to the rx to eliminate fades, 'multi-path', etc. Also, don't forget that 3dB is a factor of two ONLY if you're talking about power. For voltage it's 6dB for a factor of two. so if you're measuring rx sensitivity in uV, going from .5 uV down to .25 uV is 6dB, not 3. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Two things: First, I would think that if you changed the power out (not antenna) by 3 dB, then at the RX site you would see a 3 dB change during an instant A/B comparison, where fading, multipath, what have you, would be the same on both signals. Same thing if you averaged the signal strength, you should see 3dB of change. There is nothing in the air that works in a non-linear way with RF power. Second, I see this 3 dB thing bantered about as the smallest change that can be heard. I think this is wrong, due to personal experience, and talking to others. Most CW ops will tell you that when someone changes power by 3 dB, that it will make a good difference on the RX end, when the signal is in the noise. One dB of change down would be roughly 90% of the original voltage. This means that a .5 microvolt signal would now be .45 microvolt. If this is where your squelch threshold is set, then 1 dB could make the difference of no signal going through a repeater, or readable signal going through the repeater. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] simple tone decoder
There is probably no easier and cheaper way to do it than a 567 chip. This will give you a logic low, or pull to ground when it decodes. If you are having a hard time making it work, double check your circuit layout, make sure the device is good, etc. The 567 is easy to align and fun to play with, was kind of the standard touch tone decoder back in the 70's. Joe --- Randy Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes it is for monitor weather alerts in my area east of Toronto but I need to detect the 1050 tone and convert that to a logic level to input to my controller. Randy __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Speaker Level Mixing
--- Q [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Memories...1959 Chrysler Saratoga Police special,426 Hemi,push button automatic w/mechanical overdrive lever.Motorola tube radio on 37mhz,Speedo went to 160,certified. BIG gas tank...lousy mileage! Engine still lives in buddys rail dragster... I thought the 426 Hemi wasn't built until 1963 or 64, maybe yours was a 392 hemi or a 426 wedge. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Outlet for RG214/U
--- Mathew Quaife [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I might have the number wrong, but refereing to LMR-400, we've done been down that road, but the RG-400, isn't that one just as close to RG-214/U? Mathew No, no, no. Not even close. RG-214/U and LMR-400 are two entirely different designs intended for different applications. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Richard W. Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:02 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Outlet for RG214/U There were a few guys selling LMR-400 in 100 or 200 foot lengths on e-pay for abot $80 each. 73, Dick, W1KSZ -Original Message- From: Mathew Quaife [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:49 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Outlet for RG214/U Well I called The RF Connection today, asked for the RG-214U Mil spec, was told they did not have any in stock, that the Government changed the specs or something, then tried to sell me RG-214/U and told me it was not Silver but Copper Coated Tin. So would the next best thing be the RG-400? Mathew That's cheap! Last time I bought some it was around $5 / foot. Neil Mathew Quaife wrote: Thanks Chuck and Kevin. Found them on the net. Dang, $2.00 a foot, must be made of GOLD...Ah well, gotta have it. Mathew - Original Message - From: Chuck Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Outlet for RG214/U The RF Connection. Google it, they have a web site. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: w9mwq [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 6:57 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Outlet for RG214/U Where is a good outlet that sells some of this highly talked about RG214/U Cable? Need about 30 feet of it. Thanks. Mathew I think I have several hundred feet of NOS RG-214 that is double shielded and silver plated, I can check tomorrow if you want. I would probably sell it for $1 a foot plus shipping, if you want a sample, I could mail you some and see if it's what you want. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Speaker Level Mixing
Here's what you can do if both radios are transformerless and have a single hot side and a ground side. This will not work if both speaker leads are hot, this will only work if the speaker amp goes through a big capacitor then to the speaker, the other side grounded: Wire the hot side of each speaker output to one side of the speaker, no ground needed. Both radios need to be on for this to work. I did this for years in a company truck, so I don't want to hear from you nay-sayers that it won't work. If you don't want to monitor one of the radios, it needs to be on anyway, and the volume turned down. Radio A-speaker---Radio B I could explain how this works, but first I want everyone to tell me that it won't work, will destroy the radio, will sould bad, etc., because thats what happens anytime I share this with someone. :) Joe --- DCFluX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thats what I wanted to do, but this has to be a discrete solution. The radios have BTL output. On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:03:04 -, Coy Hilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep, Use a Opamp mixer followed by a audio PA chip. You can build the mixer real cheap and depending on how much audio power that you need that can be had cheap too. Some audio PA chips now drive the speaker BTL ( neither side grounded... the speaker is driven differentially ) You'r lucky that you didn't smoke one or both Audio PAs in the radios. Not only were you driving the attached speaker but, you were back driving the other radios audio output section. Oh, you'll also need to load both radio outputs with a resister of 8 or ten ohms. 73 AC0Y --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, DCFluX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone had experience with mixing the speaker output of 2 radios, Say Motorola GM300's to one speaker? I originally tried a couple of resistors but I may have the wrong values as they got hot as hell and one started smoking, I was using 2 .82 ohm at 2 watt resistors for each radio, one resistor in each speaker lead and at the center the speaker. My next best guess is using a multiple winding transformer with three windings of 4 ohms, but finding information on how to wind a transformer to do that is impossible these days. Any Ideas? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Moto GM300 - Deviation Control vs Limiting
--- Jim B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The last shop I worked for supplied 50-60 or more TK350's to a local mfg plant, using MII's and later TKR-820's, with one RCA 1000 rptr for a while. There was never any problem like you're describing. But looking at my book, you're right. Tone is applied to pin 6 of IC207, which is the mic limiter. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL But that's not subaudible tone, I think it's tone burst or DTMF. PL tone is applied to pin 6 of IC 201, the buffer amp- the last thing before the modulator. This is several stages after the limiter. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Moto GM300 - Deviation Control vs Limiting
--- Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really like the GM300's design, which mixes in the PL modulation after the voice audio limiter, thereby eliminating one of the major causes of repeater talk-off due to CTCSS tone compression. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY I think all the radio makers do this, it's the only way to properly insert PL. This isn't unique to the GM300 or Motorola. Inserting PL before a limiter is asking for trouble. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Moto GM300 - Deviation Control vs Limiting
--- mbloom0947 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Moto GM300 has a software programmable deviation level with the software setting from 0 to 55 on an arbitrary scale. I thought that by lowering the deviation level I would see limiting in the deviation level given the same microphone input. Instead I see the deviation level responding to the setting but no peak limiting. Am I doing something wrong? Or are my expectations wrong? Michael Bloom W7RAT Most radios will require an audio signal into the mike jack that is very loud, usually 10-20 dB above normal. While introducing this tone, the clipper should be in full clipping. At this point, the deviation control should be set for maximum desired deviation (usually plus or minus 5 KHz, or slightly less). A very loud whistle can substitute for the tone, the main thing is that you want to be able to see that the deviation is limiting at some point. After the deviation is properly set, the audio into the mike jack can be set for proper audio. Anything lower than the max deviation level should go through relatively unchanged, only loud peaks should be clipped. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Did measurement of inductors change???
