Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely

[Pointman]

Make sure you Full PL BOTH tx and rxers. I have had great luck with this 
method. At least with the Motorolas I use as soon as the input signal is 
dropped, the no squelch tall...and therefore no constant keying.
de KM3W

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Nate Duehr  wrote:

From: Nate Duehr 
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 5:50 AM















 
 



  



  
  
  

On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Jerry wrote:



> There have been times when during events it would have been great if two 
> different repeaters had been linked. I've been kicking around the idea of a 
> portable repeater linker consisting of one VHF Radius, one UHF Radius, and a 
> RICK controller in the crossband mode. I've talked to the different repeater 
> owners and they have given me permission to give my idea a try.

> 

> The 'linker' works great the first time. The receiver radio hears the output 
> of the first repeater and keys the transmitter radio which keys up the 
> repeater. The problem comes in when the transmitter unkeys. The receiver 
> radio hears the tail of the second repeater and keys up. When the second 
> machine drops, the transmitter radio hears the tail of it's repeater and keys 
> up. This continues FOREVER. 

> 

> Does anyone have any ideas or additional logic I can add to solve this 
> problem?

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> Jerry



Kinda.



First... the idea Matthew offered will work.  CTCSS on user signal received on 
both repeaters.  Kinda.



Problem: ID's.  The RICK isn't properly ID'ing the "link" transmitters.



Many of us have been down this path on the list.  It'll lead to an annoying 
discussion of Part 97 if we go too far down that road.  But you DO need to ID 
every transmitter.  'Nuff said.



Best way: Put a dedicated link TX/RX at each repeater site or some sort of VoIP 
linking on its own controller port.  In-band RF linking on the user input 
frequencies is a kludge at best.  It can double with users, and has other 
timing problems...



If you MUST link in-band, make the link margin (RF power) high enough that if 
the link doubles with someone, the LINK wins and captures the repeater receiver 
well enough that at least one of the transmissions can be heard by all...



---

Nate Duehr, WY0X

n...@natetech. com






 





 



  











  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Jerry wrote:

> There have been times when during events it would have been great if two 
> different repeaters had been linked. I've been kicking around the idea of a 
> portable repeater linker consisting of one VHF Radius, one UHF Radius, and a 
> RICK controller in the crossband mode. I've talked to the different repeater 
> owners and they have given me permission to give my idea a try.
> 
> The 'linker' works great the first time. The receiver radio hears the output 
> of the first repeater and keys the transmitter radio which keys up the 
> repeater. The problem comes in when the transmitter unkeys. The receiver 
> radio hears the tail of the second repeater and keys up. When the second 
> machine drops, the transmitter radio hears the tail of it's repeater and keys 
> up. This continues FOREVER. 
> 
> Does anyone have any ideas or additional logic I can add to solve this 
> problem?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jerry

Kinda.

First... the idea Matthew offered will work.  CTCSS on user signal received on 
both repeaters.  Kinda.

Problem: ID's.  The RICK isn't properly ID'ing the "link" transmitters.

Many of us have been down this path on the list.  It'll lead to an annoying 
discussion of Part 97 if we go too far down that road.  But you DO need to ID 
every transmitter.  'Nuff said.

Best way: Put a dedicated link TX/RX at each repeater site or some sort of VoIP 
linking on its own controller port.  In-band RF linking on the user input 
frequencies is a kludge at best.  It can double with users, and has other 
timing problems...

If you MUST link in-band, make the link margin (RF power) high enough that if 
the link doubles with someone, the LINK wins and captures the repeater receiver 
well enough that at least one of the transmissions can be heard by all...

---
Nate Duehr, WY0X
n...@natetech.com

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely

[Matthew Kaufman]

Jerry wrote:
> There have been times when during events it would have been great if two 
> different repeaters had been linked.  I've been kicking around the idea of a 
> portable repeater linker consisting of one VHF Radius, one UHF Radius, and a 
> RICK controller in the crossband mode.  I've talked to the different repeater 
> owners and they have given me permission to give my idea a try.
>
> The 'linker' works great the first time.  The receiver radio hears the output 
> of the first repeater and keys the transmitter radio which keys up the 
> repeater.  The problem comes in when the transmitter unkeys.  The receiver 
> radio hears the tail of the second repeater and keys up.  When the second 
> machine drops, the transmitter radio hears the tail of it's repeater and keys 
> up.  This continues FOREVER.  
>
> Does anyone have any ideas or additional logic I can add to solve this 
> problem?
>   
The repeaters in question need to be configured to transmit CTCSS *only* 
when carrier is present and not during the tail, as is often done when 
using on-channel RF links for IRLP.

Matthew Kaufman

[Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely

[Jerry]

There have been times when during events it would have been great if two 
different repeaters had been linked.  I've been kicking around the idea of a 
portable repeater linker consisting of one VHF Radius, one UHF Radius, and a 
RICK controller in the crossband mode.  I've talked to the different repeater 
owners and they have given me permission to give my idea a try.

The 'linker' works great the first time.  The receiver radio hears the output 
of the first repeater and keys the transmitter radio which keys up the 
repeater.  The problem comes in when the transmitter unkeys.  The receiver 
radio hears the tail of the second repeater and keys up.  When the second 
machine drops, the transmitter radio hears the tail of it's repeater and keys 
up.  This continues FOREVER.  

Does anyone have any ideas or additional logic I can add to solve this problem?

Thanks,

Jerry
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking

[Brian Raker]

Get a good notch filter on the link radio, that should take care of you.

-BR/KF4ZWZ

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM, kerinvale  wrote:

>
>
>   Hi guys.I would like to throw a interesting question to the forum.I have
> several uhf repeaters with links to our central hub .
> .one site receives on 479.350 and transmits on 474.150 through a 6ld450s
> diplexer into a 6db antenna mounted 9 meters above the repeater site and we
> have a 3 watt link radio transmitting on 481.825mhz through a 12db beam (at
> ground level) aimed to our hub site .The repeater works fine on its own
> however the link is the problem .My question would be Would I get more
> separation between the link and the receiver if I change the link
> transmitter up to say 500hz or should I move the link antenna away from the
> site.I suppose the question is would I get more separation by changing the
> link frequency or wouldn't it matter what frequency the link is on ,the link
> TX energy would still affect the repeater.
>
>  
> Thank You,
> Ian Wells,
> Kerinvale Comaudio,
> 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
> Ph 0749922449 or 0409159932 or 0749922574
> www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
>
>
>
>
>
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Linking

[kerinvale]

Hi guys.I would like to throw a interesting question to the forum.I have
several uhf repeaters with links to our central hub .
.one site receives on 479.350 and transmits on 474.150 through a 6ld450s
diplexer into a 6db antenna mounted 9 meters above the repeater site and we
have a 3 watt link radio transmitting on 481.825mhz through a 12db beam (at
ground level) aimed to our hub site .The repeater works fine on its own
however the link is the problem .My question would be Would I get more
separation between the link and the receiver if I change the link
transmitter up to say 500hz or should I move the link antenna away from the
site.I suppose the question is would I get more separation by changing the
link frequency or wouldn't it matter what frequency the link is on ,the link
TX energy would still affect the repeater. 

 
Thank You,
Ian Wells,
Kerinvale Comaudio,
361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
Ph 0749922449 or 0409159932 or 0749922574
www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
 
 


 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking and interference problem

[John Godfrey]

I think some kind of filter like you mention is what I need. What I have
done at this time is turned the squelch all the way tight on the link radio
receiver, and we still have a strong signal from a constant source, and it
has no problem breaking the squelch. This way when we unkey, the intermod or
whatever it is will not hold the squelch open. Sometimes I still hear it for
like 50ms after I unkey like a dirty courtesy tone. I can live with it "as
is" for a little while, however because as long as there is audio, you can't
here anything but clear audio. I will be on the lookout for such a filter as
you describe, but I don't know where to start looking.
 
 

73 de  John Godfrey
KE5NZY BARC Pres.
DISTRICT B ADEC
ASTEN NM




-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Transue
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:54 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking and interference problem





John,

I agree with Larry that the problem is that you have transmitter and
receiver too close in frequency and in separation distance. I am not an
expert, but I think you might try using a couple notch filters; i.e.
notch the receive frequency out of the transmitter and notch the
transmitter frequency out of the receiver. Also, you could reduce the
transmitter power to a minimum acceptable, and you could go to a highly
directional antenna for the link receiver. Maybe you could orient the
directional link antenna to put the transmit antenna in a null. 

Good luck,
John T.

>-Original Message-
>From: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
>buil...@yahoogroups <mailto:Builder%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On Behalf Of
John Godfrey
>Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:42 AM
>To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking and interference problem
>
>I was hoping you can help our club with a repeater link problem. What
>we
>have are all GE master 2 stuff. Here is what we have going on. we
>have
>had for years a 147.270 + repeater that works great.
>
>Last year we added a link into a central state repeater system using
>a link radio on
>one of our ports. It transmits on 442.025 and receives on 443.2. For
>six
>months we have used the link fine without problems. Last week we
>installed on another port a uhf repeater to be used as a hub for the
>north central part of our state to also link to us and the central
>state
>system. The UHF Repeater receives on 449.750 and transmits on
>444.750.
>We can link the 270 to either the link to central state or the UHF
>repeater hub with no problems, but when we link the 270 to both or
>just
>link the UHF repeater to the link radio, once the UHF repeater is
>keyed
>up, the input on the link radio is hearing it so we have an awful
>squeal
>and intermod back into the 270.
>
>There is also a pager at the location that I can hear when this
>happens but not any other time. Again they work fine as long as both
>UHF machines are not in use at the same time. When the 270 is linked
>into Central state, even if the UHF repeater is not linked in, if you
>key the UHF repeater you here the squeal on the 270. I can see how as
>the link input goes out over the 270 when they are linked. I am not
>sure why I can also here it on the UHF repeater when I unkey it, even
>if it isn't linked in. Other than the last part of that it would make
>since to ne that I have the two 440 antennas to close. We have them
>about 10 feet apart, but the one can't go higher and the other can't
>go lower and still serve the purpose needed.
>
>I am thinking I need some kind of filter, that I can put on the link
>radio,
>that will protect it from the transmit of the UHF repeater. In other
>words the 444.750 is coming in my receive on the 443.2. Changing freq
>is
>not an option due to several reasons. If I had a filter of some sort,
>that would either allow say 442-443.5 to pass and attenuate
>everything
>else that would be great. Or something that would pass 442-443.5 and
>attenuate everything above 443.5, then that would work. Guys, what am
>I
>looking for and where might I find it. Must I build something that is
>this custom, or can I buy it. If I must build it, where should I
>start.
>If I can buy it,, where from and what would they call it.
>
>If my thoughts are off base, please help me to know what other
>questions I
>need to answer to solve such a problem as this. I thought maybe the
>pager was just interfering, but why would the 270 work fine when
>linked
>to the link radio, or linked to the UHF repeater, and the only time
>we
>have 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking and interference problem

[John Transue]

John,

I agree with Larry that the problem is that you have transmitter and
receiver too close in frequency and in separation distance. I am not an
expert, but I think you might try using a couple notch filters; i.e.
notch the receive frequency out of the transmitter and notch the
transmitter frequency out of the receiver. Also, you could reduce the
transmitter power to a minimum acceptable, and you could go to a highly
directional antenna for the link receiver. Maybe you could orient the
directional link antenna to put the transmit antenna in a null. 

Good luck,
John T.

>-Original Message-
>From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
>buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Godfrey
>Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:42 AM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking and interference problem
>
>I was hoping you can help our club with a repeater link problem. What
>we
>have are all GE master 2 stuff. Here is what we have going on. we
>have
>had for years a 147.270 + repeater that works great.
>
>Last year we added a link into a central state repeater system using
>a link radio on
>one of our ports. It transmits on 442.025 and receives on 443.2. For
>six
>months we have used the link fine without problems. Last week we
>installed on another port a uhf repeater to be used as a hub for the
>north central part of our state to also link to us and the central
>state
>system. The UHF Repeater receives on 449.750 and transmits on
>444.750.
>We can link the 270 to either the link to central state or the UHF
>repeater hub with no problems, but when we link the 270 to both or
>just
>link the UHF repeater to the link radio, once the UHF repeater is
>keyed
>up, the input on the link radio is hearing it so we have an awful
>squeal
>and intermod back into the 270.
>
>There is also a pager at the location that I can hear when this
>happens but not any other time. Again they work fine as long as both
>UHF machines are not in use at the same time. When the 270 is linked
>into Central state, even if the UHF repeater is not linked in, if you
>key the UHF repeater you here the squeal on the 270. I can see how as
>the link input goes out over the 270 when they are linked. I am not
>sure why I can also here it on the UHF repeater when I unkey it, even
>if it isn't linked in. Other than the last part of that it would make
>since to ne that I have the two 440 antennas to close. We have them
>about 10 feet apart, but the one can't go higher and  the other can't
>go lower and still serve the purpose needed.
>
>I am thinking I need some kind of filter, that I can put on the link
>radio,
>that will protect it from the transmit of the UHF repeater. In other
>words the 444.750 is coming in my receive on the 443.2. Changing freq
>is
>not an option due to several reasons. If I had a filter of some sort,
>that would either allow say 442-443.5 to pass and attenuate
>everything
>else that would be great. Or something that would pass 442-443.5 and
>attenuate everything above 443.5, then that would work. Guys, what am
>I
>looking for and where might I find it. Must I build something that is
>this custom, or can I buy it. If I must build it, where should I
>start.
>If I can buy it,, where from and what would they call it.
>
>If my thoughts are off base, please help me to know what other
>questions I
>need to answer to solve such a problem as this. I thought maybe the
>pager was just interfering, but why would the 270 work fine when
>linked
>to the link radio, or linked to the UHF repeater, and the only time
>we
>have the problem is when the 270 is linked to the link radio and the
>UHF
>repeater is keyed up, regardless of whether the UHF repeater is
>linked
>in or not.
>
>I know my question is long, but m hope was to explain the
>problem with enough detail that you might have an answer for me.
>
>Your help would be greatly appreciated by our Club.
>73 de  John Godfrey
>KE5NZY BARC Pres.
>DISTRICT B ADEC
>ASTEN NM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>__ NOD32 4043 (20090429) Information __
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking and interference problem

[Larry]

John,

Haven't seen the Guru's jump in here so thought I'd make a comment.

