Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: no power out of duplexer SOLVED with more questions - Thanks for the answers
His antenna could be in a null. It happens, as Murphy is a ham. Joe M. W3ML wrote: Thanks to everyone for their comments and answers about my questions. I did turn it back so I am sure someone will say something. Once when a ham said he could not hit it, I drove over and sat outside his house with a 25 watt radio and brought it up with an S8 signal. It seems when a repeater goes up anywhere, someone will complain about something to do with it. Thanks and 73 John, W3ML Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Msf5000 Low Power alarms
You enter that code to get rid of the alarms. I was just wondering how you set them again should you want/need to do that. Joe M. Richard wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand your question. The procedure puts it into normal condition. Nothing further to do. For a conventional MSF5000 (NON-trunking) that is, a radio always without the RF sensor installed, the values 00 and FF are what is loaded at factory; e.g. normal. The problem usually happens when someone replaces a CLB SCB(analog) board with CXB SSCB that came from a 800 trunking radio. It will contain the setpoint values from its previous home. They need to be reset to FACTORY default for CONVENTIONAL stations. Non-trunking=no RF sensor = Factory setpoint value of 00,FF. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: How do you set it back to normal? Joe M. Richard Arnold wrote: There is an RSS software solution (bitbang) to get rid of the alarms. Connect the RIB to the operating MSF. From the main menu hit ALT-F5. A command line bar will appear telling you to enter an IPCB command. Enter the following: (WITHOUT the quotes) /1e1607160800FF it is CASE sensitive. This sets the FWD/REV settings to zero and FF (infinity) I've done it many times, and it works just fine! --- On *Sun, 8/29/10, jimmylpowell /jpow...@.../* wrote: From: jimmylpowell jpow...@... Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Msf5000 Low Power alarms To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, August 29, 2010, 12:36 PM I originally posted this on the MSF5000 board but got no response. I thought I would broaden my search. Does anyone know a way to get a non trunking MSF with out an internal power sensor to stop giving the 7 beeps? I have tried going back to a default codeplug and starting from scratch. This did not work. It seems that once the bit is set it won't go away. I'm sure that it happened when someone went into the screen to adjust the alarms. I know this is a common problem and they tell you not to do it. I have the alarms disabled over the air, but it annoys me on the local audio. I would like to enable the over the air alarms, but I can't until I can clear this one. My MSF has version 4.07 SSCB and 5.04 TTRC. Maybe there's some bit banging that can be done. Jimmy, K5JCT Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna ID
It's not a real Ringo unless it's a very, very early one. The Ringos used round (whatever that is called at the bottom - the ring part). They also had the feedpoint come perpendicular to the ring rather than (what appears to be) parallel gamma matched. Joe M. La Rue Communications wrote: THats two for MaxRad so far! So it will either be a MaxRad or a Ringo. Its incredibly light, and it looks very much like a light saber, which is what I am almost inclined to use it for, if it wasnt worth a few bucks! :) Its nice to know this may be frequency adjustable. I just wanted to be sure, now I am more sure than I started with. Thanks for the responses so far! John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 http://tinyurl.com/2dtngmn - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Kelsey mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, September 03, 2010 1:25 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna ID These style antennas are typically poor performers FYI. I wouldn't use it for anything important. Cushcraft started the design with their Ringo series, then several others copied the design. They were inexpensive, which was the only good feature. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* La Rue Communications mailto:laruec...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, September 03, 2010 4:01 PM *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Antenna ID I figured this group would be in the know on how to ID an antenna without a sticker or any identification numbers engraved on it. I have an antenna that I found. It has no stickers of any kind, except for the This will kill you if you touch a wire sticker on it. Pictures attached are all I have. Its an N type connector and is roughly 4 feet in length. Is there any way to ID this with your traditional shop equipment? Thanks in advance! By the way, Kevin Custer, please email me! Thanks! John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 http://tinyurl.com/2dtngmn No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3111 - Release Date: 09/03/10 02:34:00 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wouxun Radio
Yes, it can run split tone/code. I tried it to confirm it. But, it will not run both tone *and* code at the same time. If you select one, it 'zeroes out' the other. Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: I see from the manual that the TX RX CTCSS frequency settings are separate. I'm wondering if this HT can really run split tone (encode decode separate CTCSS freqs.). Simply having separate settings is by no means an indication that it can, since my Kenwood TM-G707 has separate settings but the RX CTCSS tone only affects what tone is used for BOTH encode decode when in CTCSS squelch mode (as opposed to encode only). Anyone here actually have one that they could try?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek?
GE = BF10A RCA = CH751 Joe M. Pointman wrote: Like most of the commercial stuff of that era, the unit was locked into a car or truck instead of bolted in. It made for an easier repair to just unlock it rather than unbolting everything. It sat in a cradle with the locking mechanism that WAS bolted to the car body. GE and RCA also had their keys...GE's was a B210/810? Maybe..? its been a while since I handled any of that old stuff KM3W *From:* Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sun, August 29, 2010 12:50:18 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek? It simply locks the cover in place. You'll want a key anyway. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: KP3FT kp...@yahoo.com mailto:kp3ft%40yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 12:09 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek? Hi, I know it's a dumb question, but after scouring the internet for info, I find everything about locks and replacement keys for Motorolas and other radios, but I still don't know what locking the Mitrek actually does. Does it kill all power to the radio, or disable certain functions? I'm asking because I just acquired a low-band Mitrek that I need to power up and verify its working condition. It doesn't have a control head, so I need to use the front panel pins, but if the radio is locked, I may end up getting nowhere and still not know if it's either the radio that is bad, it is locked out, or I wired it wrong. This is the first Mitrek I've had. Thanks for any help. Jeff KP3FT Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3100 - Release Date: 08/29/10 02:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wouxun Radio
That's the ID mine has on it, and if you look it up on the FCC website, you will find that it is Part 90 accepted for 136-174 MHz, and 406.1-470 MHz. Granted on 2/16/2010. For those who are speculating about the legitimacy of the FCC ID, or the fact that it exists: It does exist, it is printed on the radio label, it is REAL/authentic, and it is showing the same on the FCC website under the same model number. Heck, it is even spec'ed for the entire ham bands! Joe M. Charles Mumphrey Kc5ozh wrote: Try this: FCC ID: WVTWOUXUN04 Wouxun model: KG-UVD1P CE FCC Approved http://www.wouxun.com/Two-Way-Radio/KG-UVD1P.htm 73 Charlie
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wouxun Radio
Oh, and they are also spec'ed for both 16K0F3E and 11K0F3E bandwidths. Joe M. MCH wrote: That's the ID mine has on it, and if you look it up on the FCC website, you will find that it is Part 90 accepted for 136-174 MHz, and 406.1-470 MHz. Granted on 2/16/2010. For those who are speculating about the legitimacy of the FCC ID, or the fact that it exists: It does exist, it is printed on the radio label, it is REAL/authentic, and it is showing the same on the FCC website under the same model number. Heck, it is even spec'ed for the entire ham bands! Joe M. Charles Mumphrey Kc5ozh wrote: Try this: FCC ID: WVTWOUXUN04 Wouxun model: KG-UVD1P CE FCC Approved http://www.wouxun.com/Two-Way-Radio/KG-UVD1P.htm 73 Charlie Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek?
Nope. In fact, only the higher end radios came with locks, and today almost none of them come with locks. Joe M. Glenn (Butch) Kanvick wrote: All commercials radios have locks on them. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek?
Maybe I looked at the wrong key on my ring. Joe M. Bill Hudson wrote: I didn’t know that RCA shared the CH751 key with the Cabinet key for Motorola Outdoor cabinets. This could be an error. Bill Hudson W6CBS Any of these keys can be duplicated at your local locksmith. *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Pointman *Sent:* Sunday, August 29, 2010 6:07 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek? Ah yes...the old BF-10aI have one.. a little beat up, would love to have a pristine one, just in case. KM3W *From:* MCH m...@nb.net *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sun, August 29, 2010 4:52:58 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek? GE = BF10A RCA = CH751 Joe M. Pointman wrote: Like most of the commercial stuff of that era, the unit was locked into a car or truck instead of bolted in. It made for an easier repair to just unlock it rather than unbolting everything. It sat in a cradle with the locking mechanism that WAS bolted to the car body. GE and RCA also had their keys...GE's was a B210/810? Maybe..? its been a while since I handled any of that old stuff KM3W -- *From:* Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com mailto:wb2edv%40roadrunner.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sun, August 29, 2010 12:50:18 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek? It simply locks the cover in place. You'll want a key anyway. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: KP3FT kp...@yahoo.com mailto:kp3ft%40yahoo.com mailto:kp3ft%40yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 12:09 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] dumb question: what is purpose of lock on Mitrek? Hi, I know it's a dumb question, but after scouring the internet for info, I find everything about locks and replacement keys for Motorolas and other radios, but I still don't know what locking the Mitrek actually does. Does it kill all power to the radio, or disable certain functions? I'm asking because I just acquired a low-band Mitrek that I need to power up and verify its working condition. It doesn't have a control head, so I need to use the front panel pins, but if the radio is locked, I may end up getting nowhere and still not know if it's either the radio that is bad, it is locked out, or I wired it wrong. This is the first Mitrek I've had. Thanks for any help. Jeff KP3FT Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3100 - Release Date: 08/29/10 02:34:00 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Narrowband Range -was- Seeking emergency system design help
I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to unintelligibility on any significant scale? Joe M. Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 8/27/2010 8:18 PM, wb6dgn wrote: If you reduce the modulation without reducing the receiver bandwidth, then, yes, the range will be reduced. You have reduced the signal without also reducing the noise. However, if you reduce the modulation and, at the same time, reduce the receiver bandwidth and audio recovery, by a like amount, then I do not see how the signal:noise ratio, and therefore range, would change appreciably. Relationships aren't linear, or you'd be right. Reducing the modulation index and simultaneously reducing the receiver bandwidth from 5 to 2.5 kHz results in a situation which requires ~6 db more signal level for the same demodulated quality (ex. 12db SINAD) Matthew Kaufman Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Narrowband Range -was- Seeking emergency system design help
We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P Joe M. wb6dgn wrote: Hey, guys! I'm trying to rewire my workbench area and I can't keep my mind on what I'm doing, thinking about this subject! Where were you guys when I had nothing else to do??? Nuts! Back to the workbench. Tom --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wb6dgn wb6...@... wrote: Also, wouldn't Carson's rule mitigate that characteristic? --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH mch@ wrote: I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to unintelligibility on any significant scale? Joe M. Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 8/27/2010 8:18 PM, wb6dgn wrote: If you reduce the modulation without reducing the receiver bandwidth, then, yes, the range will be reduced. You have reduced the signal without also reducing the noise. However, if you reduce the modulation and, at the same time, reduce the receiver bandwidth and audio recovery, by a like amount, then I do not see how the signal:noise ratio, and therefore range, would change appreciably. Relationships aren't linear, or you'd be right. Reducing the modulation index and simultaneously reducing the receiver bandwidth from 5 to 2.5 kHz results in a situation which requires ~6 db more signal level for the same demodulated quality (ex. 12db SINAD) Matthew Kaufman Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Narrowband Range -was- Seeking emergency system design help
N. Just saying Murphy is on the list: If there is a topic you are interested in, it will come up just as you get busy with something else. Joe M. wb6dgn wrote: We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P Are you trying to tell me I was hogging the board? Sorry, I'll behave! --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P Joe M. wb6dgn wrote: Hey, guys! I'm trying to rewire my workbench area and I can't keep my mind on what I'm doing, thinking about this subject! Where were you guys when I had nothing else to do??? Nuts! Back to the workbench. Tom --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wb6dgn wb6dgn@ wrote: Also, wouldn't Carson's rule mitigate that characteristic? --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH mch@ wrote: I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to unintelligibility on any significant scale? Joe M. Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 8/27/2010 8:18 PM, wb6dgn wrote: If you reduce the modulation without reducing the receiver bandwidth, then, yes, the range will be reduced. You have reduced the signal without also reducing the noise. However, if you reduce the modulation and, at the same time, reduce the receiver bandwidth and audio recovery, by a like amount, then I do not see how the signal:noise ratio, and therefore range, would change appreciably. Relationships aren't linear, or you'd be right. Reducing the modulation index and simultaneously reducing the receiver bandwidth from 5 to 2.5 kHz results in a situation which requires ~6 db more signal level for the same demodulated quality (ex. 12db SINAD) Matthew Kaufman Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Narrowband Range -was- Seeking emergency system design help