--- Neil McKie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JOHN MACKEY wrote: ... snip ... sort of like when capacitor measurements changed from uuF to pF) 35-40 years ago? I was doing this search late last night. Today, a little more fresh, I'll go back to work look at the Newark Allied catalogs again! Perhaps I'll see something I missed. If you continue to have problems there, I can look for you here. BTW, I have the current copy of EEM here. Neil DigiKey has two different 2.2mH inductors listed. www.digikey.com Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Did measurement of inductors change???
--- JOHN MACKEY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need to build a filter and it requires I have a few chokes of 2.2 mH value. So I look in the Newark Allied catalogs and all the chokes I am seeing are labeled µH (a u with a tail on the left) rather than mH Was I asleep for a long period of time they changed how inductors/chokes are labeled or am I missing something else? The m is for milli, the u (with the tail) is for micro. They are both valid, RF frequencies usually use microhenries(u) and audio range will use millihenries (m). If you order the wrong one you'll only be off by a factor of 1000! Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HELP: 2 meter repeater intermod problem from pager tr
--- Coy Hilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on...someone please say it...Most all radios built for FM use on commertial and or amature bands are designed for a MAXIMUM of +-5Kc deviation, period! Most receivers are built for +-7.5 Kc band width. What is to be gained from running higher than design deviation? What you gain is a Radio that sounds like crap if it can be heard.. and that pops out of the bandwidth of most receivers... and interferes with any co-chanel radios. This person should have his license grant reviewed. I CAN'T BELEAVE THIS IS COMMING FROM AN EXTRA !!! Gee Gang, Stop beating around the bush 73 AC0Y commertial amature co-chanel BELEAVE COMMING Five spelling errors in one paragraph??? I hope he knows more about radio than he does about spelling. :) This post is about as relavent as the others. Maybe he should have his high school diploma reviewed. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HELP: 2 meter repeater intermod problem from pager tr
--- Joe Montierth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This post is about as relavent as the others. RELEVANT YOU IDIOT! __ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Digest Number 2865
It's not the 600 KHz that is the problem. The problem is that the paging transmitters are spaced the same as the TX/RX spacing on 2M, thus creating the possiblity of a third-order mix. Here is what is happening, mathematically: 146.94 + 152.24 - 152.84 = 146.34 When all the transmitters are on, all three signals are in the air at high levels around the site. Anything that can mix could be creating the intermod problem, from one of the amplifiers themselves, to a preamp or even a piece of baling wire tied to a fence post. The mixer doesn't have to be especially efficient, since it is so close to the affected RX, a few microwatts of re-rediated power may be sufficient. That is why this can occur even when everyone has BP filters and isolators and the transmitters look clean on a spectrum analyzer. So a 600 KHz filter would be of no use. Joe --- DCFluX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't specify it had to be a cavity. Try shorted stub type, just steal a 1000 ft roll of standard issue cable guy RG-6 and go to town. Or use a L/C filter. It would be an intresting experiment anyway. On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:51:36 -0500, Thomas Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have any idea how big a 600 khz notch cavity would be? About 400 ft We had problems here in the Flint area with two paging transmitters that were 600 khz apart also 152.240 and 152.840 one or both are off the air now. tom n8ies [Original Message] From: DCFluX [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: 12/21/2004 11:09:12 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Digest Number 2865 What about building a notch circuit tuned to 600 kHz? And then put one each on both TX and RX? On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:06:10 -0800, Neil McKie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A new VHF paging system just was installed near here in the last few weeks. Rich wrote: 155.820 BEND, CITY OF WNNU934 100 watts Overturf Butte (Bend) 100 watts Awbrey Butte (Bend) 300 watts Wampus Butte (La Pine) 300 watts Gray Butte (Madras) VHF paging is apparently here to stay - whether we like it or not. Neil - WA6KLA Dan Hancock wrote: We had exactly the same problem in Ann Arbor. The pagers were exactly 600 kz apart and up in the 158 Mhz segment. We installed notch filters and sharp band-pass filters on the repeater with some success. Nothing kept it our entirely. I was about to try a crystal filter on the front end when the interference just ended. One of the transmitters was taken off the air. Note though in our situation, the pagers were there first. I can't imagine in this day and age, with the death of VHF paging being on the near horizon, why anyone would put up a NEW VHF paging transmitter. However,if one of these pager transmitters is indeed a new installation, it may be possible to force them off the air. I can't quote the section, but the FCC told me one time in a different interference situation that a new or changed transmitter operation it totally responsible for solving interference related to their transmitter within 5 miles of their transmitter, even if their transmitter meets specs. This rule might possibly just apply in this situation. They have installed a new operation that produces an uncurable mix that wipes out your operation. That mix could be occurring in your transmitter, your receiver, one of the paging transmitters, someone else's transmitter, etc, etc, etc. I would suggest that you immediately contact your nearest FCC field office and discuss this with them. I wish I could give you the section, but the engineer who told me about it never actually quoted the section. Good luck. Dan Hancock N8DJP President, RADAR Inc. www.qsl.net/wr8dar Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Digest Number 2865
--- mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's mixing in the receiver or transmitter, notching one of the offending signals may help (such as a notch cavity on 152.240 or 152.840 MHz). Of course, it could be mixing in a number of other places, too. Joe M. The first place to look is to make sure all the TX's have isolators and BP cavities- one of the easiest places for mixes to occur is right in the PA. If you don't have an isolator and a BP filter, the energy from the other in band transmitters can come right in and mix there. Since the mix product is also in band it will flow back out to the antenna. The other place to look is the 2M RX. It needs to have plenty of rejection to the paging transmitters before the first active stage. A BP or BR filter may be required, as you point out. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GE Mastr II PLL vs. Multiplier (crystal) exciter in duplex service.