 From what I gathered reading your post it appears you have a UHF RX & 
TX operating with a 1.55 Mhz separation between the 2 units. Bad enough 
the small frequency spread but having the TX and RX antennas setting in 
the same horizontal plane 10 feet apart as the UHF repeater transmits 
(unknown power) into your link receiver has got to be a  source of 
desense/feedback.

You didn't comment on any existing filtering for the system ??

I am not a person who has the knowledge to advise about different 
options of filter/duplexer's available and their effects on your 
operation. However even with my limited experience I would seriously 
look at relocating one of the UHF antennas. Either to another location 
or at a minimum to a different vertical plane.
 
Larry - N7FM



John Godfrey wrote:
> I was hoping you can help our club with a repeater link problem. What we
> have are all GE master 2 stuff. Here is what we have going on. we have
> had for years a 147.270 + repeater that works great.
>
> Last year we added a link into a central state repeater system using a link 
> radio on
> one of our ports. It transmits on 442.025 and receives on 443.2. For six
> months we have used the link fine without problems. Last week we
> installed on another port a uhf repeater to be used as a hub for the
> north central part of our state to also link to us and the central state
> system. The UHF Repeater receives on 449.750 and transmits on 444.750.
> We can link the 270 to either the link to central state or the UHF
> repeater hub with no problems, but when we link the 270 to both or just
> link the UHF repeater to the link radio, once the UHF repeater is keyed
> up, the input on the link radio is hearing it so we have an awful squeal
> and intermod back into the 270.
>
> There is also a pager at the location that I can hear when this happens but 
> not any other time. Again they work fine as long as both UHF machines are not 
> in use at the same time. When the 270 is linked into Central state, even if 
> the UHF repeater is not linked in, if you key the UHF repeater you here the 
> squeal on the 270. I can see how as the link input goes out over the 270 when 
> they are linked. I am not sure why I can also here it on the UHF repeater 
> when I unkey it, even if it isn't linked in. Other than the last part of that 
> it would make since to ne that I have the two 440 antennas to close. We have 
> them about 10 feet apart, but the one can't go higher and  the other can't go 
> lower and still serve the purpose needed.
>
> I am thinking I need some kind of filter, that I can put on the link radio,
> that will protect it from the transmit of the UHF repeater. In other
> words the 444.750 is coming in my receive on the 443.2. Changing freq is
> not an option due to several reasons. If I had a filter of some sort,
> that would either allow say 442-443.5 to pass and attenuate everything
> else that would be great. Or something that would pass 442-443.5 and
> attenuate everything above 443.5, then that would work. Guys, what am I
> looking for and where might I find it. Must I build something that is
> this custom, or can I buy it. If I must build it, where should I start.
> If I can buy it,, where from and what would they call it.
>
> If my thoughts are off base, please help me to know what other questions I
> need to answer to solve such a problem as this. I thought maybe the
> pager was just interfering, but why would the 270 work fine when linked
> to the link radio, or linked to the UHF repeater, and the only time we
> have the problem is when the 270 is linked to the link radio and the UHF
> repeater is keyed up, regardless of whether the UHF repeater is linked
> in or not.
>
> I know my question is long, but m hope was to explain the
> problem with enough detail that you might have an answer for me.
>
> Your help would be greatly appreciated by our Club.
> 73 de  John Godfrey
> KE5NZY BARC Pres.
> DISTRICT B ADEC
> ASTEN NM
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 
>   
>
>   

[Repeater-Builder] Linking and interference problem

[John Godfrey]

I was hoping you can help our club with a repeater link problem. What we
have are all GE master 2 stuff. Here is what we have going on. we have
had for years a 147.270 + repeater that works great.

Last year we added a link into a central state repeater system using a link 
radio on
one of our ports. It transmits on 442.025 and receives on 443.2. For six
months we have used the link fine without problems. Last week we
installed on another port a uhf repeater to be used as a hub for the
north central part of our state to also link to us and the central state
system. The UHF Repeater receives on 449.750 and transmits on 444.750.
We can link the 270 to either the link to central state or the UHF
repeater hub with no problems, but when we link the 270 to both or just
link the UHF repeater to the link radio, once the UHF repeater is keyed
up, the input on the link radio is hearing it so we have an awful squeal
and intermod back into the 270.

There is also a pager at the location that I can hear when this happens but not 
any other time. Again they work fine as long as both UHF machines are not in 
use at the same time. When the 270 is linked into Central state, even if the 
UHF repeater is not linked in, if you key the UHF repeater you here the squeal 
on the 270. I can see how as the link input goes out over the 270 when they are 
linked. I am not sure why I can also here it on the UHF repeater when I unkey 
it, even if it isn't linked in. Other than the last part of that it would make 
since to ne that I have the two 440 antennas to close. We have them about 10 
feet apart, but the one can't go higher and  the other can't go lower and still 
serve the purpose needed.

I am thinking I need some kind of filter, that I can put on the link radio,
that will protect it from the transmit of the UHF repeater. In other
words the 444.750 is coming in my receive on the 443.2. Changing freq is
not an option due to several reasons. If I had a filter of some sort,
that would either allow say 442-443.5 to pass and attenuate everything
else that would be great. Or something that would pass 442-443.5 and
attenuate everything above 443.5, then that would work. Guys, what am I
looking for and where might I find it. Must I build something that is
this custom, or can I buy it. If I must build it, where should I start.
If I can buy it,, where from and what would they call it.

If my thoughts are off base, please help me to know what other questions I
need to answer to solve such a problem as this. I thought maybe the
pager was just interfering, but why would the 270 work fine when linked
to the link radio, or linked to the UHF repeater, and the only time we
have the problem is when the 270 is linked to the link radio and the UHF
repeater is keyed up, regardless of whether the UHF repeater is linked
in or not.

I know my question is long, but m hope was to explain the
problem with enough detail that you might have an answer for me.

Your help would be greatly appreciated by our Club.
73 de  John Godfrey
KE5NZY BARC Pres.
DISTRICT B ADEC
ASTEN NM

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

[Ken Arck]

At 11:06 AM 4/3/2008, John Melville wrote:


>I have determine the following:
>
>1.   Pin 11 is TX Audio OUT of the Kenwood TKR-750 (confirmed)
>
>2.   Pin 10 is RX Audio IN on the Kenwood TKR-750 (to be verified)
>
>3.   Pin 3 is TX Audio OUT of the ICOM F521 (confirmed)
>
>4.   Pin 4 is RX Audio IN on the ICOM F521 (to be verified)

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

[Ken Arck]

At 07:42 AM 4/3/2008, George Henry wrote:

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

[Ken Arck]

At 11:06 AM 4/3/2008, John Melville wrote:


>I have determine the following:
>
>1.   Pin 11 is TX Audio OUT of the Kenwood TKR-750 (confirmed)
>
>2.   Pin 10 is RX Audio IN on the Kenwood TKR-750 (to be verified)
>
>3.   Pin 3 is TX Audio OUT of the ICOM F521 (confirmed)
>
>4.   Pin 4 is RX Audio IN on the ICOM F521 (to be verified)

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

[John Melville]

Thanks ALL,

 

The application is to have the RX Audio from the ICOM F521 transmitted
simultaneously (slight delay) on the Kenwood TKR-750 and visa versa hence a
link repeater application.

 

I did some programming of ICOM for COS (Pin 6) and connected it to the
Kenwood EPTT (Pin 16) and visa versa Pin 25 as COS on the Kenwood and
connected it to the ICOM PTT (Pin 5) which allows both radios to be trigger
whenever they RX signals.

 

I have determine the following:

 

1.   Pin 11 is TX Audio OUT of the Kenwood TKR-750 (confirmed)

2.   Pin 10 is RX Audio IN on the Kenwood TKR-750 (to be verified)

3.   Pin 3 is TX Audio OUT of the ICOM F521 (confirmed)

4.   Pin 4 is RX Audio IN on the ICOM F521 (to be verified)

 

When I apply Kenwood TX Audio (Pin 11) to Icom (pin 4) and Icom TX Audio
(pin 3) and externally key up either repeaters No audio seems to pass,
however the PTT is triggered when keyed.

 

Attach is a programming scenario I got from ICOM support yesterday,
obviously they will not offer any interfacing avice on the Kenwood.

 

Note:

I have a Zetron 38-Max repeater could I bridge the application via this?

 

 

Any thoughts or comments.

 

 

John

 

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Arck
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:54 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

 

At 07:42 AM 4/3/2008, George Henry wrote:

The connection information in the following link may prove helpful:

< <http://www.repeater-builder.com/kenwood/rc210-to-tkr.pdf>
http://www.repeater-builder.com/kenwood/rc210-to-tkr.pdf>

Receive audio appears to be pin 10, not 11, and pin 16 is the PTT input for
the Kenwood, not an output. You need to feed either the TOS output (pin 24)
or COS output (pin 25), to an inverter that then pulls the PTT of the Icom
low.


<A couple of things here. First of all, Pin 10 is "RA" audio, Kenwood's
nomenclature for deemphasised audio whereas pin 11 is, essentially,
discriminator audio. Whether or not this is the one he wants depends on how
TX audio is being fed to the Icom.

As for COR out (or TOR), the TKR needs to be programmed to supply that and
should be done as active high. My suggestion is to use Aux In/Out 5 and/or
6. I do agree he should use a buffer transistor to the Icom's PTT input to
protect the TKR. 

Also, PTT Priority needs to be programmed for the TKR so it will respond
appropriately to its own repeat PTT and the external one

Ken




--

President and CTO - Arcom Communications

Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.

http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/

Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and

we offer complete repeater packages!

AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000

http://www.irlp.net <http://www.irlp.net/>  

"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

[Ken Arck]

At 07:42 AM 4/3/2008, George Henry wrote:


The connection information in the following link may prove helpful:

<http://www.repeater-builder.com/kenwood/rc210-to-tkr.pdf>

Receive audio appears to be pin 10, not 11, and pin 16 is the PTT 
input for the Kenwood, not an output. You need to feed either the 
TOS output (pin 24) or COS output (pin 25), to an inverter that then 
pulls the PTT of the Icom low.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

[George Henry]

The connection information in the following link may prove helpful:

<http://www.repeater-builder.com/kenwood/rc210-to-tkr.pdf>

Receive audio appears to be pin 10, not 11, and pin 16 is the PTT input for the 
Kenwood, not an output.  You need to feed either the TOS output (pin 24) or COS 
output (pin 25), to an inverter that then pulls the PTT of the Icom low.

George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413



-Original Message-
>From: askjam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Apr 2, 2008 11:07 AM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521
>
>I'm trying to use an ICOM F521 as a link repeater and interfacing it to 
>an existing Kenwood TKR-750 site repeater and cannot seem to get the 
>pinout below work. It would appear that the EPTT on the ICOM or Kenwood 
>is not triggering.
>
>Kenwood TKR-750   Icom F521
>Pin 7(DG).Pin 8(Mod. GND)
>Pin 9(TA).Pin 2(AF OUT) 
>Pin 11(RA)Pin 4(Mod. IN)
>Pin 16(EPTT)..Pin 5(PTT)
>
>Can anyone offer some help?
>
>
>John.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

[Milt]

IIRC, EPTT (Kenwood) is an input not an output.  Are you trying to have the 
Icom key up when the Kenwood receives a signal, or are you trying to have 
both radios transmit at the same time?

Milt
N3LTQ


- Original Message - 
From: "askjam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:07 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521


> I'm trying to use an ICOM F521 as a link repeater and interfacing it to
> an existing Kenwood TKR-750 site repeater and cannot seem to get the
> pinout below work. It would appear that the EPTT on the ICOM or Kenwood
> is not triggering.
>
> Kenwood TKR-750   Icom F521
> Pin 7(DG).Pin 8(Mod. GND)
> Pin 9(TA).Pin 2(AF OUT)
> Pin 11(RA)Pin 4(Mod. IN)
> Pin 16(EPTT)..Pin 5(PTT)
>
> Can anyone offer some help?
>
>
> John.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Linking a Kenwood TKR-750 to an ICOM IC-F521

[askjam]

I'm trying to use an ICOM F521 as a link repeater and interfacing it to 
an existing Kenwood TKR-750 site repeater and cannot seem to get the 
pinout below work. It would appear that the EPTT on the ICOM or Kenwood 
is not triggering.

Kenwood TKR-750   Icom F521
Pin 7(DG).Pin 8(Mod. GND)
Pin 9(TA).Pin 2(AF OUT) 
Pin 11(RA)Pin 4(Mod. IN)
Pin 16(EPTT)..Pin 5(PTT)

Can anyone offer some help?


John.

[Repeater-Builder] Linking two MTR 2000 repeater

[Aland services]

Dears
  can any body tell how to connect two MTR2000 repeater to increase 
communication distance.
  Thanks

   
-
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Several Repeater Sites

[Nate Duehr]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I was told by our local techs. half duplex is OK on links.
> Their Vhf link system uses half duplex link equipment to a 442
> repeater.
> Is full duplex better? Why?

Depends on what you want to do.

