Re: [Repeater-Builder] Polyphaser Question
The units are probably different depending on whether they are HF, VHF, UHF, or 2.4Ghz, etc. - Original Message - From: Chuck Kelsey To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Polyphaser Question Wasn't there a capacitor too? Seems like there was in one I saw open. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: David Jordan To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:44 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Polyphaser Question 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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Advanced Communications Systems Mark 4 repeater / controller audio board
Email me next week I have all the manuals and diagrams...great little repeater and there is still factory maint. 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: eddie.sinclair To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:50 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Advanced Communications Systems Mark 4 repeater / controller audio board Hey all, I have discovered my Advanced Communications Systems Mark 4 repeater / controller manual has no board layout for the audio board. I do have the schematic, just no parts locator drawing. It's really hard to figure out which pot is which. I need to adjust some levels. Does anyone have a copy of this drawing? I have lot's of documentation on this machine, I purchased the manual new from the factory. I also have the radio manuals. Oh', BTW, I have a working UHF Xmiter and receiver for these units if you need a spare. I'm using external radios and took the factory ones out. I'd like to meet someone that still has one of these in service. I have the Message Master and MultiFAX option boards installed. I wish I had the RS-232 board if anyone has one. Eddie KC5UIB
[Repeater-Builder] NPRM 10-72 was adopted
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-124A1.doc
Re: [Repeater-Builder] O. T. Question
Google Yahoo email bounces... - Original Message - From: N/AN To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 2:06 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] O. T. Question Can anyone tell me why Yahoo Groups emails keep bouncing? This problem has happened twice in the past week. I get all the emails then one day I get no emails. Then I have to click unbounce on the Yahoo site. Thank you. Rod kc7vqr
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:QRZ.com
Only asked for PW when checking for details if the person doesn't want email address displayed to non-registered members... otherwise lookup access is un-challenged. 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: larynl2 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:24 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:QRZ.com Just tried it... no login or password required for me. Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Don Kupferschmidt dkupf...@... wrote: Hi all. Has anyone used QRZ.com recently to look at a call sign and was challenged for a login and a password? I tried to look up a callsign for verification of an address, but was unable to go any further until I emailed their admin for a current login and password. Once I got it, I was able to use their site. Anyone know why this is happening? Don, KD9PT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:QRZ.com
Ask QRZ... they are very responsive to email questions... - Original Message - From: Don Kupferschmidt To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:QRZ.com Dave, That is correct. But before that change, anyone could access the database and get all of the details of that license that he / she was looking at. My question, why did this change? Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: WA3GIN To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:QRZ.com Only asked for PW when checking for details if the person doesn't want email address displayed to non-registered members... otherwise lookup access is un-challenged. 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: larynl2 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:24 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:QRZ.com Just tried it... no login or password required for me. Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Don Kupferschmidt dkupf...@... wrote: Hi all. Has anyone used QRZ.com recently to look at a call sign and was challenged for a login and a password? I tried to look up a callsign for verification of an address, but was unable to go any further until I emailed their admin for a current login and password. Once I got it, I was able to use their site. Anyone know why this is happening? Don, KD9PT
[Repeater-Builder] How much gain or how much loss on the PD220-3A
Hi folks, I'm curious about this question of operating the Station Master 10Mhz off resonant frequency. The antenna seems to be working fine from observed performance but that could just be the 425ft ASL in an area where average elevation is 30ftASL. I've searched the WEB but haven't yet found a reference that would ascertain the performance of the antenna. Should I presume unity gain on 146. from an antenna with 5db gain at 156.Mhz? Thoughts welcome, dave wa3gin
[Repeater-Builder] Four Bay Commercial VHF antenna on 2m
Hi folks, Thanks for all the great inputs. Today we completed the installation. 3watts reflected and 110 forward. Can't complain about that for a match to the antenna. The coverage appears to be excellent. 73, dave
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m
DB224... no access to the antenna. We got to live with it as it is ... just trying to make the transmitter happy till a time comes when we can either tweak the antenna or replace it. Thanks , dave - Original Message - From: allan crites To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m Dave, Is this a 154 MHz colinear antenna you are wanting to use on 146 MHz or one like a DB 224 with 4 exposed dipoles? If the 4 exposed dipole type, just what makes you suspect that there is a lot of loss when an antenna made for 154 MHz is used at 146 MHz and how do you expect to tune the dipoles without compensating for the harness impedance matching sections mismatch also. Allan Crites wa9zzu --- On Sat, 5/8/10, WA3GIN wa3...@comcast.net wrote: From: WA3GIN wa3...@comcast.net Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 11:13 PM Hi folks, Several weeks ago I posed the question of using a Commercial VHF antenna that was resonant on 154Mhz on 146.745Mhz. We tried it today. The SWR was a bit over 2:1 on the repeater freq. We installed a T connector after the cans and used an open stub to try to match the line...got it down to 1.5:1, wouldn't go any lower. We think the height of the antenna makes up for what we suspect is a lot of loss in the antenna. The previous location of the repeater antenna was 100ft ASL and this location is 525ft ASL. Maybe one day we'll get a chance to retune the four dipole antenna. Thanks to all that provided ideas for this project. 73, dave wa3gin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m
Thanks, I'll get back to you but it won't be immediately. The site is secured and access is very limited. Dave - Original Message - From: allan crites To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m Dave, maybe I can help you with your impedance matching if you could provide me with some information. I need to know: 1) the freq of operation 2) the VSWR at the xmtr end of the coax line feeding the antenna 3) the VSWR of the line when you added the Tee adapter and open circuit coax stub 4) the type of coax used for the stub (50 ohms, solid dielectric, foam, polyethylene or teflon, the impedance, and the length in inches. When I get this I will put it into my Smith Chart program and see what I can find. AC --- On Sun, 5/9/10, WA3GIN wa3...@comcast.net wrote: From: WA3GIN wa3...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 10:09 PM DB224... no access to the antenna. We got to live with it as it is ... just trying to make the transmitter happy till a time comes when we can either tweak the antenna or replace it. Thanks , dave - Original Message - From: allan crites To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m Dave, Is this a 154 MHz colinear antenna you are wanting to use on 146 MHz or one like a DB 224 with 4 exposed dipoles? If the 4 exposed dipole type, just what makes you suspect that there is a lot of loss when an antenna made for 154 MHz is used at 146 MHz and how do you expect to tune the dipoles without compensating for the harness impedance matching sections mismatch also. Allan Crites wa9zzu --- On Sat, 5/8/10, WA3GIN wa3...@comcast. net wrote: From: WA3GIN wa3...@comcast. net Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 11:13 PM Hi folks, Several weeks ago I posed the question of using a Commercial VHF antenna that was resonant on 154Mhz on 146.745Mhz. We tried it today. The SWR was a bit over 2:1 on the repeater freq. We installed a T connector after the cans and used an open stub to try to match the line...got it down to 1.5:1, wouldn't go any lower. We think the height of the antenna makes up for what we suspect is a lot of loss in the antenna. The previous location of the repeater antenna was 100ft ASL and this location is 525ft ASL. Maybe one day we'll get a chance to retune the four dipole antenna. Thanks to all that provided ideas for this project. 73, dave wa3gin