The frequency stability of any transmitter is only as good as it's reference oscillator (be that a PLL or a multiplied crystal)- dividing or multiplying the frequency will not change that constant (in PPM). It doesn't matter if you use a 100KHz, 1MHz, 10MHz or 100MHz reference frequency, if they are all the same in PPM. You don't somehow get better stability by dividing the frequency, and you don't get worse by multiplying the frequency. It is what it is. Joe --- Wade Lake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, I now realize the mistake I was making in looking at this. I am used to seeing newer PLL's with a much higher reference oscillator frequency and having a divider in the reference side before the Phase Comparator. In that case the stability does improve over that of the reference oscillator, but that obviously does not apply here. Sorry, I will shut up now. Wade - KR7K - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] GE Mastr II PLL vs. Multiplier (crystal) exciter in duplex service. Wade, If the PLL reference from the crystal is X3, and the VCO sample has been divided by 4, what is the product of 3 times 4? The answer is 12. If the transmitter was any more stable in frequency than the reference, shouldn't one think the stated frequency stability would be better than 2 PPM or 5 PPM, which is the stability of the ICOM itself? Many times the manual states the VCO is locked to the 12th multiple of the ICOM. This means the output of the GE PLL exciter will have the stability of the ICOM, times 12, period. Kevin Custer Wade Lake wrote: I stand corrected, in part anyway. In this GE radio the deviation is indeed at a divide by 12 from the output. This is why I said usually, I am not familiar with the intricate details of all radios. Especially GE's, I was a Motorola tech for quite a few years. I will leave the GE's to others like you who are more familiar with their inner workings. However, even in this particular radio, I noticed the PLL circuit uses a X3 from the original ICOM freq as the PLL reference. This is made obvious by the divide by 4 fed back from the output of the VCO. So even though the PLL circuit here is not more stable by a factor of 12, as I initially stated, it theoretically should be more stable by a factor of 4. This does not appy to deviation in this case but it will most definately apply to frequency drift. My 2 and a half cents worth. Wade - KR7K - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] GE Mastr II PLL vs. Multiplier (crystal) exciter in duplex service. Hi Wade, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your stability theory on the GE Mastr II PLL high-band exciter. If you refer to the PDF manual for the PLL exciter: http://www.repeater-builder.com/ge/lbi-library/lbi-30398n.pdf You will see under the Description the exciter utilizes the 12th multiple of the FM ICOM to lock the VCO on frequency. It goes into more detail about this in the Circuit Analysis section of the same manual. So, the FM ICOM's multiplication certainly does factor into the stability of the PLL exciter, and one can generalize it has the same frequency stability as its multiplier counterpart. In addition, the modulation of the PLL exciter is produced in the crystal reference (FM ICOM) as well, and is also multiplied up to the desired deviation. Since the time constant of the Lead/Lag filter allows for near instantaneous correction of the VCO, changes in frequency at the audio rate are superimposed onto the output frequency. Hope this helps... Kevin Custer Wade Lake wrote: Kevin Custer wrote: The advantage here is the same frequency stability is achieved by the use of the quartz reference Actually, a PLL oscillator is much more stable than a multiplied crystal oscillator. because with a multiplied quartz oscillator, frequency drift and frequency error (usually deviation as well) is multiplied by 12, at least in the case of the High band GE MASTR II. Not to dissagree with you Kevin, your answer is good, I think you nailed it. I just wanted to point out that stability is a very strong point of the PLL. Since it operates on the desired frequency, no frequency error/drift is multiplied. Wade - KR7K __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: MASTR II mobile conversion question
--- Glenn Little WB4UIV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the finger printing software out now, yes, by looking at the display or printed data, the individual radio can be identified. I do not mean that they can tell the difference between a MICOR and a MASTR. That is easy. They can identify the specific radio that transmitted. It appears that each radio has specific transmitted characteristics, such as PLL lock time, amount of overshoot during lock up, specific subaudible characteristics and the like. So the definate answer is yes. 73 Glenn WB4UIV At 01:30 PM 12/17/04, you wrote: At 12/17/2004 01:30 AM, you wrote: How ever! If you break the rules on GMRS long enough you WELL get to talk to a field engineer. It is not as loose as Ham radio. Can anyone really tell, via only over-the-air observations, the difference between a Part 95 radio a Part 90 radio that's maintained to Part 95 specs? Bob NO6B The fingerprinting software is more to tell which radio is abusing a sysem, and which is not. It is not really designed to ID a particular make and model of a radio, although it could if enough data were available for comparison. It is more similiar to ballistics matching than fingerprinting, in that there are a lot of variables that can change slightly. As to the question, this almost seems like there is something different between a part 90 radio and a part 95 radio. Since the certification specs are the same, there is really nothing that a person can look at (over the air) to say whether a radio is a part 90 or a part 95 designated radio. A part 90 radio will meet all part 95 specs, assuming power is kept below 50 watts. The only difference is that 95 is entered on the application for certification. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: MASTR II mobile conversion question