The same, perhaps not, but wouldn't intelligibility decrease as the quality degrades? Joe M. nj902 wrote: --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to unintelligibility on any significant scale? - Use of the term 'quality' is based on Delivered Audio Quality or DAQ DAQ is a communications industry metric which has a numeric scale defined from the subjective evaluation of the intelligibility of transmissions. Thus, in this narrowbanding discussion context, use of the word quality does mean the same as intelligibility. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wouxun Radio
They are Part 90 accepted and they work fine in the ham bands if you're talking about the KG-UVD1P Joe M. On Sat 28/08/10 11:29 AM , terry dalpoas km...@yahoo.com sent: This may be a dumb question, but I'll ask anyway. I saw some dual band portables on eBay, new for about $100, made by Wouxun. I doubt very much they are FCC type accepted. Is it okay to use these on amateur frequencies? Thanks in advance. Terry, KM5UQ Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join(Yahoo! ID required) To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wouxun Radio
What you say is somewhat true, but last weekend I was with someone who had a Yaesu, and he was picking up all kinds of overload while I was not. Joe M. On Sat 28/08/10 8:06 PM , Larry K wa0...@hughes.net sent: My family and I have been using them for some time. They are kind of wide on the frontend but we are in the country so no problem there. If you get one get the programming kit also as they are a real pain to program from the keyboard and easy thru the software. Larry WA0VUS Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join(Yahoo! ID required) To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Can a Master 3 narroband
How did they handle this back in the 60s/70s when I remember seeing Adjusted for narrowband +/- 5 kHz stickers on the radios? Were those factory stickers? Joe M. Eric Lemmon wrote: Tom, The narrowbanding kit produced by Communications Specialists and others is for the receiver section, and does not affect the transmitter section. The emission mask specified by the FCC for mandatory narrow band operation must be incorporated by the equipment manufacturer and then tested by an FCC-approved agency. This process has never been in the hands of the owner or user, despite widespread popular belief to the contrary. Simply reducing the deviation to a lower setting does not magically make a transmitter narrow band compliant; the limiting circuitry must be modified as well. Moreover, the FCC Type Acceptance for both the MSR2000 and the Mitrek does not include narrow band (11K2F3E) emissions. Naturally, these requirements apply only to commercial usage under Part 90 Rules. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Manning Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 10:57 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Can a Master 3 narroband Hello Jim I note your message about narrowbanding and the comment about the MSR2000. I have seen no info on doing so but it seems to me that the MSR200 could be narrowbanded. The MSR is very similar to the Mitrek and it can be narrowbanded by using a kit by a company that slips my mind. Therefore I feel narrowbanding would be possible. I will be attempting this in six months or so. 73 de Tom Manning, AF4UG - Original Message - From: Jim in Waco WB5OXQ mailto:wb5...@grandecom.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 10:07 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Can a Master 3 narroband I have a uhf master 4 that has been used for years as a paging exciter. Now the pager business is in the tank I would like to make the master 3 into aq repeater for commercial needs to replace a msr2000 because the msr cannot narroband. If the ge can't either I dont want to waste time and just buy a new repeater that can narroband. wb5...@grandecom.net Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help
Can you explain what that means? Joe M. n5qs wrote: (Mototurbo can not operate at 6.25 KHz without infrastructure)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help
Interesting. A competing dealer is telling everyone they have to be using digital by 2013. Yes, of course it's a lie, but they no doubt make more on digital systems than they do analog. On the larger scope, I can't wait to hear the uproar when/if the FCC tells everyone who just purchased new SNFM equipment that they have to buy new equipment AGAIN. Joe M. Bill Smith wrote: 1) There is NO requirement to go digital 2) There is NO requirement to go 6.25 KHz. Yet. You can safely install an analog 12.5 KHz system and expect many years of use from it. By the time 6.25 has a firm use by date, you'll be looking to replace the current system anyway. Of course, you CAN use something like MotoTRBO or NexEdge f you don't mind paying a bit more. If this is truly an emergency type system, then you need professional design help, not just from this list. Bill KB1MGH *From:* n5qs ygr...@white-tiger.org *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Fri, August 27, 2010 2:11:49 PM *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help Chuck Please abandon the idea of using D-Star equipment modified for non amateur use. First this is ILLEGAL. 2nd there is no commercial equipment that I am aware of that is compatible without modification. I would suggest using Kenwood Nextedge technology. This is very similar in performance to the D-Star and has a bandwidth of 6.25 KHz on a simplex radio (Mototurbo can not operate at 6.25 KHz without infrastructure) The FCC has already stated that the 6.25 KHz bandwidth is coming they just don't give any date prediction and I would not design a NEW system that did not comply directly with the ability to use this bandwidth. This is probably the most stable technology in todays market that can be set up with off the shelf equipment. I am too far away to help but would be glad to advise any legal way that I can. Roger --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... wrote: I doubt that the D-Star amateur equipment (or any amateur equipment) is type-accepted for where you intend to use them. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: rudy_n2wq r_baka...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:08 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Seeking emergency system design help Hello, I am looking for some advice or even a systems integrator who can help me design and implement an emergency communication system for my employer, using an off-the-shelf repeater and radios. My current thinking is to use D-Star radios and a D-star repeater, modified to work on non-amateur frequencies. Since the radios will be in Manhattan, the idea is to place the repeater in our Newark, NJ office and use directional antennas for the repeater. We are trying to prepare for the possibility of the entire building being damaged and thus the idea to move the repeater across the river. 73, Rudy N2WQ Yahoo! Groups Links repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help
This makes no sense. On the same band, with the same power, and with the same modulation type (analog) there is no reason there should be any loss by lowering the deviation and narrowing the receiver. If there was a change, it is not due to making the bandwidth more narrow. Maybe the new equipment is not as 'robust' as the old equipment. (IOW, both were putting out 50W, but the new one has more energy off-frequency). Or, maybe your new equipment's receivers are not as sensitive as the old ones. A good test of apples-to-apples is to see if a repeater's tail is lower in signal strength than the modulated/repeated carrier, as you're comparing the same thing - a signal of lower deviation to one of higher deviation. You should notice no difference whatsoever. Joe M. Andrew Seybold wrote: Bill one of the losses if a County fire department system which has 6 simulcast repeaters( 150 MHz) operating on wide-band with about 85% coverage of the County, and we put in three new channels (after almost 2 years of coordination and finding the correct channels), we put them up using the same sights and same output (50 watts erp) and using the same antennas—the new 3 channels under talk the existing wide-band systems by at least 30 percent. We are in the process of adding 2 new sites to make up the difference. I am glad that you did not have a problem but this is just one of several which I have had a problem with, and I have become a believer in lost coverage, I have yet to see a system that has not lost coverage, I am glad that you have. Andy *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Smith *Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 5:58 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help Andy, my comment was not directed at the professionals, such as yourself and others I know personally that are on this list. They were based on his stated requirement for a disaster recovery radio system. It's not something to do cheap or without expert guidance. People keep commenting on losing range with narrowband systems. A large UHF LTR system I installed and maintained lost no discernable range switching from 5 KHZ to 2.5 KHz. All else was the same. Same antenna system, same repeaters, same mobiles. They just pushed a button to bring them to the new talkgroups. Bill KB1MGH *From:* Andrew Seybold aseyb...@andrewseybold.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Fri, August 27, 2010 5:39:21 PM *Subject:* RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help The FCC is re-thinking the move to 6.25 KHz based on the fact that narrow band systems (and I have done a few of them) lose about 30% of the existing coverage AND the NEW FCC believes that broadband is what it is all about in the future—no matter that broadband cannot do simplex or any of the other stuff needed for LMR and public safety. And like a few others have said on here—you have to narrowband but are NOT required to move to digital—P25 or anything else, I have just completed several systems which use analog and we have moved them from Wide to Narrow with no problems—EXCEPT the coverage problems I mentioned. Andy W6AMS (and btw there are professional LMR folks and consultants who work with this stuff every day on this list, just because we are hams too does not mean that we are not in the business as well)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help
I was just telling someone the other day about how Motorola is not really Motorola anymore. It's still overinflated price-wise, but it does not come with the superior design it once did that warranted the higher cost. Of course, Motorola has some bargain basement models now, too. It's pretty bad when the cost of repair of a portable that is only a couple years old exceeds the replacement cost; Truly disposable radios. Joe M. Bill Smith wrote: Thing is, the new stuff is pretty much disposable and not meant for the 20 year lifespan of the Motrac or Micor era. Compare a top end radio like an XTL5000, to a simple 4-freq PL Micor. Price tags are pretty close until you factor in inflation. *From:* MCH m...@nb.net *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Fri, August 27, 2010 2:53:55 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help Interesting. A competing dealer is telling everyone they have to be using digital by 2013. Yes, of course it's a lie, but they no doubt make more on digital systems than they do analog. On the larger scope, I can't wait to hear the uproar when/if the FCC tells everyone who just purchased new SNFM equipment that they have to buy new equipment AGAIN. Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help
That loss is likely due to the switch to digital which is required for 6.25 kHz bandwidth, and not a function of the bandwidth itself. Joe M. Andrew Seybold wrote: The FCC is re-thinking the move to 6.25 KHz based on the fact that narrow band systems (and I have done a few of them) lose about 30% of the existing coverage AND the NEW FCC believes that broadband is what it is all about in the future—no matter that broadband cannot do simplex or any of the other stuff needed for LMR and public safety. And like a few others have said on here—you have to narrowband but are NOT required to move to digital—P25 or anything else, I have just completed several systems which use analog and we have moved them from Wide to Narrow with no problems—EXCEPT the cover age problems I mentioned. Andy W6AMS (and btw there are professional LMR folks and consultants who work with this stuff every day on this list, just because we are hams too does not mean that we are not in the business as well) *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Smith *Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 12:47 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help 1) There is NO requirement to go digital 2) There is NO requirement to go 6.25 KHz. Yet. You can safely install an analog 12.5 KHz system and expect many years of use from it. By the time 6.25 has a firm use by date, you'll be looking to replace the current system anyway. Of course, you CAN use something like MotoTRBO or NexEdge f you don't mind paying a bit more. If this is truly an emergency type system, then you need professional design help, not just from this list. Bill KB1MGH *From:* n5qs ygr...@white-tiger.org *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Fri, August 27, 2010 2:11:49 PM *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Re: Seeking emergency system design help Chuck Please abandon the idea of using D-Star equipment modified for non amateur use. First this is ILLEGAL. 2nd there is no commercial equipment that I am aware of that is compatible without modification. brI would suggest using Kenwood Nextedge technology. This is very similar in performance to the D-Star and has a bandwidth of 6.25 KHz on a simplex radio (Mototurbo can not operate at 6.25 KHz without infrastructure) The FCC has already stated that the 6.25 KHz bandwidth is coming they just don't give any date prediction and I would not design a NEW system that did not comply directly with the ability to use this bandwidth. This is probably the most stable technology in todays market that can be set up with off the shelf equipment. I am too far away to help but would be glad to advise any legal way that I can. Roger --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... mailto:wb2...@... wrote: I doubt that the D-Star amateur equipment (or any amateur equipment) is type-accepted for where you intend to use them. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: rudy_n2wq r_baka...@... mailto:r_baka...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:08 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Seeking emergency system design help Hello, I am looking for some advice or even a systems integrator who can help me design and implement an emergency communication system for my employer, using an off-the-shelf repeater and radios. My current thinking is to use D-Star radios and a D-star repeater, modified to work on non-amateur frequencies. Since the radios will be in Manhattan, the idea is to place the repeater in our Newark, NJ office and use directional a ntennas for the repeater. We are trying to prepare for the possibility of the entire building being damaged and thus the idea to move the repeater across the river. 73, Rudy N2WQ Yahoo! Groups Links repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Smart Batt Charger - not quiet off topic
