Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
Nate Duehr wrote: Hmm... My Kenwood TH-F6A (I assume that's what you mean by F6) does NOT respond to RB from anything I've tried. How old is yours? (Perhaps a change?) Don't remember now...3-4 yrs maybe??? Batt date code is J14A if that helps... You sure the repeater you're listening to doesn't drop the CTCSS prior to TX drop? heh-my repeaters ;cD Granted most of the local systems are GE STE, not Moto RB... so I have to go out of my way to find a Motorola repeater to test things against... :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com heh-I got the opposite issue. Right now the only GE i have online is a Phoenix-SX-grey case-and it does work with that simplex...
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
Nate Duehr wrote: Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great! (BIG GRIN...) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com FWIW-my wife and I have some newer Kenwoods. Both the G71 and F6 respond to factory Micor r/b and the 7330 r/b properly, as well as most every commercial system that has it too. The G707 responds to the Micor and 7330, but doesn't always do some of the others. The somewhat older 742 doesn't like any of them. But believe it or not, the old TK-801 repsonds to the 7330 at 180 degrees, but I haven't heard it work with anything else, even the factory Micor... WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
FWIW-my wife and I have some newer Kenwoods. Both the G71 and F6 respond to factory Micor r/b and the 7330 r/b properly, as well as most every commercial system that has it too. The G707 responds to the Micor and 7330, but doesn't always do some of the others. The somewhat older 742 doesn't like any of them. But believe it or not, the old TK-801 repsonds to the 7330 at 180 degrees, but I haven't heard it work with anything else, even the factory Micor... WD8CHL Hmm... My Kenwood TH-F6A (I assume that's what you mean by F6) does NOT respond to RB from anything I've tried. How old is yours? (Perhaps a change?) You sure the repeater you're listening to doesn't drop the CTCSS prior to TX drop? Granted most of the local systems are GE STE, not Moto RB... so I have to go out of my way to find a Motorola repeater to test things against... :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
At 11/12/2009 06:41, you wrote: FWIW-my wife and I have some newer Kenwoods. Both the G71 and F6 respond to factory Micor r/b and the 7330 r/b properly, as well as most every commercial system that has it too. The G707 responds to the Micor and 7330, but doesn't always do some of the others. The somewhat older 742 doesn't like any of them. But believe it or not, the old TK-801 repsonds to the 7330 at 180 degrees, but I haven't heard it work with anything else, even the factory Micor... WD8CHL The TK-805D's decoder works with the Mastr II's CG reverse burst. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
The old Alinco DR-590 generated a reverse burst. I could always tell when a station was using one as the squelch noise went away immediately on a PL controlled repeater. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Tue, 11/10/09, JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net wrote: From: JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 5:15 PM It's been since the late 1950's that reverse burst has been around for PL tones. So for over 50 years the ham manufacturers haven't gotten on board yet. -- Original Message -- Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
Wow. I never knew that. The HTX-202/404 HT's (and I think maybe the mobile rig of the same vintage but I'm not sure on that one) from RadioShack do chicken burst (turn off CTCSS then delay before turning off the transmitter) but it's not a true phase reversal. Nate WY0X On Nov 11, 2009, at 7:05 AM, Jim Brown wrote: The old Alinco DR-590 generated a reverse burst. I could always tell when a station was using one as the squelch noise went away immediately on a PL controlled repeater. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Tue, 11/10/09, JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net wrote: From: JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 5:15 PM It's been since the late 1950's that reverse burst has been around for PL tones. So for over 50 years the ham manufacturers haven't gotten on board yet. -- Original Message -- Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great! Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com facebook.com/denverpilot twitter.com/denverpilot Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
In the example the most practical way to link the two repeaters would be to install a single remote base radio onto one of the repeaters. Connections and control are simple... s. Jerry gdste...@... 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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
I used an in-band link to couple two VHF repeaters together, and have a Zetron Z38A controller that allows me to terminate the repeaters transmitted tone as soon as a user drops the input. That is all it took to keep the two repeaters happy. I never did have much luck with two users talking at the same time, so that has not been a problem. With the link we have, a user would have to be right on top of the repeater to overcome the link, so still just hear one user with a hetrodyne if another user is trying to talk, the same as if they were both trying to talk on the same repeater and one was stronger than the other. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Tue, 11/10/09, larynl2 lar...@hotmail.com wrote: From: larynl2 lar...@hotmail.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 7:38 PM In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@... Nate, just a comment on the above. We've used in-band on-channel (IBOC??) linking to a nearby repeater for weather nets for many moons now. It has worked absolutely great for us. Sure, it's not elegant; a dedicated link is probably the better way. And, users are going to double anyway. Can't get away from that. We've not found any timing problems you refer to... Laryn K8TVZ
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
Thanks for the ideas. I really can't add radios to the existing sites as we don't always know which systems will be linked. I'll have to check to see how many of our local repeaters drop their encoded pl after the input drops. If the pl drops right away, I think your solutions will be the way I go. Thanks, Jerry K8CMI --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Pointman shield1...@... wrote: 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 n...@... wrote: From: Nate Duehr n...@... Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 5:50 AM Â 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] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