--- Jim B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mathew Quaife wrote: I generally don't get involved in online dicussions such as this, but I will have to concur on what Russ said, as I personally called the FCC field office about this matter about five months ago, and what I was told is that there is no mobile that is acceptable to be converted as a base repeater. They would not give any model numbers as such, generalized it as mobile radios. I tried to get them to commit to what could be used, and they would not elaborate on that either, just stated that it had to be originally Part 95 certified. I as well wanted to convert a micor to use on GMRS as a freebie for the public, and was told that it in no way could be used. If I search my archives, I might be able to find the original email that I sent to them before I called there office to confirm. In actual, the FCC would not talk to me, they forwarded my call to a help center that dealt with it directly. Kinda made me feel that they did not have time for me. However they was willing to help me get the license if I had my credit card ready. Tis what I was told, for what it is worth. Mathew This is why you NEVER call the FCC asking if something is legal-they will virtually ALWAYS tell you it's not. It's called CYA, and as a gov't agency, they live by it. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL You probably can't get the same right answer from two or more FCC people that you talk to on the phone. You are just as likely to get the wrong answer, since you probably know more about the rules than they do. Just because it's the FCC on the phone doesn't make it right. A few weeks ago, a fellow on our GMRS forum called the FCC to complain about unlicensed operation on GMRS channels. The lady there referred him to the frequency coordinator PCIA. http://www.popularwireless.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000482.html That being said, there is nothing in the certification grant from the FCC that certifies one radio as a repeater and another as a mobile, the grants can look virtually identical. Here are a few examples: Repeaters: Vertex VXR-5000 UHF repeater K66VXR-5000U Kenwood TKR-820 UHF repeater ALH9TKTKR-820-1 Mobiles: Kenwood TK-830 UHF ALHTK830G-1 Kenwood TK-860 UHF ALHTK-860-1 Handheld: Maxon SP-200 UHF F3JSP200U2 Those of you who know how to look up FCC ID numbers can view the grants on these radios, and see that they are virtually identical, except for power out. The FCC certifies radios for a particular rule part, such as part 90, 95, 95A, etc, not for the application that the radio will be used in. That is how these manufacturers can take two mobiles and use them as a repeater. Re: Micor/MII debate. The FCC OET website doesn't have any equipment listed (for any service) that was certificated prior to 1981. Since the MII and Micor were both produced in the 70's, it would stand to reason that they will not appear on an FCC list of approved radios. It is widely known that the MII and Micor were both used in GMRS applications from their introduction and on to today. To my knowledge, there has been no de-certification of these radios for part 90, some communities are still using tham, yet they won't be found in the OET database, since they don't have a new FCC ID number. The technical regulations regarding certification standards have not changed (for these radios), therefore one would have to assume that they are still legal to use in any application that they were legal for when manufactured. What does this mean? Use your own best judgement in using these radios, use them if you want to, or not if you don't want. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] tone trivia..?
--- Gregg R. Lengling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using tones below 60 Hz usually doesn't work for 2 reasons. #1 reason is that the transmitter will not reproduce that low of a tone without distortion and overdrivingand the receiver audio won't recover it. #2 the lower the frequency the longer it takes to decode.I realize it's not a great amount of time difference with todays uP decoders but it is still slower. To operate tones at very low frequencies you would need a NRZ modulator to get decent response. Gregg R. Lengling, W9DHI, Un-Retired K2/100 SN 3075 http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org Most newer FM type transmitters will handle tones down to 15 Hz or below, the problem with transmitters might only occur with some of the older PM types. Most RX's will work OK down to DC, if you tap the discriminator at the right place. Any radio that will modulate or demodulate DPL will work for these lower tones, since DPL has some components that are down in the sub 15 Hz range. You are correct that they will most likely take longer to decode. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OK, back to a tech question?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We all know what carrier squelch is so I won't go there. CTCSS (Private line) is also well known. Now most newer ham gear has DCS CTCSS. My question is about DPL, is this compatabile with DCS? If so will DCS do inverted code like DPL? Lastly without getting into Part 97 to much is DCS or DPL authorized for use in the ham spectrum for repeater use? Regards, Barry DPL and DCS are functionally the same. DCS is a generic name, DPL is Motorola copyright. DCS will do inverted, just like DPL, however an inverted code just matches up to another non-inverted code (inverted code 023 will match non-inverted code 047). DPL is authorized under part 97, being a known digital code. Here is an interesting site ala DPL: http://www.open.org/~blenderm/syntorx/dcs.html Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] T1507 Duplexer - Bandpass Only Vs. Bp-Br
55 dB should be adequate isolation for a repeater, unless you are running a high gain pre-amp and/or high power. These duplexers are better in most ways than the BP/BR type because they provide better isolation at most frequencies further removed from the TX/RX. A small spur on your TX that is 30 MHz away from the TX frequency will be greatly attenuated. Likewise, a high power commercial UHF paging TX will have lots of attenuation, due to the true BP nature of the device. The additional dB or so of loss should not be noticeable. These duplexers are especially sought on very crowded sites, if yours is not crowded, you might be better off with a BP/BR type. Someone would probably trade you for one of the other types. Joe --- n0pwz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am the proud(?) new owner of what a believe to be a T1507 duplexer. I believe it is a bandpass only duplexer. I use, and am familiar with, the T1504's which are Bp-Br duplexers. If the duplexer in question is actually a T1507 it would seem to have inferior receiver isolation of 55 dB vs 80 dB in the T1504. Whether this is actually difference that is significant, is a question I've been puzzling over for a bit. Is 55 dB of isolation enough for most repeaters? I also noticed a difference of 1.3 vs. 2.0 dB insertion loss between the two, but I suspect I can compensate for this with a better antenna. I note that some folks have been using these bandpass only duplexers in their repeaters with some success, so there is no doubt on my part that it can be used with a repeater. I would like to get some input from the folks on the list as to the benefits (or disbenefits) of this type of duplexer compared to a Bp-Br duplexer such as the T1504. Also, is one better off with a T1504 or a T1507 at a location where there is another 450 mhz repeater? Thanks very much in advance! Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod problem?