[Repeater-Builder] Commercial VHF antenna on 2m
Hi folks, Several weeks ago I posed the question of using a Commercial VHF antenna that was resonant on 154Mhz on 146.745Mhz. We tried it today. The SWR was a bit over 2:1 on the repeater freq. We installed a T connector after the cans and used an open stub to try to match the line...got it down to 1.5:1, wouldn't go any lower. We think the height of the antenna makes up for what we suspect is a lot of loss in the antenna. The previous location of the repeater antenna was 100ft ASL and this location is 525ft ASL. Maybe one day we'll get a chance to retune the four dipole antenna. Thanks to all that provided ideas for this project. 73, dave wa3gin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] opinions for a public safety repeater
We use Kenwood TKR for 2m and 70cm repeaters (2 ea), both drive TPL amps, 250 watt on 2m and 100 on 70cm. Been up for years, not one hick-up. You don't get the great rich audio from the old Kendicoms but good quality communications audio. ARCOM, Inc does commercial work as well as amateur. Ken can assist you with purchase and configuration, etc. Best of Luck, dave wa3gin W4AVA Trustee www.w4ava.org - Original Message - From: Jed Barton To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:55 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] opinions for a public safety repeater Hey guys, Need some input here. I'm putting together a public safety repeater for my local FD. It's going to be really simple. Given the relyability factor, we're going with a kenwood. Here's the million dollar question, i need some input. How about a kenwood tkr750 or a tkr740. I've run several 750s with great results. I have not played with the 740, but i know it has an amazing receiver, but yet only pushes a few watts. Any suggestions for a good amp, perhaps cresend i think it is. Thanks, Jed
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Sorry, I don't recognize the language you are using to refer to the current topic. The FCC doesn't need a precedent to adjust it's regulatory perspective or inclination. If the FCC wants to cancel all amateur licenses and give the spectrum to GE for some energy saving RF transmission technology they will do so. The 300,000,000 people of the nation won't blink an eye. So, enjoy what you have, it is a priviledge and nothing more. I wouldn't waste a nanosecond worrying about precedent. Best, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: Kris Kirby To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 4:45 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Jordan wrote: My guess is the manufacturer doesn?t have the technology or funding needed to build the cheaply made, significantly over priced crawling camera to operate in the GHz ranges. My bet is that the manufacturer got a deal on some 433MHz camera modules from China. Like BPL?this vendor will disappear once their venture capital has been all used up. The military may purchase some of these units but with tax revenues down nationally, for the next several years, I don?t think your local fire or police dept will be spending many dollars on this low value technology? Doesn't matter; the legal world is ruled by precedents. This sets an unhealthy one. And NTIA/Military has spoken up on the matter -- did you see the section in the order where the device would not be operated within so many miles of several AFBs, which are known to house PAVE-PAWS installations? -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
HA, They did install BPL near by in Manassas, VA I went there sniffing for RFI and I never heard anything -- drove all over the route -- they went belly up in about 2 yrs. - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band On 3/4/2010 1:58 PM, David Jordan wrote: I'm an HFer.Interference doesn't bother me ;-) We'll notify your local power company that they can fire up BPL on your block, effective immediately. :-) (GRIN!) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
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 To: 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 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 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.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Mike, R U talking about Ms. Smith, the desk jockey that replaced Riley? If so I agree...clueless in Gettysburg! - Original Message - From: k7...@skybeam.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:16 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Yea, well from where I see it there is a new chief in town and he don't have a clue. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:22 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band On 3/3/2010 1:11 PM, Richard wrote: I feel a little pessimistic about this, in that I expect it to happen more frequently as time passes. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't help feeling that we are going to gradually lose our spectrum as companies with deep pockets buy our frequencies out from under us. Richard www.n7tgb.net Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -- Ronald Reagan All we have to do is prove our use of the Spectrum is more valuable than a radio controlled robot. Oh wait... Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
I'll tell ya what... I'll get one of these toys for our Fire Chief to test out and we'll see how it does...P-25 sucks below ground level and dies above the 14th fl ... so there is already plenty of issues in Public Safety...if these folks don't sell a bunch of these toys soon enough they'll be out of business and have no impact on us secondary users... I'm not losing any sleep over this one. We have bigger fish to fry... - Original Message - From: k7...@skybeam.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:15 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band No they will just cry like the military did with the PAVE PAWS SHIT. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ 6886 Sage Ave Firestone, Co 80504 303-736-9693 -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:03 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Ah George, Don't worry! The first time the device fails to deliver the goods to the Public Safety guys, they'll stop using it. Good luck to them. They'll have fun running up against the 1,000watt erp of many 70cm repeaters. 73, Dave Wa3gin -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Henry Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 2:15 PM To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Re: the waiver request by ReconRobotics for 420 - 450 MHz operation. Hams get the shaft again... George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
HAHA, Beloved ARRL... how much time do you thing those boys in Newington spend on this planet? Not much I can tell you. I enjoy following them and keeping track of how frequently they reverse their position on issues by 180 degrees. Pretty pathetic performance on our behalf I would say...subjective opinion of one! - Original Message - From: k7...@skybeam.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band This is why public safety has its own band and spectrum. Where the hell is our beloved ARRL fighting for our spectrum and fighting off these goons. There is a lot of spectrum in the 220Mhz, why don't they use this since its hardly used in the commercial market. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Henry Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:15 PM To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Re: the waiver request by ReconRobotics for 420 - 450 MHz operation. Hams get the shaft again... George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
That is a real stretch...these things are to be used for incidents that require them...how many many high rise building fires do you have in your town...think you can live with a little interference every 20 yrs. Get real. - Original Message - From: Brian Raker To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Actually, DPL/PL doesn't help. It only signals to the receiver when to open squelch is all. If someone is transmitting and this thing decides to transmit at the same time, you'll get an earful of noise, PL or not. -Brian On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM, WA3GIN wa3...@comcast.net 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 To: 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 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 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.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
yes and we live just fine with all the noise on the band...we're not looking for clear channel...we're not running AM ;-) - Original Message - From: MCH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:51 PM Subject: 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.