We implement some full-duplex links, others half duplex... but the half 
duplex links have a "full break in" type of setup going the direction 
AWAY from the main site.  The reason?  Control.

If the remote (far away) site has an open squelch/CTCSS problem and we 
want to control it, we need that link to "turn around" and go the other 
direction so we can send commands to it.

(We typically have more than one method of control, but for a "last 
ditch effort" we want the RF side to be able to get there.  If a link is 
half-duplex and the receiver at the remote site is open causing the link 
to transmit back to the hub/main system, we HAVE to have a way to turn 
that link around.  Having to go look up control codes to do it is 
annoying... we build 'em so that they ALWAYS give the main site priority 
over anything of the outlying repeaters at the "edge" of the topology.

> We have three Uhf repeaters which can be linked. Each end tx is
> on 444. Were the center tx is on 448. So, the ends could have
> link equipment to the center repeater.


With properly done filtering, yes.  You can even share antennas with the 
right setup.

> Or should the link equipment be added to all three sites using a
> link simplex frequency?

See above... we won't ever do simplex if we can avoid it.  If NOTHING 
else, we can always put a transmitter of our own on the air on the 
receive frequency of the remote site and over-ride whatever's locking up 
the system... etc.  Think about the failure modes and engineer them out.

> With only two Uhf sites, can/should the equipment be on set to
> use the opposite frequency pair, with one being the repeater and
> the other the link, or should a simplex link frequency and equipment
> be installed and used at each site?

Another very good option is to get away from UHF links altogether.  Go 
down to 220 MHz, or up to 900 MHz, 1.2 GHz, etc.  Utilize the low-usage 
bands, and you'll have oceans of spectrum to utilize if you find a 
particular link frequency is noisy, etc.  (Unless you live somewhere 
where 220 MHz is busy like SoCal.)


Nate WY0X

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Several Repeater Sites

[kh6jkg]

Thanks for the details on this topic.
Rich, you stated '430 MHz full duplex links'
What is the 430 Mhz equipment?

I was told by our local techs. half duplex is OK on links.
Their Vhf link system uses half duplex link equipment to a 442
repeater.
Is full duplex better? Why?

We have three Uhf repeaters which can be linked. Each end tx is
on 444. Were the center tx is on 448. So, the ends could have
link equipment to the center repeater.

Or should the link equipment be added to all three sites using a
link simplex frequency?

With only two Uhf sites, can/should the equipment be on set to
use the opposite frequency pair, with one being the repeater and
the other the link, or should a simplex link frequency and equipment
be installed and used at each site?

Another thought, the right way for links could/should use and be the
best way, use the frequency coordinator plan for their area.

Thanks for the information on this topic.
73's,
Jim  Kh6jkg.






More new features than ever.  Check out the new AIM(R) Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aim.com

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Several Repeater Sites

[no6b]

At 1/16/2008 13:12, you wrote:

>Our repeater group has four hilltop 440 MHz repeater sites which are
>currently linked via 430 MHz full duplex links through a central hub
>site on the ground (low level site - not a hilltop). This has worked
>great, but it looks like we are losing our hub location and this has
>led to some discussion within the group.
>
>Some of us want to take the hardware at the hub (controller, antennas,
>link radios, filters, etc.) and relocate the hub to a new location.
>Depending on how far we move, this might entail re-aiming link yagis
>on the hilltops but, more than likely, not.
>
>Another group wants to do away with the hub altogether and perform
>linking from site to site to site to site. The thought being that it
>would free up the RLC3 controller that we use at the hub for other
>uses, we wouldn't have to worry about maintaining the hub site, and
>would not even have to find a new site. Downside is moving all the
>link hardware to the hilltops.
>
>Since there are a lot of "old hands" out here, I thought I'd ask for
>opinions. What are the pros and cons of linking multiple sites via a
>hub vs. linking point-to-point? What's the "best" method and why?

Since your email address has "socal" in it & you say that you're currently 
linking on 430, I'll mention that I've been told that the local 420-450 MHz 
coordinator frowns on direct "comm site to comm site" linking in the 
420-430 MHz range in the major metro. areas because its bandplan cannot 
easily accommodate such links, & prefers the approach you're currently 
using (hub at non-comm site).  You might want to send an email to 20kHz at 
scrrba dot org & see what it has to say about your particular operation.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Several Repeater Sites

[Ken Arck]

Put me down agreeing with Paul & Jim.

My linked system uses a hub and it's not only easier to maintain, it 
makes future expansion a HELL of a lot easier (and economical).

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net
"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Several Repeater Sites

[Jim Brown]

I vote for the STAR  (Hub) network along with Paul.  In addition to the reasons 
he gave, you would have to have an additional port at each repeater site to 
allow you to install two link radios.  Also, if one of your repeater sites is 
down, the rest of the repeater system is no longer linked beyond the break in 
the string.

It is always more reliable to have a Star network rather than a String network 
for that reason.  Of course, loosing the hub un-links all the systems, but 
again, as Paul pointed out, it should be a lot easier to service the hub than 
one of your repeaters.

73 - Jim  W5ZIT

Paul Plack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  
I'd stay with the hub. In the long run,  having your most complex site located 
in a much more convenient spot,  near better infrastructure and less lightning, 
is worth at least the cost  of a used RLC3.
  
 73,
 Paul, AE4KR
  
- Original Message - 
   From:Rich 
   To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:12PM
   Subject: [Repeater-Builder] LinkingSeveral Repeater Sites
   

  Our repeater group has four hilltop 440 MHz repeater sites whichare
currently linked via 430 MHz full duplex links through a centralhub
site on the ground (low level site - not a hilltop). This hasworked
great, but it looks like we are losing our hub location and thishas
led to some discussion within the group.

Some of us want to takethe hardware at the hub (controller, antennas,
link radios, filters, etc.)and relocate the hub to a new location.
Depending on how far we move, thismight entail re-aiming link yagis
on the hilltops but, more than likely,not.

Another group wants to do away with the hub altogether andperform
linking from site to site to site to site. The thought being thatit
would free up the RLC3 controller that we use at the hub forother
uses, we wouldn't have to worry about maintaining the hub site,and
would not even have to find a new site. Downside is moving allthe
link hardware to the hilltops.

Since there are a lot of "oldhands" out here, I thought I'd ask for
opinions. What are the pros and consof linking multiple sites via a
hub vs. linking point-to-point? What's the"best" method and why?

Thanks, in advance, for your help andopinions.
-- 
Rich


 
 
   

   
-
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Several Repeater Sites

[Paul Plack]

I'd stay with the hub. In the long run, having your most complex site located 
in a much more convenient spot, near better infrastructure and less lightning, 
is worth at least the cost of a used RLC3.

73,
Paul, AE4KR

  - Original Message - 
  From: Rich 
  To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:12 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Several Repeater Sites


  Our repeater group has four hilltop 440 MHz repeater sites which are
  currently linked via 430 MHz full duplex links through a central hub
  site on the ground (low level site - not a hilltop). This has worked
  great, but it looks like we are losing our hub location and this has
  led to some discussion within the group.

  Some of us want to take the hardware at the hub (controller, antennas,
  link radios, filters, etc.) and relocate the hub to a new location.
  Depending on how far we move, this might entail re-aiming link yagis
  on the hilltops but, more than likely, not.

  Another group wants to do away with the hub altogether and perform
  linking from site to site to site to site. The thought being that it
  would free up the RLC3 controller that we use at the hub for other
  uses, we wouldn't have to worry about maintaining the hub site, and
  would not even have to find a new site. Downside is moving all the
  link hardware to the hilltops.

  Since there are a lot of "old hands" out here, I thought I'd ask for
  opinions. What are the pros and cons of linking multiple sites via a
  hub vs. linking point-to-point? What's the "best" method and why?

  Thanks, in advance, for your help and opinions.
  -- 
  Rich


   

[Repeater-Builder] Linking Several Repeater Sites

[Rich]

Our repeater group has four hilltop 440 MHz repeater sites which are
currently linked via 430 MHz full duplex links through a central hub
site on the ground (low level site - not a hilltop).  This has worked
great, but it looks like we are losing our hub location and this has
led to some discussion within the group.

Some of us want to take the hardware at the hub (controller, antennas,
link radios, filters, etc.) and relocate the hub to a new location.
Depending on how far we move, this might entail re-aiming link yagis
on the hilltops but, more than likely, not.

Another group wants to do away with the hub altogether and perform
linking from site to site to site to site.  The thought being that it
would free up the RLC3 controller that we use at the hub for other
uses, we wouldn't have to worry about maintaining the hub site, and
would not even have to find a new site.  Downside is moving all the
link hardware to the hilltops.

Since there are a lot of "old hands" out here, I thought I'd ask for
opinions.  What are the pros and cons of linking multiple sites via a
hub vs. linking point-to-point?  What's the "best" method and why?

Thanks, in advance, for your help and opinions.
-- 
Rich

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Gareth Bennett]

We have used a similar, and unique way of linking multiple sites here in NZ, 

Utilising four sites and multiple CTCSS, We utilise One repeater per site, 
Vertex Standard VXR-9000, programmed to scan all four frequencies (That site 
repeater input frequency, and the other three repeater sites output (TX) 
frequencies.

 Once valid activity has been detected, TX is on the single allocated frequency 
for that site location. 

The VXR-9000 has a tone panel integral to the repeater, so can decode/encode 16 
CTCSS or DCS codes. 

Needless to say frequency co-ordination is very important, as each repeater 
site is also listening on the output frequencies as well. To make this work for 
our client, separate TX and RX antennas were required, as well as some clever 
filter engineering.

What I am saying is that a repeater that has multiple channels, and that can 
also scan, can replace your link receiver in some instances.

All the best for 08'

Cheers
_
 
Gareth Bennett 

 
This email is confidential, if you received this message in error, or you
are not the intended recipient,
please return it to the sender and destroy any copies.
Thank you.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Kerincom 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters


Each of my repeaters operate on different frequencies .e.g. Repeater #1 
rx 483.9mhz and TX on 489.1mhz 5.2 meg split.
#2 may be on rx 490mhz and TX on 495.2mhz 
Correction my #2 repeater link receiver is tuned to #1 output frequency 
(489.1mhz) .and transmitt on the #1 input frequency (483.9mhz).
Yes each on my clients on the private have a separate ctcss frequency 
assigned to their radios for TX and rx so they can only hear their own cars.


Thank You,
Ian Wells,
Kerinvale Comaudio,
361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au

---Original Message---

From: Jim Brown
Date: 5/01/2008 12:36:06 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

I think I understand what you are saying Ian. Your 
#2 repeater has it's input frequency on the #1
repeater's output frequency. That way you would only
require one extra receiver (on a third frequency) and
precedence circuit at the #1 repeater site. The #2
site would have to have it's output on the third
frequency to make it all work.

I think you have simplified the system down to the
minimum required hardware to make it work. CTCSS
Transmitted only while an input is present would round
out the system requirement. Your multi-user CTCSS
controllers should keep things private as different
users use the different tones.

Sometimes thinking outside the box can make for a real
worthwhile reduction in hardware.

73- Jim W5ZIT

--- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi again Jim
> With your thinking below .My remote private site
> should work in the same
> sort of way as what you are suggesting except while
> s2 has a signal on it 
> it sends this signal to both s2 users and back to s1
> repeater at the same
> time.In return the signal works the same as your
> first 3-5 lines below.I
> only require one link radio on the remote sites and
> not one at each end of
> the link .However with our open we have a separate
> link repeater paired with
> the s1 (explained better in my response to skip) so
> the link system works at
> the same time as the central site repeater.In the
> open system we don't link
> the TX frequencies directly from site to site
> .I.e.(s1tx to s2rx)(s2tx to
> s1rx) due to a error in frequency allocation,which
> will be fixed and which
> we expect to link directly with our private system
> as we wont get the sites
> frequencies licensed so close together next time
> 
> Thank You,
> Ian Wells,
> Kerinvale Comaudio,
> 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
> www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
> 
> ---Original Message---
> 
> From: Jim Brown
> Date: 4/01/2008 8:25:48 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared
> repeaters
> 
> Ian, here is my thinking. When site 1 has a signal
> on
> the repeater input, the sig

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Kerincom]

Each of my repeaters operate on different frequencies .e.g. Repeater #1 rx
483.9mhz and TX on 489.1mhz 5.2 meg split.
#2 may be on rx 490mhz and TX on 495.2mhz 
Correction my #2 repeater link receiver is tuned to #1 output frequency (489
1mhz) .and transmitt on the #1 input frequency (483.9mhz).
Yes each on my clients on the private have a separate ctcss frequency
assigned to their radios for TX and rx so they can only hear their own cars.
 
 
Thank You,
Ian Wells,
Kerinvale Comaudio,
361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Jim Brown
Date: 5/01/2008 12:36:06 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters
 
I think I understand what you are saying Ian. Your 
#2 repeater has it's input frequency on the #1
repeater's output frequency. That way you would only
require one extra receiver (on a third frequency) and
precedence circuit at the #1 repeater site. The #2
site would have to have it's output on the third
frequency to make it all work.

I think you have simplified the system down to the
minimum required hardware to make it work. CTCSS
Transmitted only while an input is present would round
out the system requirement. Your multi-user CTCSS
controllers should keep things private as different
users use the different tones.

Sometimes thinking outside the box can make for a real
worthwhile reduction in hardware.