The isolator might fix the problem. The second harmonic of the 146.7 is 293.4. If you subtract 147.3, it comes up right on your input, 146.1.(Classic 2A-B intermod) Same thing is going on with the other freqs. Could also be mixing in your RX, or about any other non-linear spot between the two towers. Joe --- Q [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying to troubleshoot an intermod??? problem between two repeaters. The 146.10/.70 repeater's receiver gets blasted by the 147.90/.30 transmitter but only when they are both transmitting. Yes,the transit freqs are 600khz apart and they are only 5 miles apart. Would a circulator help this problem? Also have similar problem between the 146.07/.67 and the 147.87/.27 repeaters when they are both keyed up. Ideas? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood TKR850 external controller hookup
I have hooked up several TK-750, which I think are the same audio-wise as the 850. The TD and RD ports are flat audio (discriminator and modulator type), and the TA and RA ports are emphasised (mike and speaker type audio). The TA and RA are HP filtered to eliminate PL. Choose whichever one will suit your purpose better. Joe --- Michael Singewald N1PLH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I realize I can try both to see which I like, but I thought I would ask which audio inputs and outputs people are using on this repeater, audio or data? Looks like data input is designed for PL/DPL and may not work. I heard someone mention that the audio sounds thin on this repeater so I thought the data in might be better. Data output looks like it should work ok. Again, I assume that is discriminator audio and that is what I normally use anyway. Thanks for any advise...looking forward to interfacing this repeater. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] BIG battery Astron current limit
The size of supply you will need are dependent on several factors, such as peak current draw, average current draw, size of battery (in AH), and length of time to reach full charge, after an outage. Usually a single 35 or 50 amp supply will suffice, unless you are running high power or multiple repeaters, or some other type of load. The Astrons really need to be modified (as pointed out below) to change the current limit point to a value that is at, or less than, the continuous duty rating. This can be readily accomplished by adding a single resistor, or a pot, to change the current limit to a lower point. If you don't do this, you could burn out the supply after a long outage, because the supply is running at full tilt for longer that it is designed for. We have used Astron supplies for many years supplying current to an 840 AH battery bank. Before we did the mod for the current limit (about 10 years ago), we did burn up a supply transformer, rectifiers, and transistors. Another thing to do is place a fuse between the Astron and the battery about 20-40% more than the continuous duty rating. This will protect the supply and the batteries from catastophic failure of each other. Joe --- Steve Grantham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... I have noticed that there are some RS-35M's out there that are heavier-duty than others. I have one with a heavier heatsink, larger xfmr, stud-type SCR, and an extra filter cap. I guess they must have started making them cheaper since... I am running a 40 Amp charge controller. Therefore, I believe I need a PS that will run cool and current limit at 35 or 40 Amps so I can get out of current limiting faster when recovering from a state of discharge after an AC power failure. Which model(s) would that fit? (Time to go search the web...) Steve AA5SG - Original Message - From: Steve Rodgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] BIG battery Astron current limit One thinkng I forgot to mention: Batteries should be charged from a current source. What this means is the maximum charge current should be limited to protect the power supply. I would call Astron and ask them how to modify the RM35M so it starts folding back at 15A instead of its default of 35A. Your power supply will thank you for it. Steve WA6ZFT On Sunday 26 September 2004 20:20, Steve Rodgers wrote: The question should be how long before the Astron RS-35M burns up running at 34A? The power supply is rated for 25A continuous duty, 35A intermittent duty. I don't like running mine north of 15A continuous without a fan. This is the weakness with the Astron supplies. If you load them up to rated output they run very hot. If you are planning on running 35A continuous, I'd get an RM-60 or an RS-70. Steve WA6ZFT On Sunday 26 September 2004 20:01, Steve Grantham wrote: How long would the RS-35M run in current limit at 34 Amps? (This is about 97%.) I have noticed that the internal ammeter sometimes lacks good calibration. As measured on a quality manufactured shunt, 34 Amps pegs out the panel ammeter on the RS-35M, which indicates 40 Amps Max. Anyone have experience with this? Steve AA5SG - -- - The below quoted from: http://www.repeater-builder.com/astron/astron-rsbattmod.html A couple of additional comments presented by Joe Montierth One, the 10K resistor can be 1/4 watt or even 1/8 watt, the 1/2 watt is overkill. There is not much voltage across it to generate any heat. Two, depending on the size battery it is attached to, you might want to reduce the current limit point on the Astron. The 35 amp Astron will current limit somewhat above the 35 amp point, maybe around 37-39 amps. If you have it attached to a BIG battery, it can run several hours at the current limit, and burn itself out. If you parallel R4 with a 1K pot, you can adjust the current limit to a point less than 38 amps, usually about 70-80% of the power supply rating is good. Three, always turn the PS on before attaching it to the battery. This will keep the internal caps charged up, so they don't have to suddenly charge through the pass transistors on the Astron. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Control
97.213 and 97.201 213 tells how stations can be remotely controlled (telcommand), and that if done by radio, you must use an auxilliary station. 201 tells what an aux station is, and the freqs that they can use. Joe --- wa9ba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At a recent meeting buying or building a new control radio was discussed. I remember reading years ago when the repeater was put on the air for the first time that a control link must be 223 Mhz or above to be a qualified control link. After searching part 97, I cannot find the frequency for a link listed. Has this requirement been lifed or can someone point me to the rule? Bill WA9BA Yahoo! Groups Links [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2 UHF receivers, one antenna
--- Kevin Berlen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Over the weekend, I added a second UHF control receiver at one of the sites I take care of. The control RX antenna is up about 150ft. Previous to adding the new RX, I could easily access the first RX about 25 miles out. Since adding the second RX, I can only access either one about 12-15 miles out. I simply put a tee connector on the polyphaser and connected both lines to it. Not the best engineering practice, but I have gotten away with it before. Does anyone have an idea about how to properly match two receivers to one antenna? The receivers are located in different racks in different parts of the building. I know Motorola and GE had passive devices to do this job. Is there a way to build something homebrew to do this job? TIA, and 73, Kevin, K9HX You will usually get a 3 dB loss (or more) by using a tee or a normal splitter. The Mot 2 RX combiner was designed for 2 RX at somewhat removed frequencies. It had 2 tuned circuits, which reduced the loss, so it depends on how far apart your two RX's are. If you have a good preamp, you can usually put the splitter after that, and see very little loss, since most pre-amps have more than sufficient gain. Another cheap splitter is a tee with a QW section of 75 ohm cable on both legs. From the end of each QW, attach your 50 ohm cable to the individual RX's. This works very well if your RX impedences are close to 50 ohms. You can also measure the sensitivity at the input to the splitter, and right at each RX input, to see what your overall loss is. If it's much more than 4 dB or so, you might check out all the components. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor squelch chip