[Repeater-Builder] MICOM-X Motorola Hand Mic Wanted
Looking for a MICOM-X hand mic, please replay direct.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet
I'm waiting to here on this thread that it must be the President's fault this guy asked the question, haha. When are we going back to tech talk? I don't really care much to read some people's subjective opinions regarding this guy's concept nor do I want to wear out my delete key. This guys motivation or his bosses directive is none of our business pro or con. The Emergency Managment, Emergency Call Center, Radio Manager and Information Security Officer qualified folks on this reflector know what the applicable regulations and DOJ requirements are and we sure don't need to hear about it from the what if experts... I'm beginning to wonder if someone just planted this topic to watch this reflector self-distruct, DUH! - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet On 1/4/2010 2:33 PM, wd8chl wrote: Security is also a big issue with trying to use the internet for something like this. Anyone with a little knowledge can hack into it and do whatever. Who needs to hack? All common VoIP protocols in use are sniffable and playable from 100% free tools like Wireshark. All that's required is a copy of the packets... piece of cake. We do it all the time for troubleshooting in the VoIP telco hardware vendor world. This whole plan probably also runs afoul of HIPPA regulations for Medical dispatch, once you start sending un-encrypted VoIP to a residential IP from the dispatch center, now that I think a little more about it. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet
It ain't repeater tech talk and you forgot to blame it on the president ;-) I'm already having a nice evening but thanks anyway...I just read the note from this morning that this thread is OVER! Best, dave - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet On 1/5/2010 4:17 PM, WA3GIN wrote: I'm waiting to here on this thread that it must be the President's fault this guy asked the question, haha. When are we going back to tech talk? I just sent an apology. I read the list and reply to messages in order received. Just as a side-note for your edification, VoIP and IP design and how to troubleshoot such technologies (e.g. packet sniffers) *is* ... talking tech these days. Just so you're aware. Anyone who knows me, knows I've been involved in multiple pioneering efforts to bring VoIP linking to Amateur Radio for over a decade now. My beef with this guy's question is that it showed a lack of proper engineering DESIGN, and requirements planning, not any problem with the technology being proposed. Proper engineering design is what we're all shooting for, even on our hobby radio systems, right? In this case he was asking about a professional system and has less knowledge of VoIP than the HOBBYISTS here... so he'd better find a pro and find one quick. :-) Anyway, have a nice evening. Oh wait, I almost forgot... Yes, there IS a secret plan to destroy the Internet by having side-conversations like those that normally happen in person when talking to other humans. It's been going on since the USENET days. (Maybe the conspiracy extends all the way back to BBS's and FidoNet but we're not sure. The original founders of The Plan are shrouded in mystery.) I'm sure The Plan will be effective soon and the world will come to an end. One of the major components of the plan is to get people to react with snide remarks, which makes it all work so very well! ;-) Hahaha... Nate WY0X I don't really care much to read some people's subjective opinions regarding this guy's concept nor do I want to wear out my delete key. This guys motivation or his bosses directive is none of our business pro or con. The Emergency Managment, Emergency Call Center, Radio Manager and Information Security Officer qualified folks on this reflector know what the applicable regulations and DOJ requirements are and we sure don't need to hear about it from the what if experts... I'm beginning to wonder if someone just planted this topic to watch this reflector self-distruct, DUH! - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet On 1/4/2010 2:33 PM, wd8chl wrote: Security is also a big issue with trying to use the internet for something like this. Anyone with a little knowledge can hack into it and do whatever. Who needs to hack? All common VoIP protocols in use are sniffable and playable from 100% free tools like Wireshark. All that's required is a copy of the packets... piece of cake. We do it all the time for troubleshooting in the VoIP telco hardware vendor world. This whole plan probably also runs afoul of HIPPA regulations for Medical dispatch, once you start sending un-encrypted VoIP to a residential IP from the dispatch center, now that I think a little more about it. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet
Yes, and they are called Intranets. - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet The Internet is a shared medium. A private WAN/LAN commonly utilizes fiber optic cable or licensed wireless networking to accomplish connectivity. While private systems can deliver Internet, it is not (necessarily) THE Internet. Privately owned facilities like what many CATV, Phone, Internet, and combinations of them can have dark fiber or reserved virtual space that cannot get clogged with Internet overhead. The bottlenecking you might experience with facilities you cannot (do not) control can (will) be the downfall of such a system - unless a SLA can be gotten. A SLA is a service level agreement in which a company guarantees connectivity - to some degree. The more reliability the agreement extends - the higher the cost. Kevin Custer Jed Barton wrote: tell me about this system a little bit. You'll note that the manufacturer is not suggesting that you utilize the Internet for this device. It is marketed for use on a private LAN/WAN. Chuck WB2EDV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet
Many cities utilize dark fiber provided by the cable companies (the Internet). WEBEOC is WEB based, ala the Internet. Here in Arlington County the County's fiber network is mostly provided by Comcast Cable with some County owned fiber. Some commercial fiber networks are self-healing and provide better reliability than microwave networks used to interconnect 800 P25. You drive across the USA and you will find every possible type of network implementation known to man being utilized by public safety. I once read about a group that hand built from scratch 802.11 access points to construct their own little wireless mesh network. It wouldn't happen in NYC where they have more than 10,000 fire and police employees but in a smallish county with 10-20,000 consituents and very little tax revenues public safety has to make do. What we would like and what we can afford is two different things. I just recently read where the State of Georgia was just issued $165,000 Fed. Grant to build a D-STAR state wide network. What a waste of tax dollars. OH yeah, great technology but how many ham volunteers in the state can afford the $600 handheld radios? I don't think the grant is paying for a handheld for every ham in the state where currently 99% who have VHF radios are on analog. DUH. Enjoy, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: Randy Ross To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 6:24 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet Given the inherit instability of the internet (it was NEVER designed to do what we are doing with it), I would consider any communications system which is reliant upon the internet to be flawed by design and completely untrustworthy. My two cents worth. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 6:23 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet Yes, and they are called Intranets. - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet The Internet is a shared medium. A private WAN/LAN commonly utilizes fiber optic cable or licensed wireless networking to accomplish connectivity. While private systems can deliver Internet, it is not (necessarily) THE Internet. Privately owned facilities like what many CATV, Phone, Internet, and combinations of them can have dark fiber or reserved virtual space that cannot get clogged with Internet overhead. The bottlenecking you might experience with facilities you cannot (do not) control can (will) be the downfall of such a system - unless a SLA can be gotten. A SLA is a service level agreement in which a company guarantees connectivity - to some degree. The more reliability the agreement extends - the higher the cost. Kevin Custer Jed Barton wrote: tell me about this system a little bit. You'll note that the manufacturer is not suggesting that you utilize the Internet for this device. It is marketed for use on a private LAN/WAN. Chuck WB2EDV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet
Don, You have pointed out some valid concerns but the world doesn't care...VOIP is cost effective for day to day operations and everyone is going there as fast as they can...the fact that everyone is going there will bring the reliability you indicate is needed, before too long. Just remember the telcos weren't that reliable for decades...but the world is changing and there ain't muc we can do about it except trying to bring the best ideas and concepts to the planning meetings to ensure as best we can that these networks have adequate redundancy, cyber security, etc. Best, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: Bill Smith To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet VoIP is used daily and has been for over five years for mission-critical applications such major electric and gas utilities and public safety. VoIP isn't the problem, it's the transport medium. Bill --- On Mon, 1/4/10, Don E. Wisdom d...@engineeringinc.com wrote: From: Don E. Wisdom d...@engineeringinc.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 4, 2010, 6:08 PM try again. I am a network engineer and I can tell you all it takes is one mistake or routing loop extended power failure etc and your down for a while. Anyone who would even think about doing this over the internet needs their head checked. Ask yourself this question... If your power goes out at home you have comcast digital voice (that goes over the cable modem) and someone robs your house.. What does your alarm do? Nothing! it cant call out because the power is out. VoIP is not a technology that anyone should be relying on for LIFE SAFETY things. the standard SLA on a T1 connection is 4 hours. (and it should be since it costs $4-500/month) realistically they aren't going to fix it until they're 4 hours are up. Home/business DSL connections typically have no SLA or it isn't worth the toilet paper it is printed upon. Its been proven multiple times in the last year (san francisco fiber cut, deep sea fiber cuts, turkey stealing youtube's ip space etc) that the internet is not 190% reliable. You have to remember that you may have a competent admin but you are just as vulnerable if someone else does not have one. One other thing.. 99.99% of VoIP applications use UDP which is a connectionless protocol. meaning that the side sending it has no clue if it got there. Simply put it either gets there or doesn't and you have no idea which. This is a bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad idea. No insurance company in their right mind will touch this. I'd heard that the NFPA is also looking at banning VoIP's use for fire alarm systems. --Don On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Jed Barton wrote: exactly what i thought. People can say relyability, but your internet connection is probably a hell of a lot more relyable than a typical verizon phone line. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 6:43 PM To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet It's done very day ,a good vpn and intranet and very difficult to interfere, with short of a direct physical connection there is little better so I don't understand all the fuss . Some one posted a good remote radio controller so the rest is down to the skills of the system admin B ( and yes I have had training in the area) To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com From: rr...@librtynet.com Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:24:08 -0700 Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet Given the inherit instability of the internet (it was NEVER designed to do what we are doing with it), I would consider any communications system which is reliant upon the internet to be flawed by design and completely untrustworthy. My two cents worth. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 6:23 PM To: Repeater-Builder
Re: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet
Let get real...we're making up configurations and drawing conclusions that will perhaps not even be considered. Without being part of the public safety team in this fellas community all these what-ifs are senseless. Each community and its emergency management will decide what works best for them...the fella asked for some technical advice. Lets keep the tread on the technical advice and not try to pretend we can offer more than that without details about the entire system design, architecture and implementation plans... In this guys town a public safety agency might be a part-time assignment for a volunteer fireman. Remember there is 50% of this nations population that doesn't live in the 200 largest cities ;-) Telework is very important to the future of our good old USA...we better figure out how to do it and soon! - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 9:34 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] dispatch centers run through the internet Jed, Whether or not it CAN be done is not an issue. The issue is whether it SHOULD be done. The notion of a public safety agency operating an alerting system that is based at someone's home, using privately-contracted phone lines, is really frightening! What if the dispatcher is indisposed when an emergency call comes in? What if the..
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts
For fun we operated a 400 watt erp repeater with two antennas and no duplexer. We were able to achieve about 100db attenuation by using the roof equipment penthouse. The transmit antenna was mounted on the top of the penthouse and the receive antenna was installed diagonally from the transmit antenna on the roof below the penthouse. Each antenna was physically separated by the penthouse structure. Transmit performance was good and receiver performance was good about 270 degrees minus the abstructed zone. No feedback or other issues. Eventually, we installed TXRX 6 can duplexer and utilized the penthouse antenna. Receive coverage regained 360 degree coverage. So, it is doable if you have the right antenna site. Best, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts Michael Cox wrote: Thank you for your help. I appreciate it! I've put a couple of questions inline below. Well - you'll need a duplexer no mater the price... grin I was under the impression that if I had two antennas, I could get by without a duplexer. Thanks for the heads up. While two antennas will work, and you'd initially think there is a cost savings using two antennas, that isn't always the case. The determining factor usually ends up being the length and size of feed-line necessary to get from the repeater to the antenna. On UHF, unless the feed-line length is really short, you'll want to use some type of hard-line cable. The cost of this cable, depending on type and length, can be costly. It may be less costly to use one antenna and a duplexer then to install two antennas and have two runs of feed-line. In addition, you'll usually end up with a better balanced system using one antenna because using two can cause a disparity if both antennas don't have the exact same pattern - which could be difficult to achieve depending on the tower space available. In installations where you have to pay rent on tower space - it's usually by far cheaper to purchase a duplexer. RE: Power Amplifier Are these what I'm looking for? Generically - Yes. It looks like there is a UHF and a VHF version of the PA. Is that correct? Yes. Are they not compatible with each other? No. VHF and UHF are two totally different bands. You cannot use a UHF PA on a VHF repeater and vice-versa. The third one you listed is a Mobile PA - not something you'll want. You want a UHF Station PA like the second one you listed - but it isn't the exact one either. The one you want requires 200 mW of drive - not 20 watts - but, the correct one looks very similar to the one in your number two listing. I don't presently see a good candidate on eBay - but they show up all the time. Duplexer - used WACOM Products WP-678 (or similar), also available from eBay. I couldn't find any on eBay. Any guesses what I'd be paying for something like this? $250 plus shipping. Controller - I recommend a NHRC model that plugs into the Systems board, or, one of the Pion Simon models that plug into the card cage. http://www.nhrc.net/ge-stuff.php http://www.pionsimon.com/products.htm It looks like I can use the NHRC-4/M2 to make it a linked repeater. If I go with the Ham repeater, I'll most likely do that. That would require, if I understand correctly, another radio connected in, so that will have to be done later with future funds. :) Correct. If I decide to make it a GMRS repeater, I won't have to worry about that and will go with the PSE508-2, as its a little less expensive. Also a good choice. Kevin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts
I believe the issues with LMR were resolved years ago Chuck. Can you refresh the group on some of the primary issues? Thanks, dave p.s. we've been using it for five years at ten sites with no problems. - Original Message - From: Chuck Kelsey To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts Kevin mentioned feedline, but didn't mention to stay away from LMR or 9913 type foil/shield combinations in duplex service. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts Michael Cox wrote: Thank you for your help. I appreciate it! I've put a couple of questions inline below. Well - you'll need a duplexer no mater the price... grin I was under the impression that if I had two antennas, I could get by without a duplexer. Thanks for the heads up. While two antennas will work, and you'd initially think there is a cost savings using two antennas, that isn't always the case.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts
Very interesting...all our sites are dense with RF from Public Safety radio systems 800, 700, VHF, etc. No problems in five years. I suspect it has more to do with how the RF connections are made than the LMR cable. Just my subjective opinion of one. 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts At 1/3/2010 11:11, you wrote: Yes, it was resolved at a lot of commercial sites by not allowing it to be used ;-) For me, the resolution came from a Times Microwave sales rep. who admitted that LMR-400 is not appropriate for duplex use. Having said that, you can get away with using it in situations such as temporary/portable repeater installations provided the connectors are installed properly the feedline is not used near the antenna, where RF can couple to the outer braided shield. In no circumstances would I ever use it at a shared comm. site. Usually after a bit of time, the cable will start to become a source of noise as the two dissimilar metals start to react with each other. There are many documented cases of this problem. Search this group's messages and you'll see this has been discussed over and over. It comes up about every other week. BTW, they don't need to be dissemilar metals. I once confirmed a 100% copper braided RG-213 jumper as a PIM source. I only use silver-plated braided coax beyond the duplexer from now on. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Rolling Pipe Sound
I have a wav (3Meg) file of the rolling pipe sound. What is the best way to get it to those that want to listen to it? 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: Facility 406 DM09 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Rolling Pipe Sound I don't think I've ever heard a rolling pipe sound over a repeater, although, once I had some interesting feedback from an SSB transmitter with FM receiver. Is there a good clean recording available?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Rolling Pipe Sound
Just catchingup on this... yes the infamous rolling pipe sound. We had an issue with a link receiver that occassionaly would get hung-up in a loop, low audio but the correct PL. We switched from PL to DCT on the links and that solved the problem. We spent a year hunting for the source but no joy. Good Luck, dave WA3GIN W4AVA Trustee - Original Message - From: offtracks1 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 5:25 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Rolling Pipe Sound No worries, the more info the better. Echoproducer is the Bees Knees if you are running echolink. It is one very impressive and free program. Peter has put a lot of work into it. Scott --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Tony KT9AC kt...@... wrote:
[Repeater-Builder] FOR SALE RKR-2 w/ control head and Mic
Best off + shipping. Please respond direct. 73, dave wa3gin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Time for GOD
Someone should suggest a new yahoo group where folks who want to post comments about off topic comments can use to discuss, debate, rant, etc. This would leave the opt-in group free to continue posts of interest with out the distraction of off topic discussions. I'm on several groups and have replaced worn out delete keys more than I would like ;-) - Original Message - From: James Adkins To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Time for GOD We do still have freedom of speech and freedom of religion in this country. Feel free to use your delete button if it offends you. On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Richard gbis-reply-...@gbis.com wrote: Well, it certainly is off topic, but you should have more of an open mind. After all, people are entitled to their opinions, and to be able to speak their minds. Richard www.n7tgb.net It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. --Samuel Adams From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hfarrenkopf Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:55 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Time for GOD What is this crap on here? Please ban the originator. Delusional stuff is not welcomed by me! There are no gawds BTW! -- James Adkins, KB0NHX Vice-President -- Nixa Amateur Radio Club, Inc. (KC0LUN) Southern Missouri Frequency Coordinator - Missouri Repeater Council www.nixahams.net The Nixa Amateur Radio Club - There is no charge for awesomeness! (Well, only $1.00 per month)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God
Hey, there are plenty of religious reflectors. I wonder how receptive they would be if I started posting excerpts from CELWAVE manuals or Motorola user guides? Some one said it earlier...there is a time and place for eveything... - Original Message - From: Jerry W9FS To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 11:02 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God I thank God for all the technical expertise on this reflector, I am not offended, I feel ashamed that I haven't contributed any of my knowledge, let's take a look at reality and just be thankful we have technical people that believe in God and be thankful for those that don't. I think God would say that's Okay. Jerry W9FS Of ki4zji Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:29 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God
Re: [Repeater-Builder] kendecom repeaters on 220
We had a Mark 4 on 2m, for many years. Transmit audio the best we ever heard. Rec was fine. The Controller was Old school but it did what it said it would. For a Military repeater converted for the commercial marketplace in the 70s I think they did an OK job. You can still get service for them too! Anyone looking to buy a 2m Mark 4 in great condition; to play with or as a back-up or for a portable unit, email me direct. We upgraded to Kenwood TKR. Nice, easy to program but the audio doesn't come close to the Kendicom's. 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] kendecom repeaters on 220 At 10/18/2009 10:28 AM, you wrote: Hey guys, I'm working with a group and have given them several suggestions for repeaters on 220 including hipro, ge, moto, etc. One thing i don't know much about is the kendecom, and thought i would ask since they want to know. As far as relyability, good, bad? In a word, bad. The RXs are salvageable, do have some strong points. The internal squelch is NG IMO needs to be replaced, preferably with a Micor squelch. The TXs internal controller are junk. Best bet for 220 is a converted GE or Micor, or find a Midland 13-509 to split apart. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] kendecom repeaters on 220
WIerd, I've had this email address for over ten years and been getting email all day. Is there a space between Comast and .net. It looks like you may have inserted a space which would have caused the error message to be sent. What's up, dave - Original Message - From: MR. B To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] kendecom repeaters on 220 Dave, I sent a note to your calls...@comcast.net and received this return: Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: Recipient address: wa3...@comcast.net Reason: Illegal host/domain name foundPlease send me contact information -- Thank You, Ron WA3GIN wrote: We had a Mark 4 on 2m, for many years. Transmit audio the best we ever heard. Rec was fine. The Controller was Old school but it did what it said it would. For a Military repeater converted for the commercial marketplace in the 70s I think they did an OK job. You can still get service for them too! Anyone looking to buy a 2m Mark 4 in great condition; to play with or as a back-up or for a portable unit, email me direct. We upgraded to Kenwood TKR. Nice, easy to program but the audio doesn't come close to the Kendicom's. 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] kendecom repeaters on 220 At 10/18/2009 10:28 AM, you wrote: Hey guys, I'm working with a group and have given them several suggestions for repeaters on 220 including hipro, ge, moto, etc. One thing i don't know much about is the kendecom, and thought i would ask since they want to know. As far as relyability, good, bad? In a word, bad. The RXs are salvageable, do have some strong points. The internal squelch is NG IMO needs to be replaced, preferably with a Micor squelch. The TXs internal controller are junk. Best bet for 220 is a converted GE or Micor, or find a Midland 13-509 to split apart. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Question on portable repeaters