73- Jim W5ZIT

--- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi again Jim
> With your thinking below .My remote private site
> should work in the same
> sort of way as what you are suggesting except while
> s2 has a signal on it 
> it sends this signal to both s2 users and back to s1
> repeater at the same
> time.In return the signal works the same as your
> first 3-5 lines below.I
> only require one link radio on the remote sites and
> not one at each end of
> the link .However with our open we have a separate
> link repeater paired with
> the s1 (explained better in my response to skip) so
> the link system works at
> the same time as the central site repeater.In the
> open system we don't link
> the TX frequencies directly from site to site
> .I.e.(s1tx to s2rx)(s2tx to
> s1rx) due to a error in frequency allocation,which
> will be fixed and which
> we expect to link directly with our private system
> as we wont get the sites
> frequencies licensed so close together next time
> 
> Thank You,
> Ian Wells,
> Kerinvale Comaudio,
> 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
> www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
> 
> ---Original Message---
> 
> From: Jim Brown
> Date: 4/01/2008 8:25:48 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared
> repeaters
> 
> Ian, here is my thinking. When site 1 has a signal
> on
> the repeater input, the signal from site 2 is
> blocked
> because of the circuit that gives precedence to the
> local site repeater receiver. When a site 1 user
> unkeys, there will be no CTCSS tone coming back from
> site 2 to key the site 1 repeater. The combination
> of
> the precedence circuit and CTCSS requirement for
> both
> repeaters keeps the system from locking up. The same
> circuit would be required between the receivers at
> site 2 as in site 1. And both repeaters would have
> to
> be configured to only transmit a CTCSS tone when a
> user keys the input, not during the squelch tail.
> 
> 73 - Jim W5ZIT
> 
> --- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I will have a look at the circuit and see .The
> > problem we found with link
> > setup 1 upper design is we could not have one link
> > radio on one site and one
> > on another site as when the site 2 link stops
> > transmitting and rx site 1
> > tail retrips site 2 and keeps them on .Another
> > problem was while s1 link in
> > transmitting s2 receiver is trying to pick up the
> > incoming signal and s1
> > link transmission at the same time .

__
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

 
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Jim Brown]

I think I understand what you are saying Ian.  Your 
#2 repeater has it's input frequency on the #1
repeater's output frequency.  That way you would only
require one extra receiver (on a third frequency) and
precedence circuit at the #1 repeater site.  The #2
site would have to have it's output on the third
frequency to make it all work.

I think you have simplified the system down to the
minimum required hardware to make it work.  CTCSS
transmitted only while an input is present would round
out the system requirement.  Your multi-user CTCSS
controllers should keep things private as different
users use the different tones.

Sometimes thinking outside the box can make for a real
worthwhile reduction in hardware.

73- Jim  W5ZIT

--- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi again Jim
> With your thinking  below .My remote private site
> should  work in the same
> sort of way  as what you are suggesting except while
> s2 has a signal on it 
> it sends this signal to both s2 users and back to s1
> repeater at the same
> time.In return the signal works the same as your
> first 3-5 lines below.I
> only require one link radio on the remote sites and
> not one at each end of
> the link .However with our open we have a separate
> link repeater paired with
> the s1 (explained better in my response to skip) so
> the link system works at
> the same time as the central site repeater.In the
> open system we don't link
> the TX frequencies directly from site to site
> .I.e.(s1tx to s2rx)(s2tx to
> s1rx) due to a error in frequency allocation,which
> will be fixed and which
> we expect to link directly with our private system
> as we wont get the sites
> frequencies licensed so close together next time
>  
> Thank You,
> Ian Wells,
> Kerinvale Comaudio,
> 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
> www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
>  
> ---Original Message---
>  
> From: Jim Brown
> Date: 4/01/2008 8:25:48 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared
> repeaters
>  
> Ian, here is my thinking. When site 1 has a signal
> on
> the repeater input, the signal from site 2 is
> blocked
> because of the circuit that gives precedence to the
> local site repeater receiver. When a site 1 user
> unkeys, there will be no CTCSS tone coming back from
> site 2 to key the site 1 repeater. The combination
> of
> the precedence circuit and CTCSS requirement for
> both
> repeaters keeps the system from locking up. The same
> circuit would be required between the receivers at
> site 2 as in site 1. And both repeaters would have
> to
> be configured to only transmit a CTCSS tone when a
> user keys the input, not during the squelch tail.
> 
> 73 - Jim W5ZIT
> 
> --- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I will have a look at the circuit and see .The
> > problem we found with link
> > setup 1 upper design is we could not have one link
> > radio on one site and one
> > on another site as when the site 2 link stops
> > transmitting and rx site 1
> > tail retrips site 2 and keeps them on .Another
> > problem was while s1 link in
> > transmitting s2 receiver is trying to pick up the
> > incoming signal and s1
> > link transmission at the same time .



  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Kerincom]

Hi again Jim
With your thinking  below .My remote private site should  work in the same
sort of way  as what you are suggesting except while s2 has a signal on it 
it sends this signal to both s2 users and back to s1 repeater at the same
time.In return the signal works the same as your first 3-5 lines below.I
only require one link radio on the remote sites and not one at each end of
the link .However with our open we have a separate link repeater paired with
the s1 (explained better in my response to skip) so the link system works at
the same time as the central site repeater.In the open system we don't link
the TX frequencies directly from site to site .I.e.(s1tx to s2rx)(s2tx to
s1rx) due to a error in frequency allocation,which will be fixed and which
we expect to link directly with our private system as we wont get the sites
frequencies licensed so close together next time
 
Thank You,
Ian Wells,
Kerinvale Comaudio,
361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Jim Brown
Date: 4/01/2008 8:25:48 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters
 
Ian, here is my thinking. When site 1 has a signal on
the repeater input, the signal from site 2 is blocked
because of the circuit that gives precedence to the
local site repeater receiver. When a site 1 user
unkeys, there will be no CTCSS tone coming back from
site 2 to key the site 1 repeater. The combination of
the precedence circuit and CTCSS requirement for both
repeaters keeps the system from locking up. The same
circuit would be required between the receivers at
site 2 as in site 1. And both repeaters would have to
be configured to only transmit a CTCSS tone when a
user keys the input, not during the squelch tail.

73 - Jim W5ZIT

--- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I will have a look at the circuit and see .The
> problem we found with link
> setup 1 upper design is we could not have one link
> radio on one site and one
> on another site as when the site 2 link stops
> transmitting and rx site 1
> tail retrips site 2 and keeps them on .Another
> problem was while s1 link in
> transmitting s2 receiver is trying to pick up the
> incoming signal and s1
> link transmission at the same time .

__
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/
_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 


 
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Jim Brown]

Ian, here is my thinking.  When site 1 has a signal on
the repeater input, the signal from site 2 is blocked
because of the circuit that gives precedence to the
local site repeater receiver.  When a site 1 user
unkeys, there will be no CTCSS tone coming back from
site 2 to key the site 1 repeater.  The combination of
the precedence circuit and CTCSS requirement for both
repeaters keeps the system from locking up.  The same
circuit would be required between the receivers at
site 2 as in site 1.  And both repeaters would have to
be configured to only transmit a CTCSS tone when a
user keys the input, not during the squelch tail.

73 - Jim  W5ZIT

--- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I will have a look at the circuit and see .The
> problem we found with link
> setup 1 upper design is we could not have one link
> radio on one site and one
> on another site as when the site 2 link stops
> transmitting and rx site 1
> tail retrips site 2 and keeps them on .Another
> problem was while s1 link in
> transmitting s2 receiver is trying to pick up the
> incoming signal and s1
> link transmission at the same time .



  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Jim Brown]

Ian, I think you missed my comment on the way the
extra receiver implementation would work.  I proposed
using a circuit that gives priority to the regular
repeater receiver for that system.  This would lock
out the auxillary receiver during input on one
repeater, and by transmitting CTCSS only while a user
is active, there would never be a case where both
auxillary receivers would be enabled, so that locking
the two together continuously would not happen.  I
even have a custom circuit that I have posted to the
group that provides that priority to one receiver.

I still think it is a viable solution to linking two
repeaters together, but I have not implemented it so
can't be for certain sure.  I'll be interested in your
solution if and when you get it implemented.

73 - Jim  W5ZIT

--- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks Jim .The main idea is that our business
> clients can have some extra
> range and also retain privacy so other users that
> share it carn't hear the
> other businesses on the channel.We only currently
> have 3 businesses that
> share the 1st site each with their own ctcss
> tones.With your second
> paragraph we found that having a separate link radio
> at each end could
> possibly  cause continous linking of the sites and
> lock the repeaters
> together in transmission  


  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Kerincom]

Thanks Jim .The main idea is that our business clients can have some extra
range and also retain privacy so other users that share it carn't hear the
other businesses on the channel.We only currently have 3 businesses that
share the 1st site each with their own ctcss tones.With your second
paragraph we found that having a separate link radio at each end could
possibly  cause continous linking of the sites and lock the repeaters
together in transmission  .With our open uhf network we have 5 separate
repeaters  each on different frequencies and all are linked back to our
central site using only 1 link radio per remote site so everything that goes
over any one of the sites can be heard by all users over the other 5 sites
so our farmers can move freely from one area to another and still maintain
communications with their other mobiles.Currently I think we cover close to
2000kms in total area We found setting these sites up that we can install
one link radio at the remote sites with the transmitt frequency the same as
the central site receive and the link receiver the same frequency as the
central site transmitt frequency.Then the link radio acts as a mobile radio
with a beam which is aimed towards the central site. 
With the tone panel on site 2 it  will decode the ctcss when a user uses it
and then repeat users tone over the site 2 TX frequency and also site1 rx
input frequency .The only thing I have to make sure of is when someone uses
site 1the site 2 receiver is disconnected and the ctcss/audio in site 2  is
received on the link receiver only  and then is fed into the tone panel to
decode the users tone and then transferred to site 2 transmitter only  and
not to the link transmitter otherwise the link radio will switch to TX and
block the incoming signal from site 1
With our other open network it is really simple when someone users the
central site the link receiver on the outer sites  transfers the audio
direct to the remotes sites transmitter and then switches back to the remote
sites receiver.
The only difference between the open and our private/shared system is that
the private system users a tone control panel to control the repeaters and
since the tone control panels only work with valid ctcss tones the whole
system should maintain privacy over each site and between the sites (over
the link)
Thank You,
Ian Wells,
Kerinvale Comaudio,
361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Jim Brown
Date: 3/01/2008 4:02:13 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters
 
Ian, our ham club has talked about putting one of
their repeaters on a different frequency and linking
them together. We operate both on the same frequency
now, one at a time with separate tones.

My proposal to them was to put a receiver at each site
for the other repeater and in-band link them. I think
that is what you are proposing to do also, except you
would use a separate transmitter to do the in-band
link. Using a separate transmitter in your case may
be more easily accomplished since you can use the same
receiver CTCSS tone and transmit audio to both your
repeater transmitter and link transmitter. Using a
separate receiver as I proposed to our club would be
easy for our single CTCSS system with each receiver
feeding the controller input through a circuit which
gives priority to the local repeater receiver. 

In your case, you could put your link transmitter on a
separate beam pointed at the other site and let the
normal tone controller take care of the other
repeater. The only thing I would suggest is that you
configure your controllers to only transmit the CTCSS
while a user is key down, and not during any ID or
squelch tail. With a decent link, you would have full
interoperability with both systems, and no key up
delays due to the other station being on the other
repeater.

I have not run across a two repeater system linked in
this manner, but it does seem to be the easiest way to
get the same audio on both repeaters. In your case,
that may be a slight detrement since users on the
second repeater would be prevented from using the
repeater when the first repeater was busy. Using the
receiver link I proposed would allow a station to use
the second repeater by overriding the audio from the
first repeater by simply keying the second repeater
input.

73 - Jim W5ZIT

--- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi guys .I have one shared uhf commercial repeater
> using a tp-163 panel and
> I am going to install another repeater on different
> frequencies 50kms away
> and are looking at installing a tp-163 ctcss panel
> to it but also looking
> for a easy way to link the two repeaters together
> allowing clients on one
> site to be able to use the same tone on both
> repeaters just by changing
> channel and still maintain the privacy on both sites
> .
> One option I came up with wa

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Jim Brown]

Ian, our ham club has talked about putting one of
their repeaters on a different frequency and linking
them together.  We operate both on the same frequency
now, one at a time with separate tones.

My proposal to them was to put a receiver at each site
for the other repeater and in-band link them.  I think
that is what you are proposing to do also, except you
would use a separate transmitter to do the in-band
link.  Using a separate transmitter in your case may
be more easily accomplished since you can use the same
receiver CTCSS tone and transmit audio to both your
repeater transmitter and link transmitter.  Using a
separate receiver as I proposed to our club would be
easy for our single CTCSS system with each receiver
feeding the controller input through a circuit which
gives priority to the local repeater receiver.  

In your case, you could put your link transmitter on a
separate beam pointed at the other site and let the
normal tone controller take care of the other
repeater.  The only thing I would suggest is that you
configure your controllers to only transmit the CTCSS
while a user is key down, and not during any ID or
squelch tail.  With a decent link, you would have full
interoperability with both systems, and no key up
delays due to the other station being on the other
repeater.

I have not run across a two repeater system linked in
this manner, but it does seem to be the easiest way to
get the same audio on both repeaters.  In your case,
that may be a slight detrement since users on the
second repeater would be prevented from using the
repeater when the first repeater was busy.  Using the
receiver link I proposed would allow a station to use
the second repeater by overriding the audio from the
first repeater by simply keying the second repeater
input.