Yes, as Jerry points out, doing all of this with ex-commercial rigs means you'll have Reverse Burst or Squelch Tail Elimination, which are both very adequately documented on the Repeater-Builder website. (They are two different things, technically... different number of degrees of phase shift on the CTCSS on un-key. Some modern commercial rigs even allow you to CHOOSE which one you'd like to detect... and the S-Com 7330 allows you to choose which one you want to transmit.) I have an in-band link (would prefer not to, but similar limitations) that's a MASTR-II talking to a MASTR-II with the stock CTCSS boards. Every unkey is perfectly silent. Which is as God intended. (LOL!) Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great! (BIG GRIN...) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:19 +, Jerry gdste...@yahoo.com wrote: Thanks for the ideas. I really can't add radios to the existing sites as we don't always know which systems will be linked. I'll have to check to see how many of our local repeaters drop their encoded pl after the input drops. If the pl drops right away, I think your solutions will be the way I go. Thanks, Jerry K8CMI --- In [1]repeater-buil...@yahoogroups. com, Pointman shield1...@... wrote: 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 n...@... wrote: From: Nate Duehr n...@... Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely To: [2]repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 5:50 AM Â 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 References 1. mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com 2. mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com 3. mailto:gdste...@yahoo.com?subject=re:%20Linking%20Repeaters%20Remotely 4. mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com?subject=re:%20Linking%20Repeaters%20Remotely 5. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/message/95547;_ylc=X3oDMTM1ZGJvcHZmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTU1NTkEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjU3ODg0MzQ0BHRwY0lkAzk1NTQ3 6. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaTNpZXBqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z0bARzbGsDdm1icnMEc3RpbWUDMTI1Nzg4NDM0NA--?o=6 7. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdWl0bW05BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z0bARzbGsDdmZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzEyNTc4ODQzNDQ- 8. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcHZlcHQ5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z0bARzbGsDdmdocARzdGltZQMxMjU3ODg0MzQ0 9.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
It's been since the late 1950's that reverse burst has been around for PL tones. So for over 50 years the ham manufacturers haven't gotten on board yet. -- Original Message -- Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
That is because it is patented by Motorola. Please refer to US Patent #3,584,304 US Patent #3,628,058 also describes the squelch circuit used in the Micor and even gives a schematic for the M6709. On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:15 PM, JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net wrote: It's been since the late 1950's that reverse burst has been around for PL tones. So for over 50 years the ham manufacturers haven't gotten on board yet.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:29:23PM -0700, DCFluX wrote: That is because it is patented by Motorola. Please refer to US Patent #3,584,304 US Patent #3,628,058 also describes the squelch circuit used in the Micor and even gives a schematic for the M6709. Patents are only a 17 year umbrella. Anything numbered in the 3 millions has been expired for at least 20 years or so. 73, Majdi, N0RMZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Nate Duehr wrote: Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great! (BIG GRIN...) I had a Huh? moment the other day when playing with a repeater on the bench. I couldn't figure out why I was hearing a squelch crash when the key was dropped. Then I realized the service monitor doesn't have PL squelch. =) -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
At 11/10/2009 15:29, you wrote: That is because it is patented by Motorola. Please refer to US Patent #3,584,304 US Patent #3,628,058 also describes the squelch circuit used in the Micor and even gives a schematic for the M6709. The latter really gives you a new appreciation for the engineering that went into that chip. Things you probably never thought of like temperature compensation were accounted for in the design. Of course, you have to get through the patentlegalize: means coupling said output of said filter means with said input means of said first switch means;. Sheesh! Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@... Nate, just a comment on the above. We've used in-band on-channel (IBOC??) linking to a nearby repeater for weather nets for many moons now. It has worked absolutely great for us. Sure, it's not elegant; a dedicated link is probably the better way. And, users are going to double anyway. Can't get away from that. We've not found any timing problems you refer to... Laryn K8TVZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
On Nov 10, 2009, at 6:38 PM, larynl2 wrote: In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@... Nate, just a comment on the above. We've used in-band on-channel (IBOC??) linking to a nearby repeater for weather nets for many moons now. It has worked absolutely great for us. Sure, it's not elegant; a dedicated link is probably the better way. And, users are going to double anyway. Can't get away from that. We've not found any timing problems you refer to... Laryn K8TVZ Usually the timing problems are related to bounce-back on fluttery/weak signals... signals that usually aren't all that copyable anyway, so it doesn't affect communications in general. But go kerchunk an in-band linked system 10 times fast and see if you get all ten kerchunks on the other end, etc. You'll see it. Subtle, but not right from an engineering standpoint. No big deal. Just not as elegant as dedicated links... Whatever works. I wouldn't trust a Public Safety Officer's life to it, but for ham junk... sure, why not? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