Yeah, Much lest costly to build a suitcase salellite receiver... - Original Message - From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Question on portable repeaters At 10/9/2009 06:32, you wrote: I applaud the desire to build a special event 2-meter portable repeater. I honestly think that most well-intentioned groups don't understand the technical difficulty to accomplish this task without spending a lot of money. However, it begs the question -- isn't there an existing, nearby 2-meter repeater that could be used? Chuck WB2EDV In my case, sadly, no. Yeah, you'd think in the heart of the 2nd largest city in the US that there'd be a lot of HT-accessible repeaters to use. But at the time I set out to build my first 2 meter portable system, only ONE 2 meter repeater had adequate coverage along the 26.2 mile LA Marathon course. ONE! At the time, the course roughly ran a circle with its eastern-most point in downtown LA. So we needed HT coverage in downtown, Hollywood, the Fairfax district, the Coliseum. Aside from the high building density in a few areas (not many - we don't have lots of highrises like NYC Chicago), this shouldn't have been a difficult area to cover. Certainly there were a lot of repeaters that could be HEARD in the target area, but most were not HT-accessible. The situation is a little better now on 2 meters but still to this day there is a 220 repeater that should cover the whole course, in fact can be heard solidly along the whole route, but has a deaf RX apparently the owner doesn't want to fix it. So we ignore it use our own system installed specifically for the event. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] De-sense question
Hi, First thing. Remove the preamp. Those things are only useful after you have a tight working system. Otherwise they can pick noise and that is all you'll hear. To get started, start simple. Be sure the antenna is tight. We use the G7 and found one that came loss at the place where the sections screw together the symtom is crackly noise on all signals. Probably won't see it on SWR meter. Good Luck, dave - Original Message - From: jmp46534 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 2:36 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] De-sense question Hi, I have read the large majority of messages on here and the Repeater builders site, and I am still lost. This is the first time I have worked with a repeater in my 30 year ham career and am learning something new everyday.. We installed a GE Mastr II running into pre-amp, a BandPass and then a 6 can duplexer. The antenna is Hustler G7-144 and 1/2in hardline up 65 feet. The duplexer was set up with service monitor at the test site prior to installing it here. When I go above 10 watts out all we hear from the users is a lot noise and very little voice. As the power goes higher (when radio heats up) the noise gets so bad that we can not make out a thing the people are saying. The SWR between the radio and the duplexer is 1.1 at 5 w and 1.15 at 7.5 watts. Of course as we go up in power to 20 watts out we have 1.3 SWR. On the antenna side of the duplexer the SWR goes up to 1.4 at 20 watts and 1.2 at 7 watts and very little at 5watts (meter hardly moves). I am thinking it is either the hardline or connectors and/or antenna. The antenna and hardline are used. The connectors despite being new are very hard to put on. The guy that installed them even had to use pliers on the tower to attach the connector up there and I have to use pliers to get it tight on the duplexer. Any suggestions on how to fix this? Thanks and 73 John, W3ML
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wireless electricity
They are using 9.XXXMHz. Its in the video. - Original Message - From: m...@highwayusa.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wireless electricity I saw something on TV where they were using microwave to beam power. They were doing a 60 mile shot to prove they could beam it from space. The thought is solar panels in space and beam it back to earth. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -- From: Rich Osman Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:51:45 -0500 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wireless electricity Hard for me to understand how you can have an H field and no E field. JOHN MACKEY wrote: that's what I was thinking, it has to be RF. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:07:09 PM PDT From: Ted Leonard n2...@verizon.net mailto:n2isq%40verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wireless electricity Makes ya wonder, supposedly it is a magnetic field that does the deed but the fact that there is an inductor and cap in each side there is resonance someplace. Sounds like RF to me. Ted Chuck Kelsey wrote: My first question is what frequency does it operate on and, then, what kind of RFI will it cause? Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* tracomm mailto:trac...@yahoo.com mailto:tracomm%40yahoo.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, September 06, 2009 9:55 AM *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Wireless electricity Interesting video, worth the time. Wireless electricity, quite interesting. Pass it on... http://tinyurl.com/muwom9 http://tinyurl.com/muwom9 -- mailto:o...@ozindfw.net Oz POB 93167 Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport)
[Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Looking for opinions. Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area. Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone freq. Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each other? Thanks, dave wa3gin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NHRC 3+ CW ID'ing problem
You can email the vendor, even on the weekends. He is very helpful and responsivel - Original Message - From: va3wxm To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 3:21 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] NHRC 3+ CW ID'ing problem We recently put a new 6m repeater on the air using a NHRC 3+ controller. We programmed in the CW ID and set an interval of 10 minutes (the controller responded OK when we set it). However, the CW ID is not working at the desired interval and, actually, seems kind of random as to when the repeater ID's. Other than this issue, the repeater and controller are working fine. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to address this problem? Thanks.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing. Here in NOVA 146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite sides of WDC. Coverage is about the same. .625 users frequently bring up the .610 machine due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610 machine had the same PL tone there would be no benefit from using the PL tone. Seems there is always an exception to the rule ;-) 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters At 8/30/2009 09:57, you wrote: When area plans show something like repeaters in this area all use CTCSS tone X I always cringe a little. Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local repeaters. Bob NO6B Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on? Because many repeaters don't repeat CTCSS. Also some older radios don't scan CTCSS decode very well. I think the one CTCSS in an area is just a leftover from the time when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs. No one needs this feature in area repeaters anymore. No, SoCal (TASMA) just adopted a regional CTCSS plan. In some way/places it was simply a formal acknowledgement of what some regions had already implemented, but in others we had a mishmash of different open tone standards that had nothing to do with trying to avoid other system tone freqs. On 440, many repeaters in this area use the same CTCSS freq. At one site I know of about a dozen repeaters all use the same tone; AFAIK none of them bother each other. If they did, I'm sure they would quickly find the source (since it would be another ham's system) fix the actual problem, rather than mask it with CTCSS as others have pointed out. (No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a system where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different tones for decades. We never went with the popular, silly idea that different tones are somehow difficult for someone who knows how to operate their rig.) Perhaps that's one reason why I didn't try out many systems last time I passed through the Denver area. IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency somewhere. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available?