Microchip has a battery maintenance kit. I saw one a couple weeks ago, but did not purchase it. That may be what you are looking for - or at least a good starting point. Sorry, but I don't have any part numbers. Joe M. wa1nvc wrote: There is a product made by West Mountain Radio that will do exactly what you want. It is called the Super PWRgate PG40S. It has 3 sets of PowerPole connections for power supply, battery, and radio. This unit will do the charging just as you want. http://www.westmountainradio.com/SuperPWRgate.htm Roger WA1NVC Am looking for a circuit diagram for a smart battery charger. Fast-charge-on-low-voltage and slow-charge-on-charged-battery. The values being programmable. Preferably PIC based. The battery is a 12 V sealed Maint free GEL battery 60 AH Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DON'T BUY IT **** Thread Closed***
No, Scott. You were correct about the original thread - it went on wy too long. It's just that the subject line was hijacked to a more on-topic thread in the mean time. Joe M. Scott Zimmerman wrote: Scott Zimmerman wrote: This Has gone on WAY to long. Ok, reading the rest of the message I replied to makes me think that I jumped the gun a bit here. When I saw the 20 e-mail messages in the box beating the same slip-up OVER and OVER again, I went off the deep end. Fellows I think we can all agree that things slip and get sent to lists that shouldn't. Nobody needs BROW BEAT for a mistake. ONE reply from ONE individual would have sufficed!! The end. Scott Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 474 Barnett Road Boswell, PA 15531 Scott Zimmerman wrote: This Has gone on WAY to long. Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
Again, just like a spur. Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? Might also be worth putting the Spectrum Analyzer on your input to see if you can see it drifting through the frequency - or drifting onto it. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: Another tidbit about this problem is that it's clean in the mornings. The paging transmitter can be going off like crazy and the repeater will be totally clean in carrier squelch. As the day progresses it gets worse. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: I agree, if you don't hear anything else in the mix, and it pretty much happens for the full length of the page, it's likely a spur on the paging transmitter, at least that's what I'd be looking at. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever) Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the same time as the page. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way through some of the time? Partial page would indicate to me that another transmitter is in the mix and dropping before the pager does. However, I had a situation where there were four paging sites scattered in the county on the same frequency and one of the transmitters was spurious and getting into my receiver. In that case, I always heard the entire page, but only when that particular transmitter came up. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Tim - WD6AWP tisaw...@gmail.com mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:27 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation It occurs whether or not the repeater transmitter is keyed. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Jeff DePolo j...@... wrote: Before we get into the math, an important question that needs to be answered is whether or not this mix occurs when your repeater transmitter is unkeyed. --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:36 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is transmitting and I have no interference. I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate the other possible soruce(s)? -- Tim :wq Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3084 - Release Date: 08/20/10 14:35:00 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3084 - Release Date: 08/20/10 14:35:00 Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
Many times (but not all), there will be a grungy sound with the spur. Think of a very loud 60 cycle hum. And 15 kHz is higher than normal. I think the typical shift is 5 kHz (+/- 2.5 kHz) if we are talking about digital paging. Analog might be 15 kHz, as the bandwidth limit would be 16 kHz. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at? -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
Before you said 15 kHz P-P (IOW bandwidth). Now you're saying 15 kHz deviation. 15 kHz deviation would be way too high. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I haven't noticed a hum. There's more of a scream on it. It's POCSAG. Is that analog? The dev is basically 15 Khz but there is, what I going to call splatter that is like 30 Khz. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:14 AM, MCH wrote: Many times (but not all), there will be a grungy sound with the spur. Think of a very loud 60 cycle hum. And 15 kHz is higher than normal. I think the typical shift is 5 kHz (+/- 2.5 kHz) if we are talking about digital paging. Analog might be 15 kHz, as the bandwidth limit would be 16 kHz. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at? -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
There is something wrong with your SM, then, as it should not show a deviation of 15 kHz on a signal that is 15 kHz P-P unless it's only deviating in one direction from the carrier. The +/- 4 kHz sounds about right. But, it should be centered around the carrier frequency of 157.740 (Or, on 157.736 and 157.744). It would also equate to a P-P of about 8 kHz as there is nothing but a shifted carrier involved. Regardless, I suspect none of this relates to your problem. If it's only 75 yards from you, I bet it's a very weak spur. It's likely down far enough that it's legal, too. If that is the case, the only thing that will solve it is putting a filter on its TX to notch your repeater RX frequency (good luck getting that to happen if it's not on the same site - and often if it is on the same site). Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: My service monitor (HP 8924C) has both a deviation meter and an oscilloscope to display the demodulated audio. Both the numbers on the dev meter and the peak to peak on the scope read about 15 Khz. I see another paging system (152.84) that shows the same 15 Khz dev, and a bunch of other ones that show 5 Khz dev. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 12:18 PM, MCH wrote: Before you said 15 kHz P-P (IOW bandwidth). Now you're saying 15 kHz deviation. 15 kHz deviation would be way too high. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I haven't noticed a hum. There's more of a scream on it. It's POCSAG. Is that analog? The dev is basically 15 Khz but there is, what I going to call splatter that is like 30 Khz. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:14 AM, MCH wrote: Many times (but not all), there will be a grungy sound with the spur. Think of a very loud 60 cycle hum. And 15 kHz is higher than normal. I think the typical shift is 5 kHz (+/- 2.5 kHz) if we are talking about digital paging. Analog might be 15 kHz, as the bandwidth limit would be 16 kHz. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at? -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? -- Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
You might be able to get the paging company to swap out the transmitter or at least the PA. That may solve the problem, too. Or, if you can show them the interference, and they are sympathetic, they may fix it. One bright side: Paging companies are going the way of the dinosaur, so it may not be on the air much longer. There used to be a couple dozen paging companies in my area. Now there are 5 or 6 left - mostly on UHF/900. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I have noticed the carrier appears to jump between +4 and -4 Khz of center. The transmitter is about 75 yards from me. It's running 225 watts according to the tech. The interference is pretty strong. It competes with my base station on low power. I'm 25 miles from the repeater. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 11:25 AM, men...@pa.net mailto:men...@pa.net wrote: Tim, Digital paging (mostly POCSAG coding these days) is FSK and will easily occupy 15KHz of bandwidth. On a Service Monitor deviation screen you will see a square wave pattern that looks like it is overdeviated unless you are very close to the transmitter in question. Read on and you will see why a deviation measurement is of little use. On a Spectrum Analyser you will see a single spike that jumps back and forth between a freq higher than the channel center and a freq lower than the channel center. The typical digital paging transmitter settings are +4KHz above the assigned freq and - 4KHz below the assigned freq. If the system uses multiple transmitters the + and - settings may be asymmetrical to allow for slight offsets between transmitters. As demodulated at the paging receiver the signal is a 1200 baud pattern of square waves. Newer systems such as FLEX may have two levels of + and - with settings of say +4K +2K -2K and -4K. If the problem is the digital paging transmitter you need to determine how close the transmitter is to your installation. Paging receivers represent a compromised antenna system and most paging transmitters compensate for the shortcomings of the receiver by sending at very high power levels. If the paging transmitter is close to you, it might be meeting spec but the low level grundge could be causing you problems. Milt N3LTQ Quoting Tim Sawyer tisaw...@gmail.com mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com: I'm looking at the pager freq with the SA. The dev looks wide to me. I see about 15 Khz peak to peak. Is that normal? Also I see much bigger spikes. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: Again, just like a spur. Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? Might also be worth putting the Spectrum Analyzer on your input to see if you can see it drifting through the frequency - or drifting onto it. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: Another tidbit about this problem is that it's clean in the mornings. The paging transmitter can be going off like crazy and the repeater will be totally clean in carrier squelch. As the day progresses it gets worse. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: I agree, if you don't hear anything else in the mix, and it pretty much happens for the full length of the page, it's likely a spur on the paging transmitter, at least that's what I'd be looking at. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net mailto:mch%40nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever) Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the same time as the page. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way through some of the time? Partial page would indicate to me that another transmitter is in the mix and dropping before the pager does. However, I had a situation where there were four paging sites scattered in the county on the same frequency and one of the transmitters was spurious and getting into my receiver. In that case, I always heard the entire page, but only when that particular transmitter came up. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Tim - WD6AWP tisaw...@gmail.com mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:27 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation It occurs whether or not the repeater transmitter is keyed
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation
Most likely suspects would be 151.140 and 170.940 MHz. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is transmitting and I have no interference. I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate the other possible soruce(s)? -- Tim :wq Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever) Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the same time as the page. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way through some of the time? Partial page would indicate to me that another transmitter is in the mix and dropping before the pager does. However, I had a situation where there were four paging sites scattered in the county on the same frequency and one of the transmitters was spurious and getting into my receiver. In that case, I always heard the entire page, but only when that particular transmitter came up. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Tim - WD6AWP tisaw...@gmail.com mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:27 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation It occurs whether or not the repeater transmitter is keyed. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Jeff DePolo j...@... wrote: Before we get into the math, an important question that needs to be answered is whether or not this mix occurs when your repeater transmitter is unkeyed. --- Jeff WN3A -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:36 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is transmitting and I have no interference. I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate the other possible soruce(s)? -- Tim :wq Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3084 - Release Date: 08/20/10 14:35:00 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation
2A-B solving for once for A and once for B. Or, to make it more clear (maybe), the sum of your receiver and half the difference between the two (IOW, the frequency directly half way between two two others), and the sum of the full difference plus the paging transmitter frequency. Putting it another way which might be easier to understand: The frequencies half way from your RX to the paging TX, and the frequency twice as far from the two (in the direction of the transmitter) Either way, it's all 2A-B: 2(151.140) - 157.740 = 144.540 2(157.740) - 170.940 = 144.540 Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I'll watch those. How did you calculate them? -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:38 PM, MCH wrote: Most likely suspects would be 151.140 and 170.940 MHz. Joe M. Tim Sawyer wrote: I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is transmitting and I have no interference. I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate the other possible soruce(s)? -- Tim :wq Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Low Band Antenna for both 6 10 meters.
It's been a while since we needed these, but I used to make them all the time for low band fire (33.70 and 46.38). As I recall, the stub is a short to the opposite frequency - making the antenna appear to not be there. Hence, all the power goes to the 'on frequency antenna'. Congrats on the third harmonic, BTW. Joe M. Scott Zimmerman wrote: skipp025 wrote: The Catholic Church says only the rhythm method is allowed. I SOMEHOW don't think that 'method' will help us in this situation. Although that's how my third child came along. (3 of 3) A BOY BTW! (Yea, Me!!) P.S. I do have a copy of Motorola 68-80100W86 - Diplex Antenna Manual. This document is written for use with standard base-loaded mobile antennas only. Is it scanned into or available in a PDF file format? I'd really like to see a copy if it's available and easily Emailed. Always nice to see how others do things... I thought the above was pretty much common knowledge. Please see the attached PDF file. (Note to Mike Wa6ILQ: Please add to the RB site.) I was warned that this document seems to be backwards in that the length of cable that it says is supposed to go to the higher frequency antenna, actually goes to the lower frequency antenna and vice-versa. I would LOVE to know some of the theory behind this method. I was hoping to use this on a remote base antenna with 'Station' type antennas, but I don't think that will work since it clearly states that Only standard base-loaded antennas are used Comments? Suggestions? Theory? Scott Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 474 Barnett Road Boswell, PA 15531 skipp025 wrote: Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Low Band Antenna for both 6 10 meters.