--- Steve Rodgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have design specifics (especially with regard to the high pass filter corner frequency, and passband-to-stopband attenuation of the high pass filter) of the M7716 Micor Squelch chip? Since the M7716 chip is no longer produced, maybe it would be good to emulate it's functionallity using a few poles of high pass filter, rectification, and a PIC 12F675? I figure if one could implement the right kind of filtering on the squelch noise, the PIC 12F675's 10 bit A/D and processor ought to make a nice implementation of the bi-level squelch. I actually built a replicant of the Micor squelch chip out of a couple of op-amp chips and a lot of resistors and capacitors. No PIC chip needed. Works pretty good, I put it in to replace an A/S board that had been damaged by lightning twice. You can't tell the difference as far as operation. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Omnidirectional antenna into 2m band
--- Buley, Kenneth L (GE Consumer Industrial) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gee, when did unity become equal to -0- ??? (Unity Gain - A gain of one. That is, the signal is output from a circuit at the same level at which it entered.) From ; http://www.yamaha.co.jp/product/proaudio/homeenglish/faq/glossaries/glossarie/ Therefore, a gain of less than unity is still greater than -0-. My question is, can there be a gain of -0- ??? Kenneth Buley Bullitt County ARES/RACES Coordinator KE4AWY Bullitt County EMA CD-2 Bullitt County Red Cross Disaster Communications BC-6 -Original Message- From: russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:09 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Omnidirectional antenna into 2m band snip they are less the unity. Gee less then -0- snip some more Unity gain is a gain of one, or 0 dB. When referring to antenna gain, most people would reference it to X dB over a dipole/quarter wave/isotropic/rubber duckie/wet noodle/dummy load/whatever. So, when someone says it has zero gain (no gain in dB), it must be the same as the reference (whatever that is). If it has less than zero (dB) gain, then the antenna would show a loss as opposed to the reference antenna. A good example would be a 2M rubber duck compared to a dipole. Here we see that the duck exhibits less than zero gain or in other words, a loss. It's confusing because people don't always put the dB after it. Sometimes we're as bad as the antenna manufacturers. :) Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GMRS Repeater Info Wanted
There is no separate certification issued under part 90 or 95 for a repeater. A radio is certified for a certain service (part 90 or 95 or both). This radio can be used as a mobile, base, repeater, portable, etc, providing it meets the criterion for that application in it's particular service. Base and repeater stations in GMRS service are required to stay within 2.5 PPM, mobiles are only required 5PPM. Does this mean a mobile can't be used for base or repeater? No, only that by some means the frequency tolerance must be met. This is usually accompished by getting a 2.5PPM channel element for the radio. Some radios will maintain 2.5PPM by being kept in a somewhat controlled environment, such as a heated and air conditioned room. Joe --- Mathew Quaife [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the difference that I am finding. Does anyone have a link to Part 95 anywhere on the net so I can go read it for myself and see if I can make heads or tails of it. Mathew Johnny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, Unlike the Part 97(Amateur)service, Part95 (GMRS) requires that repeaters be type accepted for use in that service. Mobiles are not type accepted for use in the GMRS as repeaters. Johnny Kevin Bednar wrote: There is nothing preventing you from using duplexed mobile gear like Micors or Mastr II's, or Motorola Maxtracs/Radius type radios as GMRS repeaters as long as the station ID'ing is handled properly. Kevin K2KMB From: Mathew Quaife [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] GMRS Repeater Info Wanted Thanks Eric. License I Know is required. Issue that is at hand, I think you answered, is type of equipment allowed. I have read issues where guys are building them out of GE and Micor units, and that is what I want to know if this is allowed, or must it be certain types of equipment. Antenna and cable is already there, 7/8 Andrews and DB 8 Bay antenna, duplexer is something I will purchase after I decide on the repeater. Mathew Before you can put a GMRS repeater on the air, you must have a GMRS license. You also need to read and understand the applicable FCC Rules in Title 47 USC Part 95. The current edition of Part 95 is dated October 1, 2003. A GMRS repeater should be FCC Type-Accepted for Part 95 operation, but you can use a repeater that is Type-Accepted for Part 90. This requirement rules out any repeaters built from parts. Some repeaters that are relatively inexpensive include the Yaesu VXR-7000, the Kenwood TKR-850, and the Motorola GR1225 or RKR1225. The important features to have are a built-in ID-er and the capability to decode CTCSS or CDCSS. You will quickly learn that a good antenna, duplexer, and feedline cost more than the repeater. Although the Part 95 Rules limit GMRS power to 50 watts, there are some high-powered pirate stations operated by unlicensed individuals who ignore all of the rules. I suggest that you not seek advice from such people! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY (and GMRS KAF4211) w9mwq wrote: I have been looking into setting up a GMRS repeater for community access, and have been doing some reading on them. I am coming up with conflicting stories and need to know. What can be used as far as a repeater. I am told it has to be a certain type, then I read where they are building them out of spare parts, but then am told the spare parts units are not FCC approved. So what is the truth here? What can be used as a GMRS repeater? And what would be a low cost unit available for such use? Thanks. Mathew __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GMRS Repeater Info Wanted
--- Neil McKie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An air conditioned room is nice but the radio must type accepted for the 0.00025% tolerance and so indicated on it's label. Neil No, the rules only require that you maintain your transmitter within 2.5 PPM, there is no rule that you must use a radio certificated as such (although that would be nice). As long as you use a radio that is certificated for GMRS and keep it within 2.5PPM, you are following the rules. Kevin doesn't like us to get into FCC rules discussions here, as they are pointless. Many people have many different interpretations of the rules, in some gray areas there can be a lot of useless debate. What seems very clear in the rules to me, may not appear that way to you (and vice-versa). 95.621 (b) has the rule for anyone to read. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GMRS Repeater Info Wanted
--- Q [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are wrong,it is illegal. Doesnt mean all those people were right,that doesnt make it legal. They just havent been caught yet... Please cite the FCC rule that would make this illegal, I have read and re-read the rules for years now, and have yet to find one that bans mobile radios as repeaters (or handhelds for that matter). Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GMRS Repeater Info Wanted
If anyone wants to continue this topic, you can bring it over to a BBS that I moderate, dealing with GMRS. http://www.popularwireless.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi Go down to the GMRS forum and start a topic about repeater requirements or whatever. There are lots of licensed, seasoned operators on this board and you can get some good info. The discussion here has given out both right and wrong info, but it would be better to discuss it there where it is permitted. Good rules discussions often take place there. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Using an HT for a Transmitter -Thoughts Ideas