The RACES freqs. have been closed down for some time now. Just no need for them. It wouldn't surprise me if MARS freqs. for hams also disappears. - Original Message - From: Chuck Kelsey To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available? There used to be RACES frequencies, but I think that provision went away years ago. Not sure. Chuck WB2EDV Recent Activity a.. 17New Members b.. 1New Files Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Yes that is what you get, take it or leave it. So, different PLs do have a place in the game in situations such as this. Its not a technology issue, just luck of the draw. - Original Message - From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters At 8/30/2009 14:34, you wrote: Recent Activity a.. 18New Members b.. 1New Files Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
...unforatunately we don't exist in a perfect world...so waxing the 1973 Jeep works good enough and is less expensive than repainting it...different PLs in the case in point masks the deffecency well enough to allow relatively good repeater services to coexistance under less than ideal circumstances. In fact the other repeater guys have refused to activate PL but they do transmit a different PL so their users can simply turn up their squelch and operate happily ever after. OH WELL ;-)) - Original Message - From: MCH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters If there is interference with the same tones, there is interference with different ones, too. Again, proper engineering (coordination in this case) is a necessary first step, and selecting different CTCSS tones to mask a problem is not a solution. Overdeviation? Another engineering deficiency. Although the 15 kHz channels don't help, either. Still, they can be overcome to some degree. Still waiting for a reason that doesn't involve compromised engineering. Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing. Here in NOVA 146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite sides of WDC. Coverage is about the same. .625 users frequently bring up the .610 machine due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610 machine had the same PL tone there would be no benefit from using the PL tone. Seems there is always an exception to the rule ;-) 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - *From:* n...@no6b.com mailto:n...@no6b.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:00 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters At 8/30/2009 09:57, you wrote: When area plans show something like repeaters in this area all use CTCSS tone X I always cringe a little. Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local repeaters. Bob NO6B Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on? Because many repeaters don't repeat CTCSS. Also some older radios don't scan CTCSS decode very well. I think the one CTCSS in an area is just a leftover from the time when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs. No one needs this feature in area repeaters anymore. No, SoCal (TASMA) just adopted a regional CTCSS plan. In some way/places it was simply a formal acknowledgement of what some regions had already implemented, but in others we had a mishmash of different open tone standards that had nothing to do with trying to avoid other system tone freqs. On 440, many repeaters in this area use the same CTCSS freq. At one site I know of about a dozen repeaters all use the same tone; AFAIK none of them bother each other. If they did, I'm sure they would quickly find the source (since it would be another ham's system) fix the actual problem, rather than mask it with CTCSS as others have pointed out. (No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a system where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different tones for decades. We never went with the popular, silly idea that different tones are somehow difficult for someone who knows how to operate their rig.) Perhaps that's one reason why I didn't try out many systems last time I passed through the Denver area. IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency somewhere. Bob NO6B -- Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 07/31/09 05:58:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
Couldn't agree more with you Joe. In all of the WDC area we are the only two repeaters that have such close spacing..we're special, haha. We've asked other repeater owners, those low power low antenna, small coverage operators who wouldn't be bothered by the close spacing to trade but seems folks are more interested in hording their repeater freqs. or should I say personal intercom systems or just too lazy to want to go through the changes. 73, dave - Original Message - From: MCH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters As long as you know that the problem still exists... As for the perfect world, if you accept imperfection, it never will be. I take it the root of the problem is that these two repeaters were coordinated too close together? Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: ... Recent Activity a.. 19New Members b.. 1New Files Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
4 miles - Original Message - From: MCH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters What kind of spacing are we talking, out of curiosity? Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: Couldn't agree more with you Joe. In all of the WDC area we are the only two repeaters that have such close spacing..we're special, haha. We've asked other repeater owners, those low power low antenna, small coverage operators who wouldn't be bothered by the close spacing to trade but seems folks are more interested in hording their repeater freqs. or should I say personal intercom systems or just too lazy to want to go through the changes. 73, dave - Original Message - *From:* MCH mailto:m...@nb.net *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:50 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters As long as you know that the problem still exists... As for the perfect world, if you accept imperfection, it never will be. I take it the root of the problem is that these two repeaters were coordinated too close together? Joe M. WA3GIN wrote: ... .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available?
RIght they are just MARS frequencies...I get confused because here MARS holds HAMCRAM classes on weekends and then issues MARS CALL SIGNS. - Original Message - From: David Murman To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:05 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available? There are NO MARS frequencies for HAMS. David -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:44 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available? The RACES freqs. have been closed down for some time now. Just no need for them. It wouldn't surprise me if MARS freqs. for hams also disappears. - Original Message - From: Chuck Kelsey To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available? There used to be RACES frequencies, but I think that provision went away years ago. Not sure. Chuck WB2EDV .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: KT1B Commentary on Green Petition to Ban Closed Repeaters
I'm not aware of any closed repeaters in the WDC area. In the VA-Md-DC area perhaps a half dozen noted as (c) by T-MARC. There are dozens of repeaters in the WDC area that go unused day after day after day with a little use in the evenings by a few hand fulls of civil defense volunteers. There is no spectrum use issue. Perhaps as the commentator noted, there are too many low power repeater pairs that perhaps preclude the installation of better coverage systems. I tend to think there are some that hog freq. pairs purely for egocentric reasons. SO, where is the beef - MURRAY? Who cares if there are a few closed repeaters? Not me. What I'd like to see is the GMRA provisioning PL on their repeater which is just 15KHz down from ours. As trustee I get tired of silly request from the GMRA asking us to do something about our users who occassionaly bring up their OPEN NON PL'd repeater ;-)) My subjective opinion of one...please flame direct and spare the reflector members ;-) 73, dave wa3gin www.w4ava.org
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: KT1B Commentary on Green Petition to Ban Closed Repeaters
Thanks for the info, I suspect the FCC is going to frustrate him further. Best, dave - Original Message - From: Dan Blasberg To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: KT1B Commentary on Green Petition to Ban Closed Repeaters Dave, I think Murray has an issue with repeaters that have a PL but not advertising the pl in any of their announcements. I'm not aware of any closed repeaters in Metro DC either, but I am aware of several with PL that do not have it on the ID/Announcement. As for GMRA and PL, they have a transmit PL on the repeaters and the members can activate receive PL on their radios so as not to get any bleed over from other repeaters on the same frequencies. I too wish they would have a PL on both of their machines. Dan KA8YPY On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:27 PM, WA3GIN wrote: I'm not aware of any closed repeaters in the WDC area. In the VA-Md- DC area perhaps a half dozen noted as (c) by T-MARC. There are dozens of repeaters in the WDC area that go unused day after day after day with a little use in the evenings by a few hand fulls of civil defense volunteers. There is no spectrum use issue. Perhaps as the commentator noted, there are too many low power repeater pairs that perhaps preclude the installation of better coverage systems. I tend to think there are some that hog freq. pairs purely for egocentric reasons. SO, where is the beef - MURRAY? Who cares if there are a few closed repeaters? Not me. What I'd like to see is the GMRA provisioning PL on their repeater which is just 15KHz down from ours. As trustee I get tired of silly request from the GMRA asking us to do something about our users who occassionaly bring up their OPEN NON PL'd repeater ;-)) My subjective opinion of one...please flame direct and spare the reflector members ;-) 73, dave wa3gin www.w4ava.org
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeaters and Water Towers