Hmmm... maybe it was an open that was presented rather than a short... Whichever make the off-frequency antenna appear to not be there. Joe M. Scott Zimmerman wrote: skipp025 wrote: The Catholic Church says only the rhythm method is allowed. I SOMEHOW don't think that 'method' will help us in this situation. Although that's how my third child came along. (3 of 3) A BOY BTW! (Yea, Me!!) P.S. I do have a copy of Motorola 68-80100W86 - Diplex Antenna Manual. This document is written for use with standard base-loaded mobile antennas only. Is it scanned into or available in a PDF file format? I'd really like to see a copy if it's available and easily Emailed. Always nice to see how others do things... I thought the above was pretty much common knowledge. Please see the attached PDF file. (Note to Mike Wa6ILQ: Please add to the RB site.) I was warned that this document seems to be backwards in that the length of cable that it says is supposed to go to the higher frequency antenna, actually goes to the lower frequency antenna and vice-versa. I would LOVE to know some of the theory behind this method. I was hoping to use this on a remote base antenna with 'Station' type antennas, but I don't think that will work since it clearly states that Only standard base-loaded antennas are used Comments? Suggestions? Theory? Scott Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 474 Barnett Road Boswell, PA 15531 skipp025 wrote: Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Polyphaser Question
Upload the pics to the group PHOTOS section. Always nice to have stuff like that available for reference. Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I recently opened up a Polyphaser unit we used on one of our remote sites… it covered both 2m and 70cm. We were experiencing poor receive at the site. Replaced the unit and receiver sensitivity is once again hot. Anyone want pics of the insides respond direct and I’ll ship you the photos…not much to see… a gas tube and what looks like a surface mount resistor in series with the gas tube. 73, Dave Wa3gin *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Oz-in-DFW *Sent:* Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:37 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Polyphaser Question Polyphasers have a shunt protection element. It usually fails and becomes leaky so you get a loss/VSWR indication. It can fail open or short. If it's open, there is nothing to detect. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Narrowbanding
I was wondering about that myself. A couple of comments on the other aspects: 1. I see this as falling flat on its face. May as well mandate D-STAR. 2. How are the commercial people fitting SNFM in 7.5 kHz channels as they have been doing on VHF? Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: How wide is it? Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Narrowbanding ...or that think the US DTV standard fits in a 6 MHz channel...NOT! Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GMRS Radio
I would disagree with that. It is legal to 'open up' our radios. What is illegal is actually transmitting on other services (genuine emergencies exempted for the sake of argument). Joe M. Brian Raker wrote: Please note that we are not allowed (i.e. it's illegal) to modify our Part 97 Amateur radios to transmit in any other service. We can bring Part 90 and 95 radios into Part 97, but not the other way around. -Brian On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:29 AM, cmr359 cmr...@yahoo.com mailto:cmr...@yahoo.com wrote: Most lmr radios will program gmrs frequencies. Be mindful of output power programmed as most will do over the limit. Many ameuter radios with transmitter mods will also do this. My radio vendor of choice is Icom. They are very tough with mil specs and all. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Joel joellan...@... wrote: Anybody have any reviews or maybe a used GMRS radio? I would like a 4 watt radio. Is the FCC doing in with GMRS repeaters? Does anybody have them for sale? Do they make a portable repeater? Yahoo! Groups Links repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 420Mhz Radio for Voter?
Not even close. Joe M. Tim - WD6AWP wrote: Are the CDM's similar to the Radius M1225?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 420Mhz Radio for Voter?
It was asked if they were similar. I replied that they are not. I figured there were too many things that were different to elaborate further. They are both made by Motorola in Malaysia. They are both programmed using a PC computer (albeit by different SW packages). They share the same programming cable, although most Motorola mobiles do. Hence, the same microphones. The 16-pin accessory connector can be used in the CDM as long as you don't need pins 17-20 - just remember to align it in the center of the connector. They take the same power cord. They both use the mini UHF RF connector. That's about all that is the same. So, if you want to know how they are different, well, anything other than the above. Joe M. Tim - WD6AWP wrote: I guess you don't care to elaborate. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: Not even close. Joe M. Tim - WD6AWP wrote: Are the CDM's similar to the Radius M1225? Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Transmitter Combiner
About the only way is via a duplexer. (Cheap? Well... used??? ;- ) Joe M. na4it wrote: Is there a cheap way to combine two txcvrs into one antenna... 144.39 APRS and 145.550 packet?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] question for commercial radio shops
Explain to him that it's not legal, and tell him you would not be comfortable doing something that is not legal, as you could jeopardize your FCC license(s) which you have worked very hard to earn. You can even show him the Part 95 rules where it has the limitations on what equipment you can use - including the part about the antennas being non-removable. Joe M. KD5SFA wrote: If a person whom you knew and is involved in a number of church youth camps activities asked you to program FRS frequencies into a 4w UHF HT type accepted for LMR would you do so ? It would only be for extended range at camp. My gut is to tell him no... Sorry for the slightly off topic postI just need a little extra thought on the subject... Bad thing is the person asking is the captain of my Volunteer FD. 73, Jon Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] VHF REPEATER USING DELTA or RANGR
The RANGR was only spec'ed at 5% duty cycle and would not make a very good repeater transmitter. I don't recall the specs on the Delta offhand. Joe M. tomnevue wrote: Has anyone made a VHF repeater using 2 Delta or Rangr radios? Were the results OK? Any unexpected problems? Tom Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Control Operator via Other-Than-Phone-Line
You could get a Magic Jack and keep the same phone number and everything. The only thing that would change is the bill. Of course, this requires an internet connection. But, the cost of that plus the MJ could be lower than what you are paying now. Joe M. Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: At our club meeting tonight a discussion came up regarding the cost of the phone line to our 2-meter repeater system. Originally it was there for the Autopatch, but has evolved to being primarily used for me to program the controller (CAT-1000) and to control the system. (The autopatch is rarely used, since everyone carries a cellphone now.) Everyone understands that the phone line is needed for control and programming, but we started toying with other ideas. Specifically, having an Internet connection at the site seemed like it had a lot of potential, but frankly I don’t know why! It’d be nice to run an I-Gate from that location (we already have an APRS weather node there), but it’s not essential. I could probably use it to monitor the site as well, but that’s not really much of a concern either. So, the question is, how can we use Internet to control/program the CAT-1000? We could get Internet at the site for about the same cost as the phone, and if we could use it for repeater control/programming AND the other things I mentioned, it’d be a better deal. Can IRLP be used for control/programming? I’m not familiar with that system whatsoever, but am always willing to learn. 73, Mike WM4B Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 1/2 or 7/8 coax needed
Does anyone know offhand: a) when rebanding will be complete in the USA. b) when it will be complete in PA. Thanks, Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Advice on 40 year old radio tower
If this happens to be near Saltsburg, look up the tower and I think you will find the tower is bent from the trees pulling on the guy wires. At least, it was that way about 10-15 years ago, and I doubt it has gotten any better. I also doubt you will find anyone willing (read: dumb enough) to climb it. Again, though, if it's the one I'm thinking it might be. Joe M. dgrapach wrote: Very true,this tower had it's guy wires in the woods under the trees, the site was abandon for years. Where and how do I find an engineer to inspect it. I am in Indiana county pa. Is it feasible to change guy wires, do they recomemd it? --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Richard W. Solomon w1...@... wrote: Tower location is an important piece of the equation. Big difference between the East Coast and the Sonoran Desert !! 73, Dick, W1KSZ -Original Message- From: dgrapach dgrap...@... Sent: Jun 2, 2010 9:27 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Advice on 40 year old radio tower I need advice on using an old radio tower. It looks like to be the size of a 45G, the cross bars are bolted on instead of welded. The tower looks as if it is ok, light surface rust, bolts look ok on the outside, of course can't see inside. Heavy rust and pitting on several guy wires, guys are in amoung the trees, the location needs cleared, tower height 150 feet. Any one have experance on this type of tower? How much rust is aceptable on a gut wire? How do you decide on the safety on an old tower like this? What is the differance between guy wire and cable used as a guy wire? So many questions... Thanks for any help. Denny Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Advice on 40 year old radio tower
Different tower, then. The one I was talking about was 'infested' with pine trees and was severely bent over. Still, I would look to see if the tower is straight since you have a tree in the guy lines (or rather a guy line in the tree). Joe M. dgrapach wrote: This tower is near Plumville, the Ballsinger radio tower. I will always er on the side of safety, if it is jumk I want no part of it. just trying to determan if in worth the trouble.. Denny --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: If this happens to be near Saltsburg, look up the tower and I think you will find the tower is bent from the trees pulling on the guy wires. At least, it was that way about 10-15 years ago, and I doubt it has gotten any better. I also doubt you will find anyone willing (read: dumb enough) to climb it. Again, though, if it's the one I'm thinking it might be. Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] is a repeater needed
Simple answer: Do you have repeaters that cover the same area yours would cover? Joe M. Lane wrote: Hi all, I've been interested in building a repeater for a while now, but before I do, I guess the first step is in knowing whether or not a repeater is needed for my area. I live in Houston and have an excellent area for putting up a repeater *if* one is needed, but how do I go about finding out if one would be useful to others and on what frequencies. There are lots of repeaters here in Houston and I'd hate to saturate or further complicate anything if that would be the case. Any help, suggestions, advice much appreciated. Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Off-Topic: Shop liability insurance
*Product* liability would be the responsibility of the manufacturer. Do you REALLY want to assume responsibility should something happen due to a product you sold? (like someone took the antenna off, and got an RF burn from transmitting while sticking their finger in the antenna plug) I really don't think they will be able to get that from anyone. I can see their point for a product used in the manufacture of their products, but that should not apply to tools used for their business. I have to wonder if THEY have liability for their business and their products. Joe M. Scott Zimmerman wrote: Well... They claim they want product liability insurance for any products received on property. Not just installed, but SOLD!! I talked with one of the purchasing agents and they said they can no longer go out and buy a box of bolts at the local hardware store and use those in the manufacturing process since the vendor of those bolts won't insure them.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair dipole phasing harness
The ones going to the third 'T' should be the same length to avoid out-of-phase issues. Joe M. Larry Horlick wrote: I have a drawing from Sinclair that shows 4 stacked folded dipoles (it does not indicate an antenna model) using all 50 ohm cable. So using the 210C4 harness picture from the link below as a template, this is how it's done: Feedlines from dipole A, B, C, and D are any length, but identical. A and B go to a tee, C and D go to another tee. The feedlines from the output (if I am allowed to use that rather crude term!) of these tees are any odd 1/4 wavelength (but do not have to be the same) and go to a 3rd tee. The output of this tee is 50 ohms. I suspect that the harness does not affect the pattern, but rather it is the dipole to mast spacing. lh On 5/18/10, *N1BUG* p...@n1bug.com mailto:p...@n1bug.com wrote: Hi Burt, Did I hear my name mentioned??? Maybe just ESP:-) Yes you did, Great Sinclair dipole guru! :-) I got the dipole drawing from your new web site. Thanks! That part I'm clear on, but still a bit confused on the phasing harness. I would suggest that you don't even consider putting the harnass inside the mast (unless Harold can tell us how Sinclair does it). Put the harness on the outside of the mast like the SRL210A4. Uh, yeah, I hear that. I like the idea of the internal harness, but I just spent 3 hours getting the old harness *out* of the mast. I can't imagine how it was put *in* there. To combine the impedances on a 4 bay Sinclair array is simple. Divide the dipoles into pairs and parallel them. This gives 25 ohms. Then add an electrical quarter wave of 50 ohm coax (RG-213/U) to transform it to 100 ohms. Combine the matching coax from each pair in parallel to give 50 ohms. Then you can connect your feedline at any length from this latter 50 ohm connection. Here is a crude drawing of what I think you are saying: http://www.n1bug.com/dipoleharness1.jpg Points X and Y are the 100 ohm points created by adding an electrical quarter wave of RG-213 coming out of the 25 ohm point where two dipoles are connected in parallel. But points X and Y are physically several feet apart. That being said, I think the coax that joins those points at the final parallel junction (to connect to the feedline) would have to be a multiple of an electrical half wavelength in order to repeat the 100 ohms at the other end (thus ending up with 50 ohms when you parallel them)? If so, I'm still confused on how they did this for both cardioid and bidirectional versions of this antenna with the harness inside the mast. Required physical lengths would be different due to the different dipole spacing from the mast. One can only work with physical lengths that fit inside the mast (I guess?) but this seems to clash with the electrical length required for impedance matching. It's a non-issue since I have no way of getting a new harness inside the mast. With an external harness I can just coil up or loop any extra length required for matching reasons. But I'd still like to understand how they did it. :-) In any case, the phasing harness on my 210C4 was done differently. It uses a combination of RG-213/U and RG-63B/U in the harness itself. Here is a sketch of it: http://www.n1bug.com/210C4harness.jpg Here, if we assume points X and Y are 100 ohms, point Z (where the feedline attaches) would fall somewhere between 50 ohms and 78 ohms, depending on the electrical length of the RG-63B/U coax connecting them. I'm trying to look up the velocity factor of RG-63B/U (part PE, part air dielectric), but having no luck so far. All of which seems completely different from the picture at http://forum.radioamateur.ca/index.php?topic=2245.0 where there appears to be just a quarter wave section of coax off each side of point Z to the T for each pair of dipoles. I don't know how that was physically possible given the dipole spacing. I think we can safely assume I'm missing something here. :-) Paul N1BUG Yahoo! Groups Links repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair dipole phasing harness
I can't speak specifically of Sinclair, most all of the models I've used will do either omni or cardioid by moving the elements. The spacing from the mast stays the same. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On 5/18/2010 12:29 PM, Larry Horlick wrote: I suspect that the harness does not affect the pattern, but rather it is the dipole to mast spacing. Yes, I believe this is correct. Whenever I've looked, notice that the omni versions are 1/2 wave spacing from the mast, and the cartioid are 1/4 wave spacing from the mast, in almost all of Sinclair's product line. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PIC stuff at Hamvention?