73 - Jim  W5ZIT

--- Kerincom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi guys .I have one shared uhf commercial repeater
> using a tp-163 panel and
> I am going to install another repeater on different
> frequencies 50kms away
> and are looking at installing a tp-163 ctcss panel
> to it but also looking
> for a easy way to link the two repeaters together
> allowing clients on one
> site to be able to use the same tone on both
> repeaters just by changing
> channel and still maintain the privacy on both sites
> .
> One option I came up with was on the 2nd site when
> someone uses it the panel
> detects their tone and feeds site 2 audio/ctcss to
> the site2 transmitter and
> also a link radio to send it at the same time to
> site 1.When someone uses
> site1 ,a ctcss/audio signal is received by the link
> receiver which 
> disconnects the link transmitter and also site2
> receiver and the link rx
> ctcss/audio is then fed into the tone panel to
> decode and then is fed to
> site 2 transmitter . 
> Link radio transmitter feeds  site 1 rx frequency
> input
> Link radio receiver receives site 1 TX frequency
> output.
> Does  anyone have any further suggestions or  know
> of web pages detailing
> linking two or more shared repeaters
> Thank You,
> Ian Wells,
> Kerinvale Comaudio,
> 361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
> www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
>  



  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Repeater-Builder] Linking two shared repeaters

[Kerincom]

Hi guys .I have one shared uhf commercial repeater using a tp-163 panel and
I am going to install another repeater on different frequencies 50kms away
and are looking at installing a tp-163 ctcss panel to it but also looking
for a easy way to link the two repeaters together allowing clients on one
site to be able to use the same tone on both repeaters just by changing
channel and still maintain the privacy on both sites .
One option I came up with was on the 2nd site when someone uses it the panel
detects their tone and feeds site 2 audio/ctcss to the site2 transmitter and
also a link radio to send it at the same time to site 1.When someone uses
site1 ,a ctcss/audio signal is received by the link receiver which 
disconnects the link transmitter and also site2 receiver and the link rx
ctcss/audio is then fed into the tone panel to decode and then is fed to
site 2 transmitter . 
Link radio transmitter feeds  site 1 rx frequency input
Link radio receiver receives site 1 TX frequency output.
Does  anyone have any further suggestions or  know of web pages detailing
linking two or more shared repeaters
Thank You,
Ian Wells,
Kerinvale Comaudio,
361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 04:47 PM 12/29/07, you wrote:
>Let's see what is wrong with my statement.
>
>The repeater controller keys up the link radio via the PTT.  The Audio
>Delay Board places a one second delay on the audio being sent to the
>link radio.  This allows the 2 Alinco radios on either side of the link
>to key up and the PL encode/decode functions to complete.  After the 1
>second delay, the audio is passed through to the other repeater that is
>being linked to.

... and the n the person stops talking and the Alinco takes SECONDS
to stop decoding PL... then there si the dealy until the relying person
presses his PTT, and another 1 second delay for his audio to start
coming back to you.

>Why will this not work?

Because you haven't thought it all the way through.
Will you be able to tolerate 3-4 seconds of delay each time
the conversation turns around?

Return the Alincos, and get a decent radio.
A pair of M10, M50, M100, M120 or similar Maxtrac or
Radius radios are all you need.

Mike WA6ILQ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[no6b]

At 12/29/2007 17:11, you wrote:

>Your original comment was:
>and probably not for the release time either.
>
>A delay board will help fix both problems. The only question is how
>much delay needs to be put into the system to make it work acceptably
>(not perfectly). The delay board we are going to be using is adjustable
>for 64, 128, 256, 512 or 1024 milliseconds of delay. (NHRC-DAD board).

The above answers my own question, so disregard my previous query.

Still, such an ADM doesn't solve the problem for the reason Ken mentions 
(excessive voice delay in the system).  Best to use outboard CTCSS decoders.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[no6b]

At 12/29/2007 16:47, you wrote:

>Let's see what is wrong with my statement.
>
>The repeater controller keys up the link radio via the PTT. The Audio
>Delay Board places a one second delay on the audio being sent to the

Who makes an ADM that can produce a 1 second delay?

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[no6b]

At 12/29/2007 14:33, you wrote:

>At 02:29 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:
>
> >My 2 friends just linked their 440 machines together using an Alinco
> >DR-235T at each end for the link. They did find that there is a delay
> >in time in which the decoder takes to decode and release. They are
> >going to fix this by using Audio Delay Modules in the controllers at
> >each end of the link. Also, using a high PL tone should help the
> >decoder decode faster.
>
>and probably not for the release time either.
>
>And a using a higher tone probably won't help either. You're talking
>microseconds in difference between a tone at the low range and one at
>the top end.
>
>Ken

This reminds me of an experiment I did with a pair of the first Bendix/King 
(then just "King") synthesized commercial VHF HTs.  I noticed that one 
could program a CTCSS frequency as low at 10 Hz, so I set up a pair using 
this tone, & they worked!  The CTCSS decode speed wasn't that slow 
either.  The reason was that the absolute decode bandwidth was just as wide 
at 10 Hz as it was at 100 Hz.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[scomind]

 
Hi Joe,
 
>The delay board we are going to be using is adjustable 
for 64,  128, 256, 512 or 1024 milliseconds of delay. (NHRC-DAD board).  




That delay board uses the MX609 Delta Modulation CODEC, a device  with a S/N 
ratio of 30-35 dB (at the highest sampling rate; varies  with frequency) and a 
frequency response of 300-3400 Hz (MX-COM document  20480069.004).
 
ICS (_www.ics-ctrl.com_ (http://www.ics-ctrl.com) ) sells the  S-COM-designed 
DADM, a delay board with a S/N ratio of 60 dB and a frequency  response of 
30-5000 Hz. It's also cheaper.
 
73,
Bob  

Bob Schmid,  WA9FBO, Member
S-COM, LLC
PO Box 1546
LaPorte CO  80535-1546
970-416-6505 voice
970-419-3222  fax
www.scomcontrollers.com




**See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304)

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Joe]

I haven't figured out exactly what Pin #1  SQC Squelch Signal Output 
lead characteristics of the Alinco DR-235T is.  This is probably the COS 
that I will use from the receiver.  I would like it to be a AND PL+COS 
output, but it probably is only PL decode out.  We are going to 
experiment with DCS , as the DR-235T does CTCSS or DCS.  Maybe the DCS 
encode/decode on the radio is better than the CTCSS operation.

Yes, this is not the best fix for the problem.  My attempt is to make 
off-the-shelf products work in an acceptable configuration.  Given an 
unlimited budget and unlimited time one could come up with a much better 
setup.

73, Joe, K1ike

Nothing is totally useless, as it can always serve as a bad example.

Ken Arck wrote:
>
> Like I said, IMHO you're applying a band aid instead of fixing the 
> root problem. Butto each his own :-)
>
> Are you going to use COS from the receiver to gate the audio in/out of 
> the delay board?
>
> Ken
>
>
> At 05:11 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:
>
>> Your original comment was:
>> > and probably not for the release time either.
>>
>> A delay board will help fix both problems. The only question is how
>> much delay needs to be put into the system to make it work acceptably
>> (not perfectly). The delay board we are going to be using is adjustable
>> for 64, 128, 256, 512 or 1024 milliseconds of delay. (NHRC-DAD board).
>> I really doubt that 1 second will be required, but I gave my example
>> using the longest delay available to make a point. All we need to do is
>> to experiment with the delay value and find and acceptable value.
>>
>> 73, Joe, K1ike
>>
>
> --
> President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
> http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ 
> Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> we offer complete repeater packages!
> AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> http://www.irlp.net 
> "We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"
>  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Ken Arck]

Like I said, IMHO you're applying a band aid instead of fixing the 
root problem. Butto each his own :-)


Are you going to use COS from the receiver to gate the audio in/out 
of the delay board?


Ken


At 05:11 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:


Your original comment was:

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Joe]

Your original comment was:

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Ken Arck]

One other thing to consider.

If one user is on repeater A and the other user being talked with is 
on the other repeater, you have a 2 second delay in turnover between the two.

As I said, your users are gonna hate it.

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net
"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Ken Arck]

At 04:47 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:

>Let's see what is wrong with my statement.
>
>The repeater controller keys up the link radio via the PTT. The Audio
>Delay Board places a one second delay on the audio being sent to the
>link radio. This allows the 2 Alinco radios on either side of the link
>to key up and the PL encode/decode functions to complete. After the 1
>second delay, the audio is passed through to the other repeater that is
>being linked to.
>
>Why will this not work?


<---You're missing the point. Using the delay board as you explain 
above will help with the slow takeup of the Alinco's decoder but it 
will do nothing for the extraordinarily long delay when the decoder 
STOPS decoding. Not to mention adding a 1 second delay to audio 
passing between the 2 repeaters. Your users are gonna hate it, trust me.

IMHO, your best option is to use an external decoder in each radio 
and be done with it. The delay board bandaid is simply that - a 
bandaid and not a fix.

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net
"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Joe]

Let's see what is wrong with my statement. 

The repeater controller keys up the link radio via the PTT.  The Audio 
Delay Board places a one second delay on the audio being sent to the 
link radio.  This allows the 2 Alinco radios on either side of the link 
to key up and the PL encode/decode functions to complete.  After the 1 
second delay, the audio is passed through to the other repeater that is 
being linked to.

Why will this not work?

Ken Arck wrote:
>
> At 04:32 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:
>
> >Have you ever used a delay board and know what it can do?
>
> <---Oh I think I have an idea what they do, yes.
>
> Ken
> --
> President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
> http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ 
> Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> we offer complete repeater packages!
> AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> http://www.irlp.net 
> "We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"
>
>  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Ken Arck]

At 04:32 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:

>Have you ever used a delay board and know what it can do?

<---Oh I think I have an idea what they do, yes.

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net
"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Joe]

Have you ever used a delay board and know what it can do?

Ken Arck wrote:
>
> At 02:29 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:
>  and probably not for the release time either.
>
> And a using a higher tone probably won't help either. You're talking
> microseconds in difference between a tone at the low range and one at
> the top end.
>
> Ken
> --
> President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
> http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ 
> Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> we offer complete repeater packages!
> AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> http://www.irlp.net 
> "We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"
>
>  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Ken Arck]

At 02:29 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:

>My 2 friends just linked their 440 machines together using an Alinco
>DR-235T at each end for the link. They did find that there is a delay
>in time in which the decoder takes to decode and release. They are
>going to fix this by using Audio Delay Modules in the controllers at
>each end of the link. Also, using a high PL tone should help the
>decoder decode faster.

[Repeater-Builder] Linking with the Alinco DR-235T tranceivers

[Joe]

My 2 friends just linked their 440 machines together using an Alinco
DR-235T at each end for the link.  They did find that there is a delay
in time in which the decoder takes to decode and release.  They are
going to fix this by using Audio Delay Modules in the controllers at
each end of the link. Also, using a high PL tone should help the
decoder decode faster. 

73, Joe, K1ike

> The Alinco 435T may be easy to set up, but the quality of the radio is 
> lacking.  The CTCSS decoder takes a minimum of 1 second to release, 
> sometimes as long as 10 seconds.  The RX front end also has an
oscillation 
> problem, causing blocking of random frequencies.
> 
> The DB9 may be convenient but the 6 pin "packet" connector found on
many 
> radios isn't difficult to work with at all.  If you buy a PS/2 mouse 
> extension cable at your local computer store or eBay & cut off the
female 
> connector, you can wire that to your IRLP board & the male end plugs
right 
> into the radio.  On the Kenwood G707 some of these cables don't
quite fit 
> out of the box because the radio's connector is recessed.  A little
carving 
> of the molding on the PS/2 cable connector with an Exacto knife or
Dremel 
> takes care of that.
> 
> Bob NO6B
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking 2 repeaters

[Larry Rappaport]

prostockcocker wrote:
> 
> 
> I have two locations that have Moto - Micor 2meter repeaters, am using
> a FF-800 for a controller at both sites. I have explored the idea of
> using a UHF repeater and link radio to "hotlink" the two sites, but at
> the time funding is a bit low.
> What other alternatives do I have to link the two repeaters?
> 
> Thanks for the input.

IRLP.  See this site: http://www.irlp.net.  FWIW, two of us faced the 
same decision and, even though we have the necessary radios and 
duplexers to do a full duplex link, decided to use IRLP instead.  Use an 
old computer - software is free.
-- 
73,

Larry, W1HJF
rapp at lmr dot com

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking 2 repeaters

[kd6hcn]

Two tin cans and lots of string:)
--- prostockcocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I have two locations that have Moto - Micor 2meter
> repeaters, am using
> a FF-800 for a controller at both sites.  I have
> explored the idea of
> using a UHF repeater and link radio to "hotlink" the
> two sites, but at
> the time funding is a bit low.  
> What other alternatives do I have to link the two
> repeaters?
> 
> Thanks for the input.
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Repeater-Builder] Linking 2 repeaters

[prostockcocker]

I have two locations that have Moto - Micor 2meter repeaters, am using
a FF-800 for a controller at both sites.  I have explored the idea of
using a UHF repeater and link radio to "hotlink" the two sites, but at
the time funding is a bit low.  
What other alternatives do I have to link the two repeaters?

Thanks for the input.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[mch]

This is what's commonly called a "Remote base" (or Remote Base Station):

§97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. 

An amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface may
be under telecommand where: 

(a) There is a radio or wireline control link between the control
point and the station sufficient for the control operator to perform
his/her duties. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary
station. A control link using a fiber optic cable or another
telecommunication service is considered wireline. 


Also, the definition:
97.3(a)(38) Remote control. The use of a control operator who
 indirectly manipulates the operating adjustments in the station
 through a control link to achieve compliance with the FCC
 Rules. 

Note that the control link must be Auxiliary operation (or wireline),
but the controlled station may be on any Amateur frequency your license
allows.

I imagine the term "Remote Base" was easier for many than "Remote
Control Telecommand of an Amateur Station".

Joe M.

Nate Duehr wrote:
> 
> There never has been anything called a "remote base" in Part 97,
> ever.  If you hear those words from someone claiming to know the
> rules, run away.  They haven't read Part 97 if they're claiming those
> words are in there.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[Jim B.]