--- Mathew Quaife [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds good to me. Figure up how much for shipping and how you want payment and will take it from there. How hard is it to get it converted? I have little to no knowlede about the motorola radios, so this is all new to me. Mathew - Original Message - From: Joe Montierth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Using an HT for a Transmitter -Thoughts Ideas --- Mathew Quaife [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Niel, actually I need a VHF exciter. What I have is working, but would rather have something a little better built than the regency. Mathew I have several of the VHF Micor mobile 400mW exciters. You would have to interface power, ptt, audio, etc to the proper pins to make it play. Let me know if you want one, $15 plus shipping, I'll throw in a channel element in the 150-160 Mhz range. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links I was out of town yesterday. If you still want the exciter I will ship it for $5. That would be $20 total. Let me know, I accept Paypal, Visa, MC, or cash or check. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Using an HT for a Transmitter - Thoughts Ideas
--- w9mwq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Need some input on this, what others think. I am trying to pull all the Regency stuff from the repeater, only thing left is the transmitter. I want to use a Yaesu FT-10R as an exciter for the amp to the repeater. What are some thoughts on this. I only need a half watt to drive the amp. Any problems anyone can think I might run into. Mathew You might be better off getting a commercial type exciter. The Micor mobile or base exciter puts out around .4 to .5 watts and might be a good choice to look at. They are widely available, and lots of literature about them. They also are continuous duty rated, and you can probably pick one up for under $20 (you can get the whole radio for that much). Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wanted: UHF MICOR 12W PA Deck
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe - thanks for the info. This particular MICOR UHF Repeater I just picked up came without a PA deck at all (someone else beat me to it), so since I was looking for one, I decided to try to find a lower power one than the usual 75 watt ones that usually come with them. I really didn't want to have to go through a bunch of modifications to one if I really didn't have to. Hopefully one will turn up! Thanks, LJ It's not a lot of modification, basically you move the output cable from the 75 watt stage to the 25 watt stage, and remove the DC power feed to the dead 75 watt stage. Probably takes 15 minutes max. If you ever want to move it back to 75 watts, just reverse the process. The power control board mod is 2 resistors. The 12 watt units are relatively rare, the 75 watt units show up on e-bay quite often in the $100 range. It's just an idea if one of the low power units doesn't show up, or you have access to the more common higher power PA. It also works with the mobile PA, if you get real desperate. The mobile heatsink runs fairly cool at the 10-15 watt level. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wanted: UHF MICOR 12W PA Deck
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for a MICOR UHF Repeater/Base Station 12-Watt 450-470 MHz PA Deck, Motorola # TLE1683A. I have one of the 2-watt versions of this PA, which is just about identical except that there is an attenuator that drops the output power from 12W to 2W (what a waste!), but there are some other undocumented parts like the thermistor that I understand would need to be changed, as well. So far, no one that I've talked to has come up with the correct modifications to change it from a 2W to 12W amp except for the part of removing the attenuator assembly. I'm looking for one of the 12W PA Decks to use in a HF Remote Base project, and don't want to use the 75-Watt PA Deck - I've seen way too many of them on service benches at Motorola Service Shops over the years that have smoked. This one will be running key-down for hours at a time, sometimes. I would also be interested in one of the UHF MICOR Station 20-Watt model # TLE1693A or the 45-watt model # TLE1703A PA decks - they look like the 75- watt TLE1713A PA outside with the big rear heat sink, but they have fewer circuit boards and parts inside. Thanks, Larry You might consider bypassing the final stage in the UHF micor, the stage that drives it is good for 25 watts or so continuous duty. On that big heatsink the thing probably won't even get warm. You might have to modify the power control board slightly by changing a couple of resistors. It might not allow good power control down in the 25 watt range without the mod. With proper mods, the power control board is good down to 2 watts or so. The 25 watt portion can be adjusted down to 10 watts or so. The stage that drives the 25 watt section will put out 10+ watts, and the controlled stage will usually put out 4-7 watts. All of the stages couple at 50 ohms, so just determine what you want power wise, and use the stage that fits your needs. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SQ-1000 vs RLC-MOT Squelch
Have you ever measured the short squelch tail length of your circuit? I think the Micor squelch is around 2-3 milliseconds, while the Mastr II/modified MVP short squelch measures around 6 milliseconds. I believe the SQ-1000 is spec'd for 20 milliseconds release time with a full quieting signal, which is too long IMO (I can hear a noise burst of that length, as opposed to the elegant click sound of the short Micor or Mastr II squelch). Bob NO6B I have not measured it, but I would guess it to be less than 5, probably around 3, sounds virtually identical to the Micor original. I think the long part is about 150-200. 20 does sound too long, that would let some detectable noise actually come through. That is about what the newer Kenwood repeaters have- very short, but detectable. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SQ-1000 vs RLC-MOT Squelch
Scott Zimmerman and I have been working on an analogue replica of the Micor Squelch for some time (several years). Since the Micor Squelch chip is still available we haven't spent any serious time perfecting it. Some day the Micor Squelch chip will be hard to come by, and we'll dig out our version of this circuit, perfect it, and turn it into a product. Kevin Custer I dug out my Micor squelch replicant and started playing with it a few weeks ago. I had some prototype boards etched and I built up one to try. Actually, the AS board on the local 440 machine (a Micor mobile) died and instead of putting in a mother M replacement, I shoved mine in there to test it out. I have a built in audio buffer, just like the original, but no audio amplification (we don't need speaker audio on our repeaters). Anyway, it's been running for about a month now, and I can't tell it from the real thing. I'm very happy with how it works on the micor, probably need to get some out to test on other types of receivers. I put an LED on it so I can see when the squelch opens, but except for that it draws less than 10 mA. I have an onboard open collector transistor, and a positive going voltage when unsquelched, so it will work with about any type of controller. It's on a board about 2 x 2.5 inches, I just screwed it into one of the holes that previously held the original AS board. Anyway, when I get some time (after field day) I'll probably build the other 5 up, and make them available for testing on different radios. Would be one more option for use, if they pan out OK. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sharing a receive site