Either that, or it was disinformation (although it's easy enough to verify - I just didn't want to pick up the TT4 and look at it since it was connected and operating). One of his products even has PIC in the name. Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 5/16/2010 02:57 AM, you wrote: Actually, Byonics is using the AT Mega (sp?). I specifically asked. At least, that's what the TT4 is using. They must have switched processors, as my TT3+ uses a PIC. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PIC stuff at Hamvention?
Actually, Byonics is using the AT Mega (sp?). I specifically asked. At least, that's what the TT4 is using. Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 5/15/2010 18:20, you wrote: Sorry for the slightly OT post, but has anyone seen any PIC stuff at the Hamvention? Looking for PICs, PIC manuals, PIC-based kits, Etc. What do you want to do with PICs? The actual PICs can be had from Mouser or DigiKey. I bought a programmer from Futurlec for ~$60. I never saw any PIC-specific vendors at Dayton, though Byonics (APRS trackers) is usually there as well as ICS (repeater controllers), their products are PIC-based. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2868 - Release Date: 05/11/10 18:40:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PIC stuff at Hamvention?
Oh, and I was just looking for a Hamvention source for chips or other related items. I've been playing with them, and wanted to find some good deals. I have a couple development boards, and I've been writing code in ASM. Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 5/15/2010 18:20, you wrote: Sorry for the slightly OT post, but has anyone seen any PIC stuff at the Hamvention? Looking for PICs, PIC manuals, PIC-based kits, Etc. What do you want to do with PICs? The actual PICs can be had from Mouser or DigiKey. I bought a programmer from Futurlec for ~$60. I never saw any PIC-specific vendors at Dayton, though Byonics (APRS trackers) is usually there as well as ICS (repeater controllers), their products are PIC-based. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2868 - Release Date: 05/11/10 18:40:00
[Repeater-Builder] PIC stuff at Hamvention?
Sorry for the slightly OT post, but has anyone seen any PIC stuff at the Hamvention? Looking for PICs, PIC manuals, PIC-based kits, Etc. Thanks, Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A warning to Land Mobile Radio Dealers
I would submit that the FCC has claimed enforcement over radio transmissions in the USA, and that's in the radio is not relevant since it's out of his jurisdiction unless he wants to represent himself as a federal officer. Of course, this is not the proper attitude to present, but it is factually accurate. BTW, since the 80s, the FCC's enforcement has maintained that it's the *end user's* responsibility to ensure licensing, not the programmer's. It's sad to see this interpretation reversing itself, as many times, and as I bet is the case here, the radios were programmed for an entity that has multiple licenses on the frequency in question, and it should not be the programmer's job to interrogate as to *where* the radios will be used. I bet they simply programmed them for Wal*Mart, a licensee, not for that specific store. It should be strictly Wal*Mart's responsibility to ensure that location is licensed properly. (and why would they not have a nationwide license in the first place?) Back to repeaters anytime soon? Joe M. Butch Kanvick wrote: I would think that law enforcement would need to have a search warrant to check the radio to see if it transmits on the law enforcement frequencies. I would also say they are over stepping the legal boundaries if they asked if the radio could transmit on law enforcement frequencies. Which frequencies would they be talking about, low band,vhf, uhf and 800 meg? As a volunteer fire fighter I have several law enforcement channels included in the radios as back ups for emergency operations if the fire repeaters do not work. As we need to have constant communications with the dispatch center. We have used them before when we were out of range of the fire repeaters. A few people have used them for primary communications when they could not reach 911 in an emergency, so we were covered and dispatch was happy to receive timely updates as the situation changed before law enforcement arrived. Have a wonderful day, Butch, KE7FEL/r To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com From: p...@chargertech.com Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 10:07:06 -0500 Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A warning to Land Mobile Radio Dealers You mean during a traffic stop? or incidental chit-chat? I'm assuming you mean during a stop. Here in Minnesota I would politely hand him the copies of our state's 'scanner law' that exempts Hams and of my FCC license that I keep in my glovebox. And then be ready to wish him a good day when he realizes he has absolutely nothing to say under the law about any of the type accepted, unmodified radio equipment I have in my vehicle. Paul - KC0HST - Original Message - From: AA8K73 GMail Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A warning to Land Mobile Radio Dealers What will you say when an law enforcement person looks in your vehicle and says, What's that radio? Does it receive or transmit on police frequencies? Mike - AA8K Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] how far
Somewhere between 2000' and 200 miles depending on the terrain between the HT and the 5000. Joe M. George wrote: what is the range of a 800mhz handheld 4watts with msf5000 repeater 450watts on the antena
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor PA TLB1414C-2
TLB would be Low Band. Joe M. La Rue Communications wrote: Anyone know what Frequency this handles? I think its a UHF but not sure what split. Thanks! John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Radius P50
Yep - SP50 was on the side. P50+ was a contact at about the 1 o'clock position on the board behind the battery. P50 was also available in Low Band which was the tall case and 6W. Joe M. kevin valentino wrote: Got a friend in a convalescent home, studying for his ticket now. That would be perfect for him. Let me know. P50+ programming pins on side if I remember correctly ? --- On *Fri, 4/9/10, La Rue Communications /laruec...@gmail.com/* wrote: From: La Rue Communications laruec...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Radius P50 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 12:10 PM Landfill - For sure! (If they're not working) These have the UHF frequency still adhered to the battery panel, so I have very strong reason to beleive these are UHF and not VHF hiding in a UHF case. Doesnt appear to be tampered with or pry marks indicating it was opened before. (Thank goodness). I really hope I dont have to PAY anyone to take these off my hands in the future! I just noticed I *STILL* have my Tall Radius P50+ with a numeric touchpad still sitting on my shelf I thought I got rid of MONTHS ago. Its come back to haunt me!! (Anyone want it?) :) John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 - Original Message - *From:* wd8chl http://us.mc837.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wd8...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com http://us.mc837.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, April 09, 2010 7:20 AM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Radius P50 On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, La Rue Communications wrote: Two questions on this unit. 1) Does anyone know the nomenclature for this? I have checked out several different versions, including one that was built for assignments dated after 3/10/02. I tried to check it out with it, however, it doesnt match up when it came to the power level code. So I scrapped that one. Google searches turn up a pair of them listed on eBay for 250 bucks. (Who are they kidding?) heh... Model number is H (For Handheld) 44GNU1120BN. I beleive it is a UHF, but I would like to know the rest of the specs, spacing, packages, etc. well, the second '4' means UHF, so yes, unless someone put a VHF radio in a UHF case... 2) One the same units, I have a Tall one and a Short one. Battery sizes are clearly the differing factor. Does that mean Power levels come into play here? scratches head Isn't a P50 the cheapy xtal radio from the early 90's? Maybe 4-channel tops? If so, the 'tall' vs. 'short' was carrier squelch vs. PL/DPL. So yes, that means converting a CSQ radio to PL means changing the case... And no, these are NOT narrowbnad compatible, so they have no value in Part 90. And they were pretty cheap, flimsy radios, hard to work on, easy to break, I wouldn't take one for free... Land fill... Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Radius P50
But, how many people know that? I think his point was that it doesn't seem to have been played with by someone who didn't know at least somewhat what they were doing. I've seen some of those come in. Joe M. Bill Smith wrote: Pry marks? Pop out the two clips in the battery compartment and pull up on the antenna. No prying needed! :-) Doesnt appear to be tampered with or pry marks indicating it was opened before. (Thank goodness).
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Looking to buy Low band maratrac low and high split
Sorta related... Does anyone have any High Band (VHF) Maratracs with blown PAs? I'm looking for some cheap ones for an experimental project. The only requirement is that the RF and logic decks work. The amp and power interface board need not work. Actually, I don't even need the frame. Joe M. Gary wrote: Tom, Please contact me direct (off the group) or change your email filters to allow incoming replies. Thanks, Gary -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Oliver Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 5:42 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Looking to buy Low band maratrac low and high split I have several drawer units, no accessories just the radio part. Clean working pulled from service. These are on 48 MHZ. Make offer. tom ag4uw wrote: Hey I am looking for Maratrac low band radios low 29.7 mhz and high 50 mhz Must be working and not junk. Let me know what you have and what your asking.Thanks Freddy N4XW Please e-mail me of the group @ ag...@yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 03:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star (Protocol and Repeaters)
There are P25 repeaters on the air. Granted, not as many as D-STAR (strictly talking about ham systems), but I know of nobody giving away P25 repeaters. Also, I bet there are more P25 receivers owned by hams than D-STAR since there are several scanners that decode P25, and only a few that decode D-STAR (not ironically, all made by Icom). Anyway, the point is not which format to use, but to make the systems as flexible as possible so they can be available in emergencies. Simply put, D-STAR is not as flexible as P25 since a P25 repeater can be made to pass P25 or analog. Granted, D-STAR does have some format benefits, but those could easily be added to P25 (or, the P25 benefits could be added to D-STAR, as has been discussed). There are also MotoTRBO repeaters in the ham bands, now. The more various formats you add to the mix, the less we will be likely to use them when they are needed. On the other hand, all the radios can use analog - making it the clear choice for emergency communications. Joe M. John Szwarc wrote: Okay. I've been reading with some interest the threads on D-STAR. There have been some very good points and some pretty amusing ones. P25 sounds interesting, but you will have to take note of the fact that it has not been widely accepted by the ham community. And considering that it (P25) is not compatible with D-STAR's AMBE codec, I doubt that it will be accepted by hams anytime soon. Who cares if D-STAR takes up repeater pairs that could be used for analog? Have you listened to the analog repeaters? They're mostly silent anyway. One comment that I read early on (and I don't recall who said this) was that in an emergency the analog users would not be able to access a D-STAR repeater. Yep, but so what? Do you really mean to tell me that each local area is covered by just one analog repeater? It just sounds to me like typical human behavior: resistance to change. There's a good friend of mine that was so ticked off at the institution of no-code hams. He calls them rif-raff. He operates almost exclusively on the CW sections of the HF bands to avoid the no-code folks. It's sad because there are a lot of no-code hams that are good operators and some are very technically knowledgeable. He might learn a thing or two from these folks. I wonder if the people in this group that are resisting D-STAR are missing the boat as well. Maybe there is something they could learn from D-STAR? Maybe they could find ways to to improve it? Of course that won't happen if they are too busy trying to talk people out of it in favor of P25 or old fashioned analog. Just my 2 cents. I'll go back to my corner now. John N3SPW *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Nate Duehr *Sent:* Monday, April 05, 2010 4:01 AM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star (Protocol and Repeaters) On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM, John wrote: --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr n...@... wrote: I like D-STAR as a not-very-well-designed first try and use it... but it's seriously technologically flawed. Some of that can be fixed... other things like the header information not being interlaced... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@... Hmmm... I'm sitting here with my NQMHS Node Adapter (GMSK Modem) and watching the binary stream, in both Hex and Char, off of my IC-91AD, while transmitting for a few seconds. It seems the callsign information is repeated on a pretty continuous basis looking at the trace. I think it may just be a repeater/gateway control implementation issue. I believe if you'll look again, the callsign of the sending station is interlaced, but not RPT1/RPT2, and the destination address, which are the essential routing information. Plus, you're correct: Judging by the behavior, the repeater's don't look at that data or utilize it anyway. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com mailto:nate%40natetech.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2791 - Release Date: 04/04/10 14:32:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star (Protocol and Repeaters)