Nate Duehr wrote:
> On 4/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Sky Command does not do any control on 2 meters. This aspect of the
>> rules has not changed. What did change is that an auxiliary link can
>> now be used on 2 meters. This makes it possible to link into a 2 meter
>> repeater in-band without violating the rules. I think that rule
>> discussion is not permitted on this list, and apologize for this
>> response. But a common misconception about Sky Command is that it does
>> some control on 2 meters. In fact, it only uses the 2 meter band to
>> transmit the receive audio from the remote installation.
>>
>> 73 - Jim W5ZIT
> 
> 
> Agree -- the change was that Auxiliary Stations (see the definitions of
> station types) are now allowed below 222.15 MHz.  They were not before.
> 
> There never has been anything called a "remote base" in Part 97, ever.  If
> you hear those words from someone claiming to know the rules, run away.
> They haven't read Part 97 if they're claiming those words are in there.

Oh, excuse me-"remotely controlled base station". Sheesh.

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[Nate Duehr]

On 4/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Sky Command does not do any control on 2 meters. This aspect of the
rules has not changed. What did change is that an auxiliary link can
now be used on 2 meters. This makes it possible to link into a 2 meter
repeater in-band without violating the rules. I think that rule
discussion is not permitted on this list, and apologize for this
response. But a common misconception about Sky Command is that it does
some control on 2 meters. In fact, it only uses the 2 meter band to
transmit the receive audio from the remote installation.

73 - Jim W5ZIT



Agree -- the change was that Auxiliary Stations (see the definitions of
station types) are now allowed below 222.15 MHz.  They were not before.

There never has been anything called a "remote base" in Part 97, ever.  If
you hear those words from someone claiming to know the rules, run away.
They haven't read Part 97 if they're claiming those words are in there.

"97.113(f) No amateur station, except an auxiliary, repeater or space
station, may automatically retransmit the radio signals of other amateur
stations."

Period.  Nice simple sentence in there that is clear.  'Nuff said, moving
on.

To get back on-topic... for the gentleman who was asking if he could link
his systems by running a VHF user radio in/out of the VHF repeater... yes,
you can do that now.  You're probably going to need to do what one person
mentioned -- at a bare minimum -- diddle with CTCSS on the VHF repeater so
it follows user input.

If you have switchable COS/CTCSS access for end-users, it adds some
complexity -- you need both modes to trigger transmitted CTCSS from the VHF
repeater when the input is active in whichever mode you select.

Other things to think about:

ID's:

You'll also need to ID the link coming toward the VHF machine properly, (the
link radio TX) so you'll need to figure out how you want the entire system
ID'ed, and how you'll fix ID's if a portion of the system fails, if you're
"passing them through" anything.  You could play around with ID's being
generated from the UHF machine and passed through the "system", etc... but
if that link radio goes down and/or your timing of the link is such that it
doesn't see a VHF "kerchunk", then the VHF transmissions could go un-ID'ed.

I don't like that type of ID setup... I like to know each transmitter has
its own, and that it's working all the time.

If you can turn the CTCSS encode on/off on your link radio, you can keep the
VHF system from "hearing" the ID... if your VHF machine is always in CTCSS
access.  But if you do that, surely people will double with the non-CTCSS ID
transmissions on the VHF input once in a while.

Duplex:

You'll also have issues with full vs. half-duplex... which machine gets
"priority" when users get going too quick on both sides at the same time?

An even uglier one is if the system has an autopatch or any controllable
features on the other end of the link... in that case, you'll have to think
carefully about how the user can have priority over the other end, so they
can maintain DTMF control of the user-feature when the "feature" is
"transmitting".

Also think about failure modes that include a locked/stuck transmitter or
receiver at any point in the system and decide how you can get control and
kill the offending component.  That's usually an eye-opening analysis for
some systems, too.

In your situation, what you MIGHT want to consider is putting a dedicated
link radio at the VHF site also, as mentioned by someone else... if a low
(free?) antenna spot can be found that can make the 20 mile shot.  It'd be a
lot cleaner, overall, and you have more control over it then.

Good canidates for linking frequences are low UHF, 220, and 900 MHz.  Some
people get a little wild and go up to 1.2 GHz, too.  :-)

You could even get fancy and set the link up full-duplex... if you have the
room for the cans at the VHF site and radios that will do it.

CTCSS decoding takes time, and many people find that non-sensitive receivers
in commercial quality link radios with good front-end filters in carrier
mode key up and switch faster than CTCSS-enabled links, making the link
switching faster and more more "natural" during an end-to-end QSO.

Lots of fun design decisions to think about when linking...

Nate WY0X

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[Jim B.]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sky Command does not do any control on 2 meters. This aspect of the 
> rules has not changed. What did change is that an auxiliary link can 
> now be used on 2 meters. This makes it possible to link into a 2 meter 
> repeater in-band without violating the rules. I think that rule 
> discussion is not permitted on this list, and apologize for this 
> response. But a common misconception about Sky Command is that it does 
> some control on 2 meters. In fact, it only uses the 2 meter band to 
> transmit the receive audio from the remote installation.

Cool-I never actually looked at it, so I didn't really know what it did.
Thanks for the clarification, Jim

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[w5zit]

Sky Command does not do any control on 2 meters. This aspect of the 
rules has not changed. What did change is that an auxiliary link can 
now be used on 2 meters. This makes it possible to link into a 2 meter 
repeater in-band without violating the rules. I think that rule 
discussion is not permitted on this list, and apologize for this 
response. But a common misconception about Sky Command is that it does 
some control on 2 meters. In fact, it only uses the 2 meter band to 
transmit the receive audio from the remote installation.

73 - Jim W5ZIT

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

What you are doing is a "remote base"

The whole skycommand deal was over remote control on 2m and doesn't
apply to what you are doing.

William Delbert Ellis wrote:
>
>
> Howdy, New to this group today.
> I am the control operator for two of our ham club repeaters.
> A 2m Motorola and 70cm Motorola.
> We had them next to each other hard wired linked with antennas on a
> very tall commercial
> tower in Austin. The UHF antenna was turned to dust by a
> lightning strike. The machine survived however the cost of a
> tower climb exceeds our cub funds so I have moved and
> coordinated the UHF machine 20 miles west to my home QTH
> tower. This works out nice as I am on a big hill and cover
> the local state park very well. I would like to link the two
> together by installing a 2m mobile rig on the UHF controller
> "linking radio" I/O and link it to the VHF machine.
> This would take the audio out of the UHF machine and
> transmit it on the mobile rig to the input of the VHF
> machine 20 miles east via a small 2m yagi. The RX audio on
> the 2m mobile rig would then be transmitted out on the UHF
> machine. This is all easy to do with the controller I have.
> The question is this legal now on the ham bands? I think up
> until early this year you could only link with UHF until the
> FCC changed the law enabling the Kenwood "sky command" to be
> legal on 2m thus allowing what I am planning. What are the
> group members thoughts on this?
> Thanks,
> Bill N5ZTW Central Texas.
>
>

--
Jay Urish CCNA Network Engineer

Home)972-691-0125
Cell)972-965-6229






Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[w5zit]

Bill, there is no problem doing in-band linking on 2 meters these days. 
What you need to do is keep the squelch tail and IDs from the two meter 
repeater from being repeated on the 440 repeater. You may not have that 
problem in that your 440 repeater probably has the same callsign as the 
2 meter machine, but if they were different the following system would 
keep them separate.

Set up the CTCSS transmission on the 2 meter repeater so it would only 
be transmitted when a user is on the input of the 2 meter repeater. 
Then use CTCSS decode on the 2 meter link radio to shut off the audio 
and COS from the 2 meter repeater as soon as the 2 meter user unkeys. 
This is a common problem when linking a repeater to EchoLink or IRLP 
and this solution seems to work best when the link is in-band.

73 - Jim W5ZIT

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:29 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

Howdy, New to this group today.
I am the control operator for two of our ham club repeaters.
A 2m Motorola and 70cm Motorola.
We had them next to each other hard wired linked with antennas on a
very tall commercial
tower in Austin. The UHF antenna was turned to dust by a
lightning strike. The machine survived however the cost of a
tower climb exceeds our cub funds so I have moved and
coordinated the UHF machine 20 miles west to my home QTH
tower. This works out nice as I am on a big hill and cover
the local state park very well. I would like to link the two
together by installing a 2m mobile rig on the UHF controller
"linking radio" I/O and link it to the VHF machine.
This would take the audio out of the UHF machine and
transmit it on the mobile rig to the input of the VHF
machine 20 miles east via a small 2m yagi. The RX audio on
the 2m mobile rig would then be transmitted out on the UHF
machine. This is all easy to do with the controller I have.
The question is this legal now on the ham bands? I think up
until early this year you could only link with UHF until the
FCC changed the law enabling the Kenwood "sky command" to be
legal on 2m thus allowing what I am planning. What are the
group members thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Bill N5ZTW Central Texas.






Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[Jim B.]

William Delbert Ellis wrote:
> Howdy, New to this group today.
> I am the control operator for two of our ham club repeaters.
> A 2m Motorola and 70cm Motorola.
> We had them next to each other hard wired linked with antennas on a 
> very tall commercial
> tower in Austin. The UHF antenna was turned to dust by a
> lightning strike. The machine survived however the cost of a
> tower climb exceeds our cub funds so I have moved and
> coordinated the UHF machine 20 miles west to my home QTH
> tower. This works out nice as I am on a big hill and cover
> the local state park very well. I would like to link the two
> together by installing a 2m mobile rig on the UHF controller
> "linking radio" I/O and link it to the VHF machine.
> This would take the audio out of the UHF machine and
> transmit it on the mobile rig to the input of the VHF
> machine 20 miles east via a small 2m yagi. The RX audio on
> the 2m mobile rig would then be transmitted out on the UHF
> machine. This is all easy to do with the controller I have.
> The question is this legal now on the ham bands? I think up
> until early this year you could only link with UHF until the
> FCC changed the law enabling the Kenwood "sky command" to be
> legal on 2m thus allowing what I am planning. What are the
> group members thoughts on this? 
> Thanks,
> Bill N5ZTW Central Texas.

What you're talking has been legal all along (at least back to the 
60's). The legal definition is a remote base. As long as PRIMARY CONTROL 
is done over UHF, there is no problem.
The only reasons I know of that 'Sky Command' was deemed illegal was the 
possibility of control over VHF, and the lack of adequate identification.
Someone here in Cleveland has a UHF repeater with radios on 29.6, 
52.525, several 2M simplexes, and 223.5, been there since the mid-70's. 
Others have newer remote bases that are frequency agile, etc. But in 
your case, a remote base radio on another repeater freq. is fine, 
especially if it's 'your' (clubs) repeater. Having permission of the 
trustee is necessary-no problem in this case ;c}

I was just down in Austin a few weeks ago, and I remember hearing some 
people talk about a UHF repeater that went down. That must be it, 444.1 
I think? I only had a handheld, and we were staying west of Buda, so I 
really could only listen.

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[Jay Urish]

What you are doing is a "remote base"

The whole skycommand deal was over remote control on 2m and doesn't 
apply to what you are doing.

William Delbert Ellis wrote:
> 
> 
> Howdy, New to this group today.
> I am the control operator for two of our ham club repeaters.
> A 2m Motorola and 70cm Motorola.
> We had them next to each other hard wired linked with antennas on a
> very tall commercial
> tower in Austin. The UHF antenna was turned to dust by a
> lightning strike. The machine survived however the cost of a
> tower climb exceeds our cub funds so I have moved and
> coordinated the UHF machine 20 miles west to my home QTH
> tower. This works out nice as I am on a big hill and cover
> the local state park very well. I would like to link the two
> together by installing a 2m mobile rig on the UHF controller
> "linking radio" I/O and link it to the VHF machine.
> This would take the audio out of the UHF machine and
> transmit it on the mobile rig to the input of the VHF
> machine 20 miles east via a small 2m yagi. The RX audio on
> the 2m mobile rig would then be transmitted out on the UHF
> machine. This is all easy to do with the controller I have.
> The question is this legal now on the ham bands? I think up
> until early this year you could only link with UHF until the
> FCC changed the law enabling the Kenwood "sky command" to be
> legal on 2m thus allowing what I am planning. What are the
> group members thoughts on this?
> Thanks,
> Bill N5ZTW Central Texas.
> 
> 

-- 
Jay Urish   CCNANetwork Engineer

Home)972-691-0125
Cell)972-965-6229

[Repeater-Builder] Linking question

[William Delbert Ellis]

Howdy, New to this group today.
I am the control operator for two of our ham club repeaters.
A 2m Motorola and 70cm Motorola.
We had them next to each other hard wired linked with antennas on a 
very tall commercial
tower in Austin. The UHF antenna was turned to dust by a
lightning strike. The machine survived however the cost of a
tower climb exceeds our cub funds so I have moved and
coordinated the UHF machine 20 miles west to my home QTH
tower. This works out nice as I am on a big hill and cover
the local state park very well. I would like to link the two
together by installing a 2m mobile rig on the UHF controller
"linking radio" I/O and link it to the VHF machine.
This would take the audio out of the UHF machine and
transmit it on the mobile rig to the input of the VHF
machine 20 miles east via a small 2m yagi. The RX audio on
the 2m mobile rig would then be transmitted out on the UHF
machine. This is all easy to do with the controller I have.
The question is this legal now on the ham bands? I think up
until early this year you could only link with UHF until the
FCC changed the law enabling the Kenwood "sky command" to be
legal on 2m thus allowing what I am planning. What are the
group members thoughts on this? 
Thanks,
Bill N5ZTW Central Texas.