Lots of good advise from the guys here ... For sure ones chances of achieving attachment rights and equipment colocation at local or county facilities improves significantly if there is a government executive who sponsors the relationship. A radio club or a Auxiliary Communications Service (ACS) that is willing to support Public Safety is an ideal scenario that is promoted by DHS/FEMA and the FCC. If your local jurisdiction has an Office of Emergency Management you are going to have a much easier time having this discussion because the chances will be good that the OEM director is aware of the value of ACS. If you get familiar with National Incident Management System (NIMS) you'll discover that amateur radio is actually noted and jurisdictions that want to be certified as FEMA NIMS compliant will want the additional point score that comes with having an ACS as part of their EMCOM back-up plan. It is a two-way street. The government wants something from you and you want something from them. If your club is willing to organize an ACS and let the jurisdiction sponsor and supervise the group as it relates to ACS the chances are good you'll have all the access to the needed facilities. DHS awareds grant funds to jurisdictions and to improve the chances to qualify certain DHS guidance must be met. Recommendations to fence and secure water supply and sewer facilities was one of the early guidances from DHS. Those guidances don't preclude volunteer amateur radio repeater systems. The jurisdiction has the ultimate authority and the FEDS actually do try not to cross that line. If someone is telling you that DHS doesn't allow the use of the water tower for a ham repeater they are just blowing you off. That type statement is just silly talk. NIMS is structured and it defines functions and relationships that help the jurisdiction organize emergency response. There are defined groups called Emergency Support Functions or ESFs. ESF # 2 is titled Communications. ESF # 2 is responsible to provide voice, data, and video services to the Incident Command, EOC, and government agencies. Depending on the incident ESF # 2 would also be responsible to provide ACS, if needed. So, if you want access to those cherry government locations you might get up to speed on NIMS, ESF2, set-up an ACS team and then approach your local Fire, Police Chief or OEM director or coordinator... OH, it really really helps if you can find a ham or two that work for the local government; that have a good reputation within the government; are a member of your group, and are willing to make the introduction to the Chiefs and act as the liaison to your ACS. A prime example of a successful ACS is the ARPSC RACES team, Arlington County, VA. www.w4ava.org. 73, dave wa3gin ARLCO RACES Officer - Original Message - From: Chuck Kelsey To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeaters and Water Towers Then you need to educate that board member, maybe the entire board. This is a very common problem. Board members typically are not in tune with regulatory issues and operational requirements. And some board members can be very stubborn about their authority. You might want to get in contact with your County or State health department for some additional educational assistance. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: kc8fwd kc8...@hotmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:17 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeaters and Water Towers This is a two meter repeater.This town is so small the water board run by the town has one employee to do all work.The County gave the club 14,000 Dollars to buy everything new.We have everything new.One guy in the club said he knew how to run and hook up a repeater and had everything all messed up repeater was outputting 10 watts when it will do 50 watts continuous it is a Icom FR-3000 said the controller was fried and all I did was reset it and reprogram it a cat 1000.Antenna had over a 3:1 swr and he said it was fine I took antenna down is a Hustler and he tightened the clamp so tight the worm clamp busted.I fixed the antenna and all is well.We went to a town council meeting and one council member brought up the homeland security thing and that was all it took. 73 de Mike KC8FWD
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeaters and Water Towers
Also, check in with you buddies in the surrounding jurisdictions. Sometimes, if the county board sees what the others are doing they are more open to the concept. What ever you do, don't flame them. This is where you bide your time and be very respectful and patient. You can kick a tree later, after you get what you want from them. Find the county board member that represents your area of town and invite him or her over to your home for dinner and a demo of ham radio. Get your club to run a drill or exercise net during the visit. It usually doesn't take to much. You just need to get their attention. Let the guy know that your volunteers will be trained according to what the OEM coordinator wants, specifically meeting the requirements of the jurisdiction, not some generic national plan that is watered down so any new no code tech can pass the exam and get his patch. Consider developing a custom training program from 3-5 one hour segments that you can vet with the OEM coordinator, etc. That shows a real commitment to supporting the government's needs ... Good Luck, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: Eric Lemmon To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:26 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeaters and Water Towers Don't bother finding another route! By congressional decree, Amateur Radio is PART OF Homeland Security, and someone needs to educate those idiots at City Hall. Go here for info: www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/10/04/100/?nc=1 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kc8fwd Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:12 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeaters and Water Towers 80 percent of the club is cert and has nims 100 200 and other certifications.Our OEM IS a ham and is ec for arrl .Next the county give us the funding for the repeater but as soon as the city had someone mention Homeland security it was over.We are going to try and find another route.thanks everybody for all the info it has helped de Mike KC8FWD
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeaters and Water Towers
Hmmm, We've put up satellite receivers on state towers within 10 miles of the Whitel House with no interaction or interference from Homeland Security??? Maybe because we're using GOV. towers were everything is already regulated and controlled. We had a lot of paperwork to fill-out but it was worth the time and effort. Good Luck, dave wa3gin www.w4ava.org - Original Message - From: ccour79992 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:22 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeaters and Water Towers Homeland security, as a plan, has an influence in almost everything these days. However, the department of homeland security usually only suggests guidelines for the municipalities to follow. In our area, the local government owns the water tank and is responsible for its operation and security. If amateur radio is on good terms (via ARES or other support function) with the local government, they may accomodate you. Keep in mind, water tanks can be quite difficult to outfit with a repeater system especially if nothing else like cellular is already located on it. Depending on the tank design, there may not be a shelter to put equipment or electricity if its filled by pumps elsewhere. There may be no way to even mount an antenna and they wont let you weld or drill in it. Check over the logistics thoroughly before even bothering to ask. However, a tank is a great ground plane and our digipeater does quite well from ours. 73 Chris-KC4CMR --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kc8fwd kc8...@... wrote: Hello, Has anyone had experience with repeaters at water tower sites now that homeland security is involved? I would like to hear your experience. Thanks Mike KC8FWD
Re: [Repeater-Builder] ENHANCED RECEIVE
Mike, Pre-amps are fine if you need to reduce feedline and connector loss, for those lucky few that have antennas way up on commercial towers and have significant loss. Otherwise, nada. Signal to noise is not improved and can be effected negatively. Pre-amps can also be easily overloaded by pager and other nearby signals. Lastly, the pre-amps are physically sensitive devices when it comes to EMP...IMHO. If you want to improved receive capture area or coverage think satellite receivers. 73, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:43 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] ENHANCED RECEIVE At 07:47 PM 08/18/09, you wrote: I have heard of repeater owners using pre-amps on the receive side of the duplexer and adding 1 pass-reject cavity after the preamp and placing a pre-amp on the pass reject cavity to enhance more receive. Does this work or is it a myth? Artie k2aau Depends on if you have enough headroom in the duplexer and enough system isolation. http://www.repeater-builder.com/rbtip/preamps.html While this is on 900MHz the theory and comments are just as applicable on 2m, 220 and 440. http://www.repeater-builder.com/tech-info/speaking-of-preamps.html
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Portable repeater
Allen, Just for fun our club set-up a 250watt repeater w/o cans. We installed the transmit antenna on the roof top of the building. One floor down (its a tiered roof) we installed the receive antenna. We positioned the two antenna so that they were physically separated by the structure. The transmit antenna had full benefit of the highest point on the roof and the receive antenna had open views of about 270 degrees. We achieved about 100db attenuation. It was a compromise on receive but using the building structure allowed the two antennas to be about 70ft apart horizontally and 20ft vertically. It was a net experiment. We eventually installed six cans and used the receive antenna for another project. So, maybe you could use two antennas. Pick a street corner and use the building on the corner as your attenuation device ;-) Good Luck, dave wa3gin www.w4ava.org