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, all -- I am on the technical committee of an amateur repeater club. A club in the next county has approached us to ask about sharing one of our 2m receive sites with them. It's a commercial site and we are there at the pleasure of the owner, who is willing to accommodate them and thinks that there are no bad mixes. The other club has asked to share our 2m receive antenna and feedline, and has volunteered to install whatever equipment we specify so that our site's performance is not degraded. While this sounds doable to me, I am more of a digital guy than an RF guy. What should we install in order to do this the right way without degrading our site's performance? Our system transmits on 146.88 MHz and receives on 146.28. We use a Motorola receiver (I think it's a Micor). The other club's system transmits on 147.345 and receives on 147.945. Both have links in the 440 band. Neither system will transmit on 2m from this site. Any advice or recommendations as to architecture, equipment that works (or doesn't work!), or points to be included in a Memorandum of Understanding, would be appreciated. Regards, Bob Koblish [EMAIL PROTECTED] It all depends on what kind of RF in involved at that site, but one way to do it (and there are many) would be to take your feedline and go through a DCI filter to attenuate the out of band stuff that might be there. Then run into a good pre-amp (ARR, Angle Linear, etc) and split the output to the two RX. You could use a commercial unit, or construct one yourself for a couple of bucks, or just put a tee on the preamp and run a cable to each RX (this may or may not work well, depending on impedences and cable lengths involved, but its easy to try). You'll want to have a fairly low noise figure preamp, and fairly decent gain (15-20 dB) to get best performance out of each RX. Link to DCI: http://www.dci.ca/?Section=Amateur Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: FBI Release: Suspect Photos- REQUEST Assistance
--- Micheal Salem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe Montierth wrote: What I would like to know is what law or rule is being broken by taping conversations heard on non-telephone type channels? Anyone have a citation, or is this just urban legend? I know it used to be a rule, but that was years ago, lots of things have changed. Joe Joe: Glad to oblige your query. Below I have reproduced Title 47 United States Code Section 605, the so-called Secrecy Section of the Communications Act of 1931 as amended. Interpreting the entire section takes quite a bit of time and I won't do that, but there are a few interesting points to note. I have broken section (a) down into paragraphs instead of sentences in the same paragraph. I have put numbers after each paragraph instead of before because I would not want you to think that the sentences are numbered in the original. Section (a), Sentence 1 is a proscription of interception and divulgence. I think this was prohibition against telephone company employees, for example, who might become acquainted with the communcations that goes through their system. They are prohibited from divulging such information and one of the exception is demand of lawful authority. This could mean a warrant and not just a law enforcement demand. My recollection is that the noted exception in Title 18 is a part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act which details warrant procedures for interception of wire and wireless communications. Also note that it talks about interestate and foreign communications. I don't think that this section applies to the kind of communications under discussion. Neither does Sentence 3. I think that the operative sentences are 2 and 4. They contain flat prohibitions of interception and divulgence. That is, it may not be illegal to intercept, but it is illegal to then divulge. Sentence 5 is the exception for amateurs and broadcast. To justify this as an on-topic discussion, this means that Section 605 does not apply to repeaters or persons who build repeaters (repeater-builders). I can imagine a procedure under paragraph 2 where you intercept, then tell the police that you have a tape of important significance in the war on terrorism. They then go get a warrant which allows them to seize the tape, then you hand it over. There may also be an FCC Rule under the C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations) which allows the FCC to receive complaints without there being violations of Section 605, but I have not had time to dig it out. I hope this is helpful. I do think it is interesting. Micheal Salem N5MS Norman, Oklahoma Here is Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605: § 605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications (a) Practices prohibited Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, If we look at Title 18, chapter 119 we find (among other stuff): (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person - (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; (ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted - (I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; (II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public; (III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or (IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system; http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2511.html The mere act of taping any type of channel mentioned in this section would not be divulging anything. I think you are correct that intercepting and divulging are two separate things. It's perfectly legal to listen to, or tape the transmissions on any of the channels included herein. The problem would only come about if one divulged the information, and since this is a federal law, it could be selectively enforced. It's really a non-issue. Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: FBI Release: Suspect Photos- REQUEST Assistance
Here's another link to a court case where a federal judge determined that it would not be illegal to divulge the contents of most radio transmissions. In part it reads thusly: Chapter 119 generally prohibits the interception of any oral or electronic communication, which, by definition, includes radio signals. 18 U.S.C. 2510 and 2511(1)(a). Chapter 119 also generally prohibits the intentional disclosure or use of oral or electronic communications where the person knows or has reason to know that the communication was intercepted in violation of subsection 2511(1). 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(c) and (d). Conversely, 2511 does not generally prohibit the divulgence of communications which are legally intercepted. Any electronic communication that is readily accessible to the general public may be intercepted. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i). Moreover, any governmental radio communication that is readily accessible to the general public may be intercepted, regardless of any expectation of privacy. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II). Since it is not a violation under 2511 to intercept readily accessible governmental radio communications, 2511(1)(c) and (d) do not prohibit divulgence or use of such communications. If a governmental radio communication is readily accessible to the general public, then where is the harm in intercepting it and divulging the contents of the communication? Chapter 119 recognizes this by not prohibiting the interception and divulgence of such readily accessible governmental radio communications. Furthermore, whenever a readily accessible message is sent out over the airways, it is essentially divulged to the public. Presumably, anyone using a lawful device, in a lawful manner, can receive readily accessible radio communications. Section 2511(1)(e) is also noteworthy in that it prohibits the disclosure of certain communications which are otherwise legally intercepted. Significantly, 2511(1)(e) does not prohibit the disclosure of communications legally intercepted under the exceptions contained in 2511(2)(g). If Congress desired to prohibit the divulgence of radio communications legally intercepted pursuant to 2511(2)(g), it could have easily done so in 2511(1)(e). http://www.afn.org/~jlr/gass2.txt Joe __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