[Repeater-Builder] linking motorola gr500 repeater to another gr500 repeater to able to cover wide range.

[Saviour Otsemobor]

hello guys.,
  pls am new to this group, pls has anybody in the group linked 2 motorola 
gr500 repeater to together so that it can wide range asuming both repeaters are 
5okm  apartor there about . using the basic controller to archive this.?.
  pls all infor on the programming will be appreciated.
  regards.
  saviour.

 
-
The fish are biting.
 Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] linking frequencies?

[Jim B.]

Gary wrote:
> I suggest checking with your local frequency coordination group(s) for
> the bands. Linking in the 440Mhz band is generally not acceptible
> however the 420-430Mhz portion of the amateur 70cm band is used for
> linking in some regions.
> Gary

Unless you live near the CDN border, where 420-430 is commercial and 
public safety. Links here are either 433-434, 445-447, or maybe a few in 
440-442, although I think the ATV guys have a claim to it.

> let_cyber wrote:
> 
>> Is 900 Mhz still useable for repeater linking, or is it so full of
>> garbage that there would be problems? How about 440 Mhz?
>>
>> Thanks, Al KB2AYU

As far as 900 goes, how much 'garbage' there is depends on where you 
are. Ohio has links in the 927-927.5 region, paired with 25 Mhz down. We 
find if you stay to the 12.5 pairs (.x125, .x375, .x625, .x875), noise 
is much less.
---
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] linking frequencies?

[no6b]

At 2/20/2007 20:05, you wrote:
>I suggest checking with your local frequency coordination group(s) for
>the bands. Linking in the 440Mhz band is generally not acceptible


... in California.  However, I understand that some other parts of the 
country have used 440-442 paired with 445-447 MHz for linking.  Maybe that 
has changed recently?

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] linking frequencies?

[Gary]

I suggest checking with your local frequency coordination group(s) for
the bands. Linking in the 440Mhz band is generally not acceptible
however the 420-430Mhz portion of the amateur 70cm band is used for
linking in some regions.
Gary

let_cyber wrote:

> Is 900 Mhz still useable for repeater linking, or is it so full of
> garbage that there would be problems? How about 440 Mhz?
>
> Thanks, Al KB2AYU
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] linking frequencies?

[let_cyber]

Is 900 Mhz still useable for repeater linking, or is it so full of 
garbage that there would be problems? How about 440 Mhz?

Thanks, Al KB2AYU

[Repeater-Builder] Linking Software for Crossband Repeat Setup

[pikeco44]

Hello all ,
Looking for some Computer Software to Rick to EF Johnson 
Radios togeather for Cross band Repeat ! I have a EF Johnson 9843 UHF Radio and 
a 
EF Johnson 7186 VHF Radio to use in this Simplex Link . Any Help would be 
Grate . 

Thank you .

Steve KB3FSR
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters over Internet Help

[Jim Brown]

>
>
>Hello Group,
>I am completely new to VOIP, so I need some direction.  I have two
>repeaters with remote base ports that I would like to tie together via
>internet connection.  Can you direct me to a page or tell me where I
>can get info on what equipment I need to tie audio and logic
>connections into the PC, and what software I need?  Thanks, KC4FWC
>  
>

A few questions are in order.  Are the computers co-located with the 
repeater controllers or is there a radio link from the repeater to the 
computer?  Is this an amateur system or commercial?

Which VOIP system are you considering using?  Echolink (amateur only) 
does not have, by itself, a method of tying two EchoLink nodes together 
permanently.  A companion program called Echotime will provide a 
permanent link that will automatically re-connect if it is disconnected 
for any reason.  IRLP can work as a permanent link if you want to run 
Linix on both computers.  I suspect a system like Skype could be 
configured to operate between two computers on a permanent link basis, 
but I am not familiar with that system.

I built a direct interface from EchoLink to an RC-210 controller a year 
ago and it has been in service since then with no problems.  I do not 
use one of the custom interface boards that are marketed for EchoLink 
and other VOIP systems, and find the DTMF decode works better in the 
sound card than out on the external board since you can control the 
audio frequency response in the sound card.  In your case, you may not 
want any control signaling at all into the VOIP system if you are not 
going to allow outside connects.

73 - Jim  W5ZIT




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters over Internet Help

[jdmcomm]

Hello Group,
I am completely new to VOIP, so I need some direction.  I have two
repeaters with remote base ports that I would like to tie together via
internet connection.  Can you direct me to a page or tell me where I
can get info on what equipment I need to tie audio and logic
connections into the PC, and what software I need?  Thanks, KC4FWC










 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions

[k4ij]

Thanks to all who responded to my question concerning linking!

73
Mike K4IJ








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[Charles Mumphrey]

Works for me!

Charles Mumphrey
Amateur Radio Station Kc5ozh
Kc5ozh Rowlett Repeater: 441.325 Mhz + 162.2
Kc5ozh Dallas Repeater: 441.950 Mhz + 162.2
Rowlett R.A.C.E.S. Unit 823
http://www.CharliesElectronics.com
http://www.hello-radio.org/


>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, March 20, 2006 1:47 pm
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
  
> Run a condiut to the other location if it is what you say 20-30 yards away 
> and run shielded Cat-5 and tie them together and be done with it. Get the 
> volunteers with there shovels and picks and go to town. 
>   >   -- 
> Mike K7PFJ 

> >Hi, 
> >Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub 
> > >repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220 > > snip> 
> > >> >Your suggestions? 
> > > > >Thanks 
> > > > >Mike K4IJ 
> 





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[Dexter McIntyre W4DEX]

Just to keep in stride with some other suggestions, you could lease a 
dedicated circuit from the local telco or how about a fiber line from 
the cable company?  That should keep your pockets purged :)

Maybe I missed something but I would consider just linking the two 
repeaters with a 220 receiver at the 440 site and a 440 receiver at the 
220 site.  Being that close you would not even need antennas on either 
receiver.  PL wouldn't even be necessary unless you wanted to use tone 
to key the repeaters.  I've done it this several time in years past and 
it worked well.

Dex, W4DEX




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[HQ54]

Cheap computers and WAN.  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:47:36 +Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please



Run a condiut to the other location if it is what you say 20-30 yards away and run shielded Cat-5 and tie them together and be done with it. Get the volunteers with there shovels and picks and go to town.
 
Mike K7PFJ
 
-- Original message -- From: "JOHN MACKEY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > be careful, with a 2.4G system, you may have delay. > > -- Original Message -- > Received: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:50:26 PM CST > From: DCFluX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please > > > Try a 2.4GHz wireless video sender, with coffee can antennas. > > > > On 3/19/06, Gary Pearce KN4AQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > > If you have line-of-sight, maybe infra-red (or laser was already > suggested). > > > > > > 73, > > > Gary KN4AQ > > > > > > At 07:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > >Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub > > > >repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220 > > > >repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds. > > > >I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out > > > >for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or > > > >similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost > > > >$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that > > > >kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of > > > >attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to > > > >be able to do CTCSS or DCS. > > > > > > > >Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience > > > >with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low > > > >power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything > > > >that would work. > > > > > > > >Your suggestions? > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > >Mike K4IJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Gary Pearce KN4AQ staff writer, SERA Repeater Journal > > > Cary, NC www.sera.org > > > 919-380-9944 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > AIM: KN4AQ Radio. Yahoo: KN4AQ > > > (send e-mail to be put on my "buddy list") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > 


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

 Visit your group "Repeater-Builder" on the web.  
 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
















  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "Repeater-Builder" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[k7pfj]

Run a condiut to the other location if it is what you say 20-30 yards away and run shielded Cat-5 and tie them together and be done with it. Get the volunteers with there shovels and picks and go to town.
 
Mike K7PFJ
 
-- Original message -- From: "JOHN MACKEY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > be careful, with a 2.4G system, you may have delay. > > -- Original Message -- > Received: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:50:26 PM CST > From: DCFluX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please > > > Try a 2.4GHz wireless video sender, with coffee can antennas. > > > > On 3/19/06, Gary Pearce KN4AQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > > If you have line-of-sight, maybe infra-red (or laser was already > suggested). > > > > > > 73, > > > Gary KN4AQ > > > > > > At 07:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > >Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub > > > >repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220 > > > >repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds. > > > >I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out > > > >for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or > > > >similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost > > > >$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that > > > >kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of > > > >attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to > > > >be able to do CTCSS or DCS. > > > > > > > >Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience > > > >with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low > > > >power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything > > > >that would work. > > > > > > > >Your suggestions? > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > >Mike K4IJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Gary Pearce KN4AQ staff writer, SERA Repeater Journal > > > Cary, NC www.sera.org > > > 919-380-9944 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > AIM: KN4AQ Radio. Yahoo: KN4AQ > > > (send e-mail to be put on my "buddy list") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > 













  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "Repeater-Builder" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[radio5000]

Put a very low power 220 radio on the 440 
repeater.













  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "Repeater-Builder" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[Rod Lane]

How about fiber?   All of those kits you see around the internet for
wireless (infrared) headphones seem simple and HP has some nice little
emitters and detectors for the 1000um Plastic Optical Fiber.  It's easy to
work with and easy to terminate.  A hot knife and a simple polishing fixture
that comes in the demo kit work well.  The optical carrier can be PTT or COR
depending on the end you're working on.  Even multimode fiber is pretty easy
to work with.  Preterminated lengths of MM 62.5um duplex fiber might be had
from some friendly IT guys.  Emitters and detectors might be obtained from
local IT installers.  I'd think they might have some older fiber NICs
they're upgrading.  

Worth a look.   And of course, fiber is EMI and RF proof.

Rod Lane, N1FNE
Southington, CT 06489-1812
Grid:FN31no


-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave and Julie
Corrigan
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:37 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please


Hack a cordless telephone? Cordless intercom? 2.4Ghz / 5.8Ghz digitals 
should be secure enough.
LED optical transmitters/receivers with appropriate filters for the 
daylight might be another option.
-Dave, KB7SVP

[MODERATOR NOTE:  Unnecessary re-quoting deleted]








 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[Dave and Julie Corrigan]

Hack a cordless telephone? Cordless intercom? 2.4Ghz / 5.8Ghz digitals 
should be secure enough.
LED optical transmitters/receivers with appropriate filters for the 
daylight might be another option.
-Dave, KB7SVP

[MODERATOR NOTE:  Unnecessary re-quoting deleted]








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[DCFluX]

Only if you are converting to digital and then back. In a analog
system your only delay is the speed of light.

On 3/19/06, JOHN MACKEY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> be careful, with a 2.4G system, you may have delay.
>
> -- Original Message --
> Received: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:50:26 PM CST
> From: DCFluX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please
>
> > Try a 2.4GHz wireless video sender, with coffee can antennas.
> >
> > On 3/19/06, Gary Pearce KN4AQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you have line-of-sight, maybe infra-red (or laser was already
> suggested).
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Gary KN4AQ
> > >
> > > At 07:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub
> > > >repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220
> > > >repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds.
> > > >I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out
> > > >for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or
> > > >similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost
> > > >$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that
> > > >kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of
> > > >attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to
> > > >be able to do CTCSS or DCS.
> > > >
> > > >Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience
> > > >with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low
> > > >power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything
> > > >that would work.
> > > >
> > > >Your suggestions?
> > > >
> > > >Thanks
> > > >Mike K4IJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> __
> > > Gary Pearce KN4AQstaff writer, SERA Repeater Journal
> > > Cary, NC www.sera.org
> > > 919-380-9944 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >  AIM: KN4AQ Radio.  Yahoo: KN4AQ
> > >  (send e-mail to be put on my "buddy list")
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[JOHN MACKEY]

be careful, with a 2.4G system, you may have delay.

-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:50:26 PM CST
From: DCFluX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

> Try a 2.4GHz wireless video sender, with coffee can antennas.
> 
> On 3/19/06, Gary Pearce KN4AQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > If you have line-of-sight, maybe infra-red (or laser was already
suggested).
> >
> > 73,
> > Gary KN4AQ
> >
> > At 07:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub
> > >repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220
> > >repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds.
> > >I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out
> > >for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or
> > >similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost
> > >$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that
> > >kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of
> > >attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to
> > >be able to do CTCSS or DCS.
> > >
> > >Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience
> > >with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low
> > >power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything
> > >that would work.
> > >
> > >Your suggestions?
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >Mike K4IJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
__
> > Gary Pearce KN4AQstaff writer, SERA Repeater Journal
> > Cary, NC www.sera.org
> > 919-380-9944 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >  AIM: KN4AQ Radio.  Yahoo: KN4AQ
> >  (send e-mail to be put on my "buddy list")
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[DCFluX]

Try a 2.4GHz wireless video sender, with coffee can antennas.

On 3/19/06, Gary Pearce KN4AQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you have line-of-sight, maybe infra-red (or laser was already suggested).
>
> 73,
> Gary KN4AQ
>
> At 07:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub
> >repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220
> >repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds.
> >I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out
> >for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or
> >similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost
> >$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that
> >kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of
> >attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to
> >be able to do CTCSS or DCS.
> >
> >Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience
> >with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low
> >power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything
> >that would work.
> >
> >Your suggestions?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Mike K4IJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __
> Gary Pearce KN4AQstaff writer, SERA Repeater Journal
> Cary, NC www.sera.org
> 919-380-9944 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  AIM: KN4AQ Radio.  Yahoo: KN4AQ
>  (send e-mail to be put on my "buddy list")
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[Gary Pearce KN4AQ]

If you have line-of-sight, maybe infra-red (or laser was already suggested).