Threaded... John wrote: Hmmm... I'm sitting here with my NQMHS Node Adapter (GMSK Modem) and watching the binary stream, in both Hex and Char, off of my IC-91AD, while transmitting for a few seconds. It seems the callsign information is repeated on a pretty continuous basis looking at the trace. I think it may just be a repeater/gateway control implementation issue. Your callsign or the destination callsign? It's the latter that needs to be interlaced (well, really the whole header should be interlaced). It seems to me, that almost everywhere I go (and I have traveled extensively), if all of the repeater pairs are coordinated, most of them have essentially zero traffic on them and sometimes one individual or organization holds many pairs covering essentially the same geography. Why not convert or replace some of those analog machines? Conversion runs less than $150 if you are going to run without Internet connectivity, add a computer and router to the price for Internet connectivity. It tells me that people: 1) Don't want to jump aboard the one-source format yet. 2) Don't want to give up the interoperability of analog. 3) Don't want to switch to digital for whatever reason. (else P25 would be the format of choice since it's a multi-vendor standard) And how do I get this $150 D-STAR conversion for my repeater? I can tell you with certainty that having D-STAR (or most digital voice modes) on the same repeater with analog users is impractical in amateur radio. Many, if not most hams, don't even use CTCSS on their radio's squelch and even if they did the squelch can be falsed by the digital signal. We have a D-STAR repeater in the Seattle area (atop a 42 story building) and it is on a Shared Non-Protected pair on 2 meters. The sync pattern at the beginning of transmissions will open the squelch on CTCSS squelched radios (100 hz.) at 60+ miles away (for users of another FM only SNP repeater in Port Angeles). Listening to the structured noise of a GMSK digital signal on your analog radio is not an activity one would want to undertake for any extended period. Just with 100.0 Hz CTCSS or with any CTCSS? If just the one, it sounds like an incompatibility like 131.8 and 136.5 is with CDCSS. And as for having both, that may be reason #4 people are waiting for. There is no reason why analog and digital cannot coexist. Granted, it requires use of CTCSS/CDCSS (perhaps with the exception of 100.0 Hz), but it will certainly promote the use of the D-STAR format if they had a transition path. Of course, there is also issue #5 - no reasonably priced radios for D-STAR. Remember we are talking about people who resist buying a $40 CTCSS encoder. Besides, analog is completely interoperable. D-STAR (or any digital format) is not. I don't think we should follow the same path that has led to communications problems in the commercial world - problems that we have to step in and solve when a disaster strikes. Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Maxtrac
Likely a typo since he did say mid split. Joe M. Richard W. Solomon wrote: 30 - 42 ??? I thought there was a 30 - 36 AND a 36 - 42 split. 73, Dick, W1KSZ -Original Message- From: kd8biw kd8...@hotmail.com Sent: Apr 2, 2010 8:12 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Maxtrac John, I have 2 Micors, both low band. I have 1 complete control head/cable assembly, and 1 very short (about 3) control cable only. One is the high split (42-50), the other is the mid split (30-42). Email me off list if you would like one or both! Steve KD8BIW kd8biw at hotmail.com --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, John Sehring wb...@... wrote: Hi All, Been looking for Motorola Maxtrac's Micor's, both low band, low split, for amateur radio use, forever! Any tips, leads, rumors, pointers gladly followed. Thanx. --John WB0EQ Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] D-Star Was: Molotora Gontor
Besides, doesn't that assume they will be adding more user units to it? In this case, it's likely a one-shot deal, so they won't care about future sources. Joe M. On Sat 03/04/10 7:00 PM , n...@no6b.com sent: At 4/3/2010 15:35, you wrote: I would strongly remind them that they are purchasing a system that hasonly ONE and only ONE supplier/source. This may not fit some of the bidrequirements that some government agencies require. Joe A well-written sole source justification memo takes care of that. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join(Yahoo! ID required) To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder]DVSI was: Nice article on the Molotora Gontor
You mean like the Motorola RF devices and chips used in many two-way radio products other than Motorola's? (including directly competing products) Joe M. wd8chl wrote: One good thing, in my book anyway, at least that's all DVSI does is vocoders. They don't make radios. They don't make telephones. They don't make channel banks or muxes. They just make the chips and some software to use them. Now, if Icom (or any other radio mfg) came up with their own vocoder, and IT had become the standard, such that all other mfg had to pay royalties to them, I would have a BIIIG problem with that, because it gives that mfg a decidedly unfair advantage. Jim WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder]DVSI was: Nice article on the Molotora Gontor
IOW, they aren't *required* to use Motorola's products. Joe M. wd8chl wrote: Not really, as those are more 'generic'...sorta...and don't have licensing or royalties attached. Or at least we're talking so cheap as to be inconsequential. And there's no software generally either. On 4/2/2010 12:19 PM, MCH wrote: You mean like the Motorola RF devices and chips used in many two-way radio products other than Motorola's? (including directly competing products) Joe M. wd8chl wrote: One good thing, in my book anyway, at least that's all DVSI does is vocoders. They don't make radios. They don't make telephones. They don't make channel banks or muxes. They just make the chips and some software to use them. Now, if Icom (or any other radio mfg) came up with their own vocoder, and IT had become the standard, such that all other mfg had to pay royalties to them, I would have a BIIIG problem with that, because it gives that mfg a decidedly unfair advantage. Jim WD8CHL Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] D-Star Was: Molotora Gontor
If you don't count the Icom scanning receivers. They CAN decode D-STAR. Joe M. Kris Kirby wrote: There's also a substantial base of users who like D-STAR because there isn't a scanner that can decode it.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 449 MHz Wind Profiler Radar?
No - I recall when this was mentioned being at 449 MHz about 10 years ago. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: I don't think that they've been at 449 MHz. That's the new part. They were much lower in the band. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Nate Duehr mailto:n...@natetech.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:32 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] 449 MHz Wind Profiler Radar? They've been operating for almost a decade, or more... I remember there's being a kerfluffle when they were first announced. After they proved not to be much of an interference source, it got quiet.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: NOS GE Phoenix For Sale
I think the 200 was 16 channels with an option for 32 channels. While I'm typing, does anyone have a source for a replacement Whelen microphone element? I can't justify $150 for one from Whelen. Even a source for a good used Whelen mic would be welcome. And sorry about the off-topic post relative to the subject. Please direct any replies to my email address rather than the list. Joe M. kb5zxm wrote: I forget how many frequency's will it accept? --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Gary n6...@... wrote: New/old stock GE VHF Phoenix PSX-200 synthesized mobile for sale. Model N5HH2w40CB with mic, bracket, original order card, and some wiring. Absolutely new in the box. I think it's all there but not sure so offered as is. I need the storage space back so will take $50 with free shipping in the continental U.S. Reply directly to me (off this email group) if interested. Thanks. Gary Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DPL CODES
The ones 'in the middle' tend to be used less, so that could be a factor. People tend to use them from the low or high ends. There are also some that are less likely to false, but I don't recall which ones. It has to do with the likelihood of an error in the bits matching other codes in a shifted sequence. But, overall I've rarely noticed any falsing issues with good decoders hooked up properly on any code. And yes, I have heard some systems false several times an hour. Likely a cheap aftermarket board hooked up wrong. There are also some that older radios don't support - like 053. I used that when we were a GE shop since Motorola didn't support it. Of course, then Murphy decided to make us switch 'sides' when GE's product lead times went more than 1 year out. BTW, newer Motorola radios DO support all the codes. Joe M. kq7dx wrote: Hello to group, Hope this isnt too dumb of a question. I there any DPL code that is better than the other. Any difference between 411 and 606..etc. Thanks and 73s Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola experts/Maxtrac COR
If you're looking at what I think you are, it only means the output/pin config is custom and the defaults will stick on power cycle (which is easy enough to test and confirm). Joe M. kq7dx wrote: Dear Group, I have a 800mhz maxtrac converted to 900mhz with the COR going out to pin 8. The controller would like to see a High when Active. The Maxtrac is by defaulted to low. In the menu it can be changed to high , but when I do its says Custom in the right hand corner. My question is.. since it is a custom setting and the default is LOW, if there is a power outage or glitch, will it go back to the default setting of LOW. I would like to set anything in the menu and think it is going to stay that way. Any body know for sure.. 73s and thanks! Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
From what some are saying, all 'colors' are active on all repeaters. It's like having a repeater that passes CTCSS. Anyone can use your repeater and you cannot shut the code (or color) off. Again, this is what I'm hearing from some people. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: The color codes are like CTCSS or DCS, someone wants to use your repeater they have to know your frequency, and what color codes are active on the repeater, I assume.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
But if it passes everything, it's like putting a repeater on the air CSQ - you can't have another repeater within range of the first one. Joe M. Brian Raker wrote: You do have to program it to use a set frequency pair, just like any other repeater. -BR On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: So if there are two TRBO repeaters in the same area, there is no way to keep them both from being active and interfering with each other? That doesn't sound right. Or, if I have a repeater, anyone can just buy TRBO radios and use it? Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On 3/11/2010 1:54 PM, MCH wrote: I was talking about how many can be programmed in the repeater, not necessarily active at the same time per se. IOW, how many talkgroups can you program into the repeater. I'm assuming that you can 'deprogram' some if you have two systems in the same area. I think WD8CHL answered the question I had - any or all can be made active (except for a few reserved for special use). Joe M. AFAIK the repeater doesn't get programmed with them at all. It just passes them. They're just addresses. The radios handle whether or not they're listening for a particular talk group. Nate Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2736 - Release Date: 03/11/10 02:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
So you have color codes, TGs, AND RIDs and each repeater has only one color code? How many color codes are there, and how would I know if someone were using the repeater who is not authorized? Joe M. surf_boy82 wrote: MotoTRBO systems (handhelds, mobiles, and repeaters) use color codes to determine which radios are associated with which repeater. These Color Codes are the equivalent of PL/DPL/NAC. Chris --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mark n9...@... wrote: Joe, I *think* this system works like other trunking schemes, where each radio has an ID number associated to it, which it broadcasts with each PTT. THIS is what has to be authorized for repeater access, not the talkgroup. But I may be wrong - I'm not that familiar with MotoTRBO. (We do have a MotoTRBO system where I work - I can check further if necessary.) Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:42 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems Just the frequency, and not which TGs it passes? Do all TRBO repeaters pass all TRBO format transmissions? Even those of people who are not authorized to use the repeater? Joe M. Brian Raker wrote: You do have to program it to use a set frequency pair, just like any other repeater. -BR On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM, MCH m...@... wrote: So if there are two TRBO repeaters in the same area, there is no way to keep them both from being active and interfering with each other? That doesn't sound right. Or, if I have a repeater, anyone can just buy TRBO radios and use it? Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On 3/11/2010 1:54 PM, MCH wrote: I was talking about how many can be programmed in the repeater, not necessarily active at the same time per se. IOW, how many talkgroups can you program into the repeater. I'm assuming that you can 'deprogram' some if you have two systems in the same area. I think WD8CHL answered the question I had - any or all can be made active (except for a few reserved for special use). Joe M. AFAIK the repeater doesn't get programmed with them at all. It just passes them. They're just addresses. The radios handle whether or not they're listening for a particular talk group. Nate Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
Great info. I assume that users are shut off via a 'kill code' to the radio since the repeater cannot be used to allow selective access. Also, is there a URL for the system planner? Joe M. nj902 wrote: Answers to most of the Mototrbo questions can be found in the Mototrbo System Planner. Here is some information on color codes and groups copied from that document: Color codes are defined by the Digital Mobile Radio (DMR) standard and can be used to separate two or more MOTOTRBO digital radio systems which operate on common frequencies. The total number of available color codes per frequency is 16. From a radio user's perspective the color code is similar in nature to a Group ID. However, it should not be used for this purpose. Just as Groups are intended to separate users into groups, the color code is intended to uniquely identify systems or channels which operate on common frequencies. In MOTOTRBO systems, capabilities for Group Calls are configured with the portable and mobile radio CPS. The repeater does not require any specific configuration for groups. Radios can be configured to enable the user to select among multiple groups using the radio channel selector knob or buttons, or using the radio menu contacts list. Which group a radio user hears on a given channel depends on a configurable parameter called the RX Group List. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
And how many of these TGs can be used in a repeater at the same time? Thanks, Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: I talked to an owner of a system last night and he confirmed that user ID's are 8 digit, as are talk groups. There are some numbers that are reserved for all-call and other things, so the straight math doesn't work out exactly, but it's so many theoretical users and talk groups, you'd never hit the limit on a system. Also there's new features to allow trunking at a site, and multiple repeaters, but even then... eight digits is plenty for even a large multi-repeater setup. It's surprising this info isn't on any web pages anywhere... Nate On Mar 10, 2010, at 6:33 PM, MCH wrote: Just to clarify, I'm talking about what would be equal to talkgroups. Although it does make me feel better others cannot find the answer either. :-) Joe M. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
And there is not any special option to order to get multiple TGs? The base model will support all TGs that are possible? Joe M. wd8chl wrote: On 3/11/2010 11:10 AM, MCH wrote: And how many of these TGs can be used in a repeater at the same time? Thanks, Joe M. Outside of the ones that are dedicated to a specific purpose, like interconnect, etc, all of them. Like any other trunked system. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