73,
Gary KN4AQ

At 07:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
>Hi,
>Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub
>repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220
>repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds.
>I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out
>for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or
>similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost
>$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that
>kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of
>attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to
>be able to do CTCSS or DCS.
>
>Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience
>with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low
>power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything
>that would work.
>
>Your suggestions?
>
>Thanks
>Mike K4IJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

__
Gary Pearce KN4AQstaff writer, SERA Repeater Journal
Cary, NC www.sera.org
919-380-9944 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AIM: KN4AQ Radio.  Yahoo: KN4AQ
 (send e-mail to be put on my "buddy list")






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[Kevin Custer]

k4ij wrote:
> Hi,
> Here's the deal. I have two sites...
>
> Your suggestions?

http://www.repeater-builder.com/rbtip/repeaterlinking.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[Bob M.]

One problem you need to address when running wires
between sites is the possibility of different ground
potentials, especially during an electrical storm.

Ideally, something that provides isolation should be
used, such as transformers or even optical devices. If
the two buildings are well grounded and connected to
each other, that will help considerably. Metal conduit
might also be worth the effort as it will provide
shielding and a ground connection to all the cables.

A couple of laser communications devices might also
work. Totally immune to lightning damage, and it would
be a fun project.

Bob M.
==
--- Robin Midgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I agree with the others. Run some shielded audio
> wire between the two, have 
> a ball. Consider using gray PVC conduit.
> 
> At 06:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is
> where my 440 hub
> >repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning
> to put a 220
> >repeater. The distance between the two is about
> 20-30 yds.
> >I need to find a way to link the two together.
> Doing it on 440 is out
> >for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple
> of GTX900s or
> >similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to
> mention would cost
> >$250-$300. Seems like there should be an
> alternative to spending that
> >kind of money. I also need this to work without
> attracting a lot of
> >attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The
> radios would need to
> >be able to do CTCSS or DCS.
> >
> >Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone
> have any experience
> >with those? Someone else said I might be able to do
> it with hts on low
> >power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't
> locate anything
> >that would work.
> >
> >Your suggestions?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Mike K4IJ

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[Robin Midgett]

I agree with the others. Run some shielded audio wire between the two, have 
a ball. Consider using gray PVC conduit.

At 06:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
>Hi,
>Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub
>repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220
>repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds.
>I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out
>for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or
>similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost
>$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that
>kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of
>attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to
>be able to do CTCSS or DCS.
>
>Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience
>with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low
>power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything
>that would work.
>
>Your suggestions?
>
>Thanks
>Mike K4IJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Thanks,
Robin Midgett K4IDC
VHF+ Glutton EM66se 





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[JOHN MACKEY]

20-30 yards!?!?!?  How about simple wireline you string yourself?

-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 06:45:12 PM CST
From: "k4ij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

> Hi,
> Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub 
> repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220 
> repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds.
> I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out 
> for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or 
> similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost 
> $250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that 
> kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of 
> attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to 
> be able to do CTCSS or DCS.
> 
> Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience 
> with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low 
> power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything 
> that would work.
> 
> Your suggestions?
> 
> Thanks
> Mike K4IJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[n . mckie]

  How about interconnect via wire? 

  Neil - WA6KLA 

 Original Message 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:45:07 -

>Hi,
>Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub 
>repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220 
>repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds.
>I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out
>
>for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or 
>similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost
>
>$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that
>
>kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of 
>attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to
>
>be able to do CTCSS or DCS.
>
>Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience 
>with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on
>low 
>power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything 
>that would work.
>
>Your suggestions?
>
>Thanks
>Mike K4IJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] Linking Suggestions Please

[k4ij]

Hi,
Here's the deal. I have two sites...Site one is where my 440 hub 
repeater is located. Site two is where I'm planning to put a 220 
repeater. The distance between the two is about 20-30 yds.
I need to find a way to link the two together. Doing it on 440 is out 
for several reasons. I could use 900 with a couple of GTX900s or 
similiar but that seems to be a total waste not to mention would cost 
$250-$300. Seems like there should be an alternative to spending that 
kind of money. I also need this to work without attracting a lot of 
attention, ie...putting up antennas outside. The radios would need to 
be able to do CTCSS or DCS.

Someone suggested using telemetry radios. Anyone have any experience 
with those? Someone else said I might be able to do it with hts on low 
power. I have been thinking about 1.2 GHz but can't locate anything 
that would work.

Your suggestions?

Thanks
Mike K4IJ








 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking 2 MTR2000 Repeaters

[Rich Summers]

Thanks Brian..I'll check that out.

Rich


--- Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Rich
> 
> An ICS Linker IIa can do this.
> 
> www.ics-ctrl.com
> 
> 73
> Brian
> ka9pmm
> 
> 
> Rich Summers wrote:
> 
> >Has anybody tries linking 2 MTR2000 repeaters
> together?
> >What I need to do is link a VHF to UHF repeater so
> when one or the 
> >other receives and transmits the other will do the
> same. Do I need to 
> >use a controller for this function or can I
> hardwire the two together?
> >Any help would be appreciated!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking repeaters

[Ian Wells]

Thanks Jim  
 

Thank You,
Ian Wells,
Kerinvale Comaudio,
www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Jim Cicirello
Date: 02/14/06 03:25:47
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking repeaters
 
We have had a multiple repeater linking system for several years that has
worked flawlessly. The system is VHF (several VHF Repeaters) that is linked
together using a Hub Repeater. A friend Leon N2HLT, you can see his site on
the web by entering his call) has a UHF system that has about fifteen UHF
repeaters. You cannot tell the difference from one of his repeaters to the
other. In my case I have a 447X449 Hub Repeater. Each stand-alone repeater
has a simplex link that talks to the hub.
Picture the spokes of the wheel being the individual repeaters and the Hub
being the HUB REPEATER that ties them all together, you can see how seamless
this can be. My hub does NOT have a tail, as all the repeaters linked are
not mine. In the N2HLT system Leon owns all the repeaters so he sets each
individual repeater for no tail and has his Hub Repeater set with a tail,
thus all the repeaters come up and go down at the same time. It doesn't get
any better. Hope this helps.
73 JIM  KA2AJH
 
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ian
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:12 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking repeaters
 
Hi guys .I am interested to find out the better ways to link multiple
repeaters together.At the moment i am using for each link  2 data
radios back to back on a site between the sites but this is a slow way
to link 3 or 4 sites together using one repeater site as the central
site with all the others feeding through it.One option i am looking at
is to install one data radio on each of the outer sites fitted with  tx
and rx the central site .It works ok from the outer site i am testing
to the central site but i am a bit concerned about from the central
site back to the outer sites without it looping .any sugestions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yahoo! Groups Links
 
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
 
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
 
 
 
 





















  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "Repeater-Builder" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking repeaters

[Jim Cicirello]

We have had a multiple repeater linking system for several years that has
worked flawlessly. The system is VHF (several VHF Repeaters) that is linked
together using a Hub Repeater. A friend Leon N2HLT, you can see his site on
the web by entering his call) has a UHF system that has about fifteen UHF
repeaters. You cannot tell the difference from one of his repeaters to the
other. In my case I have a 447X449 Hub Repeater. Each stand-alone repeater
has a simplex link that talks to the hub.
Picture the spokes of the wheel being the individual repeaters and the Hub
being the HUB REPEATER that ties them all together, you can see how seamless
this can be. My hub does NOT have a tail, as all the repeaters linked are
not mine. In the N2HLT system Leon owns all the repeaters so he sets each
individual repeater for no tail and has his Hub Repeater set with a tail,
thus all the repeaters come up and go down at the same time. It doesn't get
any better. Hope this helps.
73 JIM  KA2AJH  

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:12 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking repeaters

Hi guys .I am interested to find out the better ways to link multiple 
repeaters together.At the moment i am using for each link  2 data 
radios back to back on a site between the sites but this is a slow way 
to link 3 or 4 sites together using one repeater site as the central 
site with all the others feeding through it.One option i am looking at 
is to install one data radio on each of the outer sites fitted with  tx 
and rx the central site .It works ok from the outer site i am testing 
to the central site but i am a bit concerned about from the central 
site back to the outer sites without it looping .any sugestions 







 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 









 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] Linking repeaters

[Ian]

Hi guys .I am interested to find out the better ways to link multiple 
repeaters together.At the moment i am using for each link  2 data 
radios back to back on a site between the sites but this is a slow way 
to link 3 or 4 sites together using one repeater site as the central 
site with all the others feeding through it.One option i am looking at 
is to install one data radio on each of the outer sites fitted with  tx 
and rx the central site .It works ok from the outer site i am testing 
to the central site but i am a bit concerned about from the central 
site back to the outer sites without it looping .any sugestions 







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking 220/440

[Neil McKie]

  Hello . 

KA9QJG wrote:
> 
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking 220/440
> 
>>   Can the sites 'see' each other?  
>
> YES
> 
>> If you don't have a spare 440 MHz receiver, I have a couple
>>  around here ... 
>
> ---Thanks ButI Have a Maxtrac and a Spectra Tec
> -
> 
>>   Hope this helps,
>
>  Yes is Did -
> 
>>   Neil - WA6KLA
> 
> And I Thank You very Much too
> 
> Happy Repeater Building
> 
> Don KA9QJG

  You are welcome, 

  Neil - WA6KLA





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking 220/440

[KA9QJG]

Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking 220/440



  Can the sites 'see' each other?   YES

If you don't have a spare 440 MHz receiver, I have a couple
 around here ...---Thanks ButI Have a Maxtrac and a Spectra
Tec -

  Hope this helps,  Yes is Did -

  Neil - WA6KLA

And I Thank You very Much too

Happy Repeater Building

Don KA9QJG






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] Linking 220/440

[KA9QJG]

Hello Everyone, I do not wish to re invent the Wheel but I would like Some
Reasonable suggestions to Do the Following, from others who have already
done this, I have a 440 and 220 Repeater at two different locations less the
20 Miles apart, I would like to full duplex link the two together I picked
up a old working Cobra 200/ Midland 220 Mobile and probably could get
another, What would be the best way to do this, and Please keep it in Layman
terms.
Controller 440 is S-Com 5K
   220 is a NHRC-3 Plus

Thanks Don KA9QJG





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Question

[Ralph Hogan]

If the link requires PL, then turn off the PL when there is no COS from a
user. (Many controllers can be rigged to implement this, or you can make a
circuit to mute PL driven off COS gone). This dead hang time after a user
lets up is usually when the repeater tries to ID. The distant repeater wont
repeat it since it doesn't hear PL on the signal.

However, normally if the link radio is established on a 'remote-base' port
of both systems, the controller is usually programmed to not send ID audio
down a remote base port, so no Id-overlay problem.

73's
Ralph W4XE

-Original Message-
From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:49 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Question





In my quest to learn about building my first repeater, I have thought
of a potential problem.

If I wanted to set up an RF link to another repeater, how do you
overcome the potential problem of each of the repeaters ID'ing
(walking on each other) at the same time. (I could see this happening
if both repeater sites were idle at time of key-up.  (Given that most
repeaters ID in 10 minute intervels). Is there something that should
be done during construction?

Thanks.

Tony
KC5WBJ











Yahoo! Groups Links














 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] Linking Question

[Tony]

In my quest to learn about building my first repeater, I have thought 
of a potential problem.

If I wanted to set up an RF link to another repeater, how do you 
overcome the potential problem of each of the repeaters ID'ing 
(walking on each other) at the same time. (I could see this happening 
if both repeater sites were idle at time of key-up.  (Given that most 
repeaters ID in 10 minute intervels). Is there something that should 
be done during construction?

Thanks.

Tony
KC5WBJ










 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] linking & controllers

[Mike Mullarkey]

Use the link comm. RLC-4 you will have no problems.

Oregon Repeater Linking Group
Mike Mullarkey
6539 E Street
Springfield, OR 97478
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.orlg.org
 
 

-Original Message-
From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:52 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] linking & controllers


At 11:15 AM 3/14/05, you wrote:

>I have two repeaters one at 145.390-   the other at
>145.330- about 65 miles apart one at 3000ft the other
>at 1750ft   Nothing but flat land between I want to
>link with 443.450 and 448.450 what type of controlers
>do I need and how do I do this.  "Help"

The first question is what make and model of repeater controller
do you have at each site?

Secondly, go to www.repeater-builder.com and scroll down to the
link named "Repeater linking".  Read that article.
You will have more and better questions when you finish...

Mike WA6ILQ







 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] linking & controllers

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 11:15 AM 3/14/05, you wrote:

>I have two repeaters one at 145.390-   the other at
>145.330- about 65 miles apart one at 3000ft the other
>at 1750ft   Nothing but flat land between I want to
>link with 443.450 and 448.450 what type of controlers
>do I need and how do I do this.  "Help"

The first question is what make and model of repeater controller
do you have at each site?

Secondly, go to www.repeater-builder.com and scroll down to the
link named "Repeater linking".  Read that article.
You will have more and better questions when you finish...

Mike WA6ILQ







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] linking & contrrolers

[Gary Hoff]

Any 2 port controller one at each end,  I think all of the controller makers 
offer a 2 port controller.
Link RLC-1,  CAT series has one,  I have a MCC  RCC-100 that will do that. 
Do a google on Repeater controllers and you'll get a bunch of options.
Gary - K7NEY
- Original Message - 
From: "Warren Beaulé" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 12:15 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] linking & contrrolers


>
>
> I have two repeaters one at 145.390-   the other at
> 145.330- about 65 miles apart one at 3000ft the other
> at 1750ft   Nothing but flat land between I want to
> link with 443.450 and 448.450 what type of controlers
> do I need and how do I do this.  "Help"
>
> __
> Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/