I was talking about how many can be programmed in the repeater, not necessarily active at the same time per se. IOW, how many talkgroups can you program into the repeater. I'm assuming that you can 'deprogram' some if you have two systems in the same area. I think WD8CHL answered the question I had - any or all can be made active (except for a few reserved for special use). Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: Each repeater handles two 6.25 KHz channels simultaneously, if that's what you mean...? But both channels are continuously received by the portables/mobiles. The transmission is one big interlaced TDMA signal that takes up the full 12.5 KHz spectrum even if only one channel is in use. I can be on user ID 0100, TG 0100 talking to you, user ID 0200 on one channel... And someone else can be simultaneously talking as user ID 0300, on TG 0200 to user 0400. And we won't hear each other. On the same repeater. If you buy their trunking stuff, you can then link repeaters at a site, and each repeater box means two more simultaneous channels of data. How the system directs the mobile/portables as to which frequency to monitor, I don't know. Moto uses color names for the channels. The local system some hams here built has two colors... one is local traffic, the other is routed to the IP link to some other repeaters full-time. In practice, these are programmed as Channel 1 and Channel 2 in the portables/mobiles. Want to talk locally? Channel 1. To someone on one of the IP linked repeaters, Channel 2. AFAIK the repeater doesn't care at all about any of this. The rigs are receiving both channels at the same time, and just watch for the Color Code, Unit ID (in the case of unit-to-unit calling) or their TG and open squelch appropriately. That probably changes in the trunked environment - the repeaters obviously must be active in deciding which transmitter to turn on. Don't know how that piece works when you grow beyond a single repeater. I assume there's data being transmitted from one or more transmitters continuously that tells the mobile/portables when to frequency hop. In IP linking without trunking, I believe all transmitters go active if you transmit on the color that's linked. Don't know how it handles glare (Someone transmits on Repeater A's color code that's IP linked to Repeater B and someone else keys up at the same time on Repeater B with the same color code.) Also don't know what gets priority if someone places a unit-to-unit call on the local color at the same time as a remote linked call for the same Unit ID comes in, but that logic would be in the portable/mobile rigs, not the repeater. Nate WY0X On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:10 AM, MCH wrote: And how many of these TGs can be used in a repeater at the same time? Thanks, Joe M. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
So if there are two TRBO repeaters in the same area, there is no way to keep them both from being active and interfering with each other? That doesn't sound right. Or, if I have a repeater, anyone can just buy TRBO radios and use it? Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On 3/11/2010 1:54 PM, MCH wrote: I was talking about how many can be programmed in the repeater, not necessarily active at the same time per se. IOW, how many talkgroups can you program into the repeater. I'm assuming that you can 'deprogram' some if you have two systems in the same area. I think WD8CHL answered the question I had - any or all can be made active (except for a few reserved for special use). Joe M. AFAIK the repeater doesn't get programmed with them at all. It just passes them. They're just addresses. The radios handle whether or not they're listening for a particular talk group. Nate
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
Just the frequency, and not which TGs it passes? Do all TRBO repeaters pass all TRBO format transmissions? Even those of people who are not authorized to use the repeater? Joe M. Brian Raker wrote: You do have to program it to use a set frequency pair, just like any other repeater. -BR On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: So if there are two TRBO repeaters in the same area, there is no way to keep them both from being active and interfering with each other? That doesn't sound right. Or, if I have a repeater, anyone can just buy TRBO radios and use it? Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On 3/11/2010 1:54 PM, MCH wrote: I was talking about how many can be programmed in the repeater, not necessarily active at the same time per se. IOW, how many talkgroups can you program into the repeater. I'm assuming that you can 'deprogram' some if you have two systems in the same area. I think WD8CHL answered the question I had - any or all can be made active (except for a few reserved for special use). Joe M. AFAIK the repeater doesn't get programmed with them at all. It just passes them. They're just addresses. The radios handle whether or not they're listening for a particular talk group. Nate Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2736 - Release Date: 03/11/10 02:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
Along those lines? How many groups of users will the standard MotoTRBO repeater support in digital mode? I know it will do 2 simultaneously, but how many overall? Also, I know it will support a single NBFM user - can a CTCSS panel be attached to it? Thanks, Joe M. wb6wui wrote: Dan, TRBO-6 network website is: www.trbo.info and has some basic info for getting repeaters onto the network. Or checkout the yahoo group: mototrbousa ...Mike, wb6...@gmail.com --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Dan Blasberg ka8...@... wrote: Mike, In the DC area there is currently one UHF machine and about 5-10 amateurs playing with MOTOTRBO. I would be interested to know what other areas are using for setting or are they leaving everything in the default setting? Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2734 - Release Date: 03/10/10 02:33:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
Just to clarify, I'm talking about what would be equal to talkgroups. Although it does make me feel better others cannot find the answer either. :-) Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On 3/10/2010 1:47 PM, MCH wrote: Along those lines? How many groups of users will the standard MotoTRBO repeater support in digital mode? I know it will do 2 simultaneously, but how many overall? Also, I know it will support a single NBFM user - can a CTCSS panel be attached to it? Thanks, Joe M. I don't know the answer, Joe but I see a problem with the question... Are you talking about how many unique user ID's on a MotoTRBO system, or how many talk groups, or how many repeaters can be linked or...? So now you've had me Googling for an hour, and good ol' Moto and friends haven't bothered to document this level of detail anywhere public, other than mysterious marketing comments like saying, 1000's of users. Sigh. Where's the beef?! Annoying. Page after page of pretty PDF specs, without a single mention of these numbers, all over the place. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...
That's just it. Everyone likes to throw names out such as 'alligator' or 'elephant', but few people realize it's all relative to the station *using* the repeater, too. What repeater may be an alligator for one person is an elephant to another depending on *their* equipment. The repeater itself is neither an alligator or an elephant. Joe M. NORM KNAPP wrote: ...and it was pretty well balanced if you had a 60 watt mobile with a 5/8 wave ant on your roof.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
What are you missing? The fact that it should be in bands where TV is authorized, and not in a band where it will be subject to random instances of interference from a service that has transmitters at any place at any time. I wonder how well a waiver would be received that would permit hams to use any frequency in the 406-512 MHz band at 1 watt maximum ERP with a non-interference basis to licensed users of that band segment. Would those licensed users sit still for that? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I just read the FCC order…I don’t see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. - the price is very high for what you get – few will be purchased – the technology implementation is lam - the incidents where the device would be used are few and far between - the device erp is .25watt to max 1 watt into a hand-held rubber duck antenna at the operator position and the device crawls on the ground with internal ant - the statement in the order makes the device operations secondary to amateur radio - there are many caveats in the order with regard to when the device may be used What am I missing? 73, Dave Wa3gin *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *George Henry *Sent:* Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:44 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band That IS the item... ReconRobotics' website has the disclaimer that the device has not received FCC authorization may not be sold. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
It suffices to say there are lots of good answers, and none of them are the 440 band. And, there is obviously existing spectrum for these devices, so their waiver should have never been granted. As far as the eBay auction, there ARE legal users of these devices - US! (hams) I can see it now - Live from Dayton... the Hamvention Robot. Joe M. DCFluX wrote: 2.4 GHz, there are numorous TV transmitters already designed that operate here, 2 of the 4 channels common channels fall on the ham band and are often converted for ATV use. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2721 - Release Date: 03/03/10 14:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Or even unused traditional UHF TV channels which are only 30 MHz higher. The bad part of this is if something goes to court, the jury will likely side with those protecting lives over ham chat no matter what the laws say and the hams will lose. Joe M. Richard wrote: Since they'd be competing with high powered repeaters and government radars, I thought 2.4 gig would have been a better choice than 70cm, but that's just me... Richard www.n7tgb.net http://www.n7tgb.net/ Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -- Ronald Reagan *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *DCFluX *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:24 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Take that crap up to 2.4 GHz with the rest of the garbage. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2720 - Release Date: 03/03/10 02:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
It's wideband so it's not going to key up your repeater and CTCSS does not solve interference - it just masks it. Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: What? Just go and turn on your PL... come on! Lets use the technology that we claim we know so well... - Original Message - *From:* Brian Raker mailto:brian.ra...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 4:51 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band So... is anyone gonna buy one of these things to see just what kind of interference it will actually make in the 70cm band? 1 watt max and .25 watt nominal is enough to key up a poorly tuned and set up nearby repeater or a distant sensitively configured repeater, and enough to produce decent QRM on existing nearby voice and data communications especially as it is using an analog video and operational control system. -Brian / KF4ZWZ On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Richard gbis-reply-...@gbis.com mailto:gbis-reply-...@gbis.com wrote: Since they'd be competing with high powered repeaters and government radars, I thought 2.4 gig would have been a better choice than 70cm, but that's just me... Richard www.n7tgb.net http://www.n7tgb.net/ Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -- Ronald Reagan *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *DCFluX *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:24 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Take that crap up to 2.4 GHz with the rest of the garbage.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Except for the fact these users will be SECONDARY to US. Still, try telling your local PD they have to shut their robot down because they are causing interference... Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: Amateur Radio is NOT PRIMARY on 70cm in the U.S.. Never have been. Never will be. We are SECONDARY ...and NTIA let's us behave like we're primary... most of the time. That's why we lost with previous military systems (ask folk near Camp Pendleton about that one), we lost with PAVE PAWS, and we'll probably lose on this one too. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio
So it had memories built-in? Joe M. Doug Bade wrote: It was not a single channel device it had at least 10 channels... It took over the radios pll from outside so radio channel programming and capacity was irrelevant... It also had scan, simplex offset and a few other amateur features... I was involved in application testing on a few of the radios under my first callsign of KB8GVQ as well as Jim WD8CHL... It programmed the pll chip that runs the synthesizer by isolating that in the radio... the radio though it was on whatever was in a particular channel and the PLL was actually wherever Joe and the User wanted it... The reason for different versions was it had to account for how a given PLL was programmed and the offset differences based on the IF for receive. Doug KD8B At 02:50 AM 3/2/2010, you wrote: On the contrary, the docs were very enlightening. Perhaps the reason there was little interest was the fact that it appears to make the radio 'single channel only', and I'm sure many people would have wanted to keep the multi-channel capability. But, as an add-on to the radio as-is, it would have been very interesting. What microprocessor did he use? And are any still available? Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: There was, but it's all gone now. At one point a link to his site was posted on the Repeater Builder site. Joe made several posts to this list and became discouraged at the lack of interest. The documentation would be of no value as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net mailto:mch%40nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Interesting. I wonder if there is some tech info on this that is available. Any idea how much the cost was and what mods were required? Or, perhaps some tech data on the synthesizer as far as what pins control the frequency, as well as any binary-to-frequency info. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: Joe Burch was his name. It was a frequency agile control head that could be set up for most any type of synthesized commercial radio. You entered the frequency and tone via a keypad. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Kelsey mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:20 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Been there, done that. There was no interest in the ham community. Why? It required modifications that most were not willing to tackle. At the moment, the name of the guy escapes me, but I did one of his modifications to a 6-meter Delta-S several years ago. He has since given up on the idea, but it worked on most any radio. Chuck WB2EDV Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/ Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2717 - Release Date: 03/01/10 14:34:00 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2718 - Release Date: 03/02/10 02:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio
Interesting. I wonder if there is some tech info on this that is available. Any idea how much the cost was and what mods were required? Or, perhaps some tech data on the synthesizer as far as what pins control the frequency, as well as any binary-to-frequency info. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: Joe Burch was his name. It was a frequency agile control head that could be set up for most any type of synthesized commercial radio. You entered the frequency and tone via a keypad. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Kelsey mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:20 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Been there, done that. There was no interest in the ham community. Why? It required modifications that most were not willing to tackle. At the moment, the name of the guy escapes me, but I did one of his modifications to a 6-meter Delta-S several years ago. He has since given up on the idea, but it worked on most any radio. Chuck WB2EDV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio
And put an external CTCSS/CDCSS encoder on it? There are more tone/code combinations to fill 128 channels on a single frequency. Joe M. rahwayflynn wrote: K3JLS - The wayback machine has a bit of information: http://web.archive.org/web/20050907131941/http://www.k3jls.com/ Although with the 128 channel slots, that would seem to cover the entire 900Mhz band plan Martin --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@... wrote: Joe Burch was his name. It was a frequency agile control head that could be set up for most any type of synthesized commercial radio. You entered the frequency and tone via a keypad. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Chuck Kelsey To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Been there, done that. There was no interest in the ham community. Why? It required modifications that most were not willing to tackle. At the moment, the name of the guy escapes me, but I did one of his modifications to a 6-meter Delta-S several years ago. He has since given up on the idea, but it worked on most any radio. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Paul Plack To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Hmmm... What if someone came up with a board which could be retrofitted to a Spectra to give it ham-style programmability via front-panel controlsm, or even a separate control head? It wouldn't be interesting to the big manufacturers, but then, neither was the GLB Channelizer. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: rahwayflynn To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:00 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio $210.00 - I just bough two from KA3IDN. Search under 900Mhz Spectra on eBAY. Martin --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr nate@ wrote: On 2/27/2010 7:54 PM, Fuggitaboutit wrote: Why cant someone just come up with a 900 meg fm mobile for amateur use? They would sell a zillion of them . What would you pay for it? Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio
Or if the micro was NLA, use the info as a basis for programming a new one. As long as you knew what line did what, I'm sure it could be revived. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: There was, but it's all gone now. At one point a link to his site was posted on the Repeater Builder site. Joe made several posts to this list and became discouraged at the lack of interest. The documentation would be of no value as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Interesting. I wonder if there is some tech info on this that is available. Any idea how much the cost was and what mods were required? Or, perhaps some tech data on the synthesizer as far as what pins control the frequency, as well as any binary-to-frequency info. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: Joe Burch was his name. It was a frequency agile control head that could be set up for most any type of synthesized commercial radio. You entered the frequency and tone via a keypad. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Kelsey mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:20 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Been there, done that. There was no interest in the ham community. Why? It required modifications that most were not willing to tackle. At the moment, the name of the guy escapes me, but I did one of his modifications to a 6-meter Delta-S several years ago. He has since given up on the idea, but it worked on most any radio. Chuck WB2EDV Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2717 - Release Date: 03/01/10 14:34:00 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio
Maybe that could change in light of the situation. But, I was talking more about looking at the hardware and creating a new source for it. Of course, if the original is still available, that would be fine, too. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: I don't know anything about programming the chip, but am pretty sure you'd need the source code in order to make changes. Joe programmed the chips and wouldn't release the code - he didn't want someone to steal his idea. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Or if the micro was NLA, use the info as a basis for programming a new one. As long as you knew what line did what, I'm sure it could be revived. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: There was, but it's all gone now. At one point a link to his site was posted on the Repeater Builder site. Joe made several posts to this list and became discouraged at the lack of interest. The documentation would be of no value as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work. Chuck WB2EDV Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio
On the contrary, the docs were very enlightening. Perhaps the reason there was little interest was the fact that it appears to make the radio 'single channel only', and I'm sure many people would have wanted to keep the multi-channel capability. But, as an add-on to the radio as-is, it would have been very interesting. What microprocessor did he use? And are any still available? Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: There was, but it's all gone now. At one point a link to his site was posted on the Repeater Builder site. Joe made several posts to this list and became discouraged at the lack of interest. The documentation would be of no value as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Interesting. I wonder if there is some tech info on this that is available. Any idea how much the cost was and what mods were required? Or, perhaps some tech data on the synthesizer as far as what pins control the frequency, as well as any binary-to-frequency info. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: Joe Burch was his name. It was a frequency agile control head that could be set up for most any type of synthesized commercial radio. You entered the frequency and tone via a keypad. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Kelsey mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:20 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Been there, done that. There was no interest in the ham community. Why? It required modifications that most were not willing to tackle. At the moment, the name of the guy escapes me, but I did one of his modifications to a 6-meter Delta-S several years ago. He has since given up on the idea, but it worked on most any radio. Chuck WB2EDV Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2717 - Release Date: 03/01/10 14:34:00 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio
Oh, BTW, I saw nothing for the Spectra there. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: There was, but it's all gone now. At one point a link to his site was posted on the Repeater Builder site. Joe made several posts to this list and became discouraged at the lack of interest. The documentation would be of no value as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Interesting. I wonder if there is some tech info on this that is available. Any idea how much the cost was and what mods were required? Or, perhaps some tech data on the synthesizer as far as what pins control the frequency, as well as any binary-to-frequency info. Joe M. Chuck Kelsey wrote: Joe Burch was his name. It was a frequency agile control head that could be set up for most any type of synthesized commercial radio. You entered the frequency and tone via a keypad. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Kelsey mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:20 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio Been there, done that. There was no interest in the ham community. Why? It required modifications that most were not willing to tackle. At the moment, the name of the guy escapes me, but I did one of his modifications to a 6-meter Delta-S several years ago. He has since given up on the idea, but it worked on most any radio. Chuck WB2EDV Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2717 - Release Date: 03/01/10 14:34:00 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 900 meg Spectra radio
True, but where is the hack for the front panel programmable Spectra? It's nice to not be limited to preprogrammed channels. Joe M. James Adkins wrote: Yeah, same as 220. There's not really a need for an amateur rig anyway. There are so many commercial rigs that go there easily, and you would never be able to buy an amateur rig with the performance of a Spectra! On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:35 PM, JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net mailto:jmac...@usa.net wrote: Because 900 Mhz is only available to amateurs in the US and not in Japan. The 900 Mhz amateur activity in the US is not very strong. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:02:17 PM PST From: Fuggitaboutit mikew...@hotmail.com mailto:mikewm9v%40hotmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com SNIP Why cant someone just come up with a 900 meg fm mobile for amateur use? They would sell a zillion of them . -- James Adkins, KB0NHX Vice-President -- Nixa Amateur Radio Club, Inc. (KC0LUN) www.nixahams.net http://www.nixahams.net Southern Missouri Assistant Frequency Coordinator - Missouri Repeater Council www.missourirepeater.org http://www.missourirepeater.org The Nixa Amateur Radio Club - There is no charge for awesomeness! (Well, only $1.00 per month) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2714 - Release Date: 02/28/10 02:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Unlawful in IL to Rebroadcast Public Safety Communications
Sorry - replied to the wrong message. Joe M. MCH wrote: I should have realized that since I think there are base frequencies below the UHF coverage that work. Regardless, it's a problem with the calculation and won't work. Thanks for the correction. Joe M. Greg Beat wrote: It would be a very interesting court case in this state (Illinois). Illinois is where Air rights were established 100 years ago -- above railroad right-of-way (that railroad could and did sell). It was the communication attorneys (and FCC) that used that landmark ruling -- to permit and enforce the encryption of TVRO satellite broadcasts in early 1980s -- after the late 1970s boom in C band dishes (big 10' dishes). The FCC has set themselves up due to their deregulation boom of 1980s (breakup of ATT 1984; bow to NAB pressure and creation of GROL/reduce engineering requirements for commercial broadcast stations; passing Citizens Band enforcement service to local law enforcement). ADD to this the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and other laws quickly passed during post-9/11 reaction -- and it would be a lively debate and court case. Current anti-federal government pushes by Tea Party and conservative groups refocus on 10th amendment -- almost guarantee a mixed decision (conflicts in existing laws -- which takes precedent and in what circumstances). Yes, FCC has authority -- BUT if it is a matter of public safety -- is that the exception? While the First Amendment upholds Freedom of Speech -- it does not uphold a person that yells Fire in a crowded theatre -- causing a panic and injury -- when there was no fire! w9gb No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2701 - Release Date: 02/21/10 02:34:00 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2701 - Release Date: 02/21/10 02:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT Kenwood TM-3530A T Tones
Did you try using the keys on the front of the radio as the TTP? I think they still did that on that model and they don't have to be in a memory. Joe M. ka9qjg1 wrote: I have an Old Kenwood TM-3530A 220 Radio I need to be able to send TT To work on My Repeater Controller The radio works fine I have a TT Kenwood Mic Good Audio but NO TT , I took it apart and cleaned Everything and Still No TT , So I tried the Mic on My Kenwood TS-2000 Audio and TT Works fine. I downloaded the Manual and see that this Radio is the Same as TM-2570, TM-2550, TM-5550 E And TM-2530A I found that even without a TT Mic the Radio has built in TT Pad and Numbers can be stored in Mem I do not Hear any TT When I press them either . but I can hear them from the int Speaker but not in the Carrier . I did the Adjustments to increase them but nothing is heard any Thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated Thanks Don KA9QJG Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] HAM Mototrbo Systems
And all of them could add P25 so you would have a common digital format. Joe M. Mark wrote: I think it will be interesting to see whether Motorola expands/offers MotoTrbo to the Vertex/Standard/Yaesu radios, now that they have ownership in Vertex/Standard. IMHO, adding MotoTrbo options to the Yaesu line would be one “easy, quick and dirty” way to attempt to wrest digital away from Icom/D-STAR. This could get to be very interesting… Mark – N9WYS *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *On Behalf Of *John Crockett Eric: Back here in the Southeast there are two UHF MotoTrbo repeaters being coordinated in the Charlotte, NC area. It will be interesting if this digital technology will take off. In SC we have enough D-Star repeaters to cover the state, but the number of users is low. It will take a long time before it is viable as a parallel statewide communications system. Analog FM is still the back bone of our statewide communications system and it will be for years to come. www.scheart.us http://www.scheart.us/ The question in the back of my mind is. Is MotoTrbo the digital technology that will leap frog D-Star? I guess we can stay tuned for the outcome! John, KC4YI
Re: [Repeater-Builder] HAM Mototrbo Systems
My point was not to keep NCDN and P25, but rather to have one digital voice format on the bands everyone can use as opposed to 27 formats. Joe M. Tom Parker wrote: Firmware already upgrades a NXDN radio to P25, but alas, then it is no longer NXDN. I don't think you'll ever see P25 and turbo or NXDN in the same box. Big M did remove the XTL1500 from the above price book and put it in the dealer's price sheet last month. my 2 cents MCH wrote: And all of them could add P25 so you would have a common digital format. Joe M. Mark wrote: I think it will be interesting to see whether Motorola expands/offers MotoTrbo to the Vertex/Standard/Yaesu radios, now that they have ownership in Vertex/Standard. IMHO, adding MotoTrbo options to the Yaesu line would be one “easy, quick and dirty” way to attempt to wrest digital away from Icom/D-STAR. This could get to be very interesting… Mark – N9WYS *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com *On Behalf Of *John Crockett Eric: Back here in the Southeast there are two UHF MotoTrbo repeaters being coordinated in the Charlotte, NC area. It will be interesting if this digital technology will take off. In SC we have enough D-Star repeaters to cover the state, but the number of users is low. It will take a long time before it is viable as a parallel statewide communications system. Analog FM is still the back bone of our statewide communications system and it will be for years to come. www.scheart.us http://www.scheart.us/ http://www.scheart.us/ The question in the back of my mind is. Is MotoTrbo the digital technology that will leap frog D-Star? I guess we can stay tuned for the outcome! John, KC4YI No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2687 - Release Date: 02/14/10 02:35:00 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
