p
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and they're
complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them they're SOL
until we
it is shown to
> be your equipment causing the problem.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *George Skorup
> *Sent:* Wednesday
9:43 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
>> Forgot about that trick. In the early days of canopy I solved a few TV
>> interference issues with that method.
>>
>> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:48 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject
Could be. But generally you need watts of power or tens or hundreds of watts.
Milliwatts would seem unlikely to generate too much intermod.
From: Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
What about
ick. In the early days of canopy I solved a few TV
> interference issues with that method.
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:48 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>
> Try switching all the po
Forgot about that trick. In the early days of canopy I solved a few TV
interference issues with that method.
From: Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:48 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
Try switching all the ports to 10-BaseT and
Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *George Skorup
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>
>
>
> We have a local school district
wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>
www.Broadband-Mapping.com
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
We have a local school district co-locate
Of George Skorup
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and they're
complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them they're
rs can be almost as good as quarter wave duplexers
>>> and much smaller.
>>>
>>> From: George Skorup
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:56 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>>&g
2017 5:56 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>>
>> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
>> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
>> they'
af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
>
> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables s
Helical resonator duplexers can be almost as good as quarter wave duplexers and
much smaller.
From: George Skorup
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
We have a local school district co-located with us on a water
We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and
they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them
they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in
an 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables
out of t
Or they used RG8 still a Heliax guy... shoot me
On Jun 7, 2017 4:55 PM, "Lewis Bergman" wrote:
> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shie
If I had a VHF repeater with a high gain omni and a very low noise pre-amp, I
would hate to have any digital equipment on the same hill. But those years
have long since passed.
From: Lewis Bergman
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 4:55 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a
I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some
connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the
RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless
they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are
the most like
Lewis. You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks do
right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is another's
opportunity to make some cash
On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" wrote:
> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points
Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points?
Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater.
Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with or
interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other case I
have seen i
The problem is the permeability of air is very low compared to a metallic
core.
It would help a bit.
-Original Message-
From: George Skorup
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 12:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
Could you not put a couple
rings will both work. I prefer
clamps.
-Original Message- From: Craig House
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 8:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables If you mean in conduit though no
they are not in conduit.
age --
From: "Craig House"
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 6/7/2017 10:27:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables If you mean in conduit though
no they are not in conduit.
If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try
trial and error to get it right.
-- Original Message --
From: "Craig House"
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 6/7/2017 10:27:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables If you mean in conduit though no
they are not in conduit
Back when we had this kind of problem, I got a bunch of torroids from
Fair-Rite (http://www.fair-rite.com/). I got the snap-on variety that
closely fit the OD of the cable we were using. I selected ones that
would block up to 500 MHz (you can filter by frequency you want to block).
bp
On 6/
AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables If you mean in conduit though no they
are not in conduit.
If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do you
use. Clamps or rings? One end of the cable or
They are Mylar shielded cat5 cables If you mean in conduit though no they are
not in conduit.
If someone thinks the ferrite solution is worth a try what ferrite do you use.
Clamps or rings? One end of the cable or both? If rings, how many loops of
cable through them?
Sent from my iPhon
Are the cat5 runs shielded? We've seen 100 Mbps ethernet can radiate in
the 140 MHz range. Shielding usually fixes it.
bp
On 6/6/2017 1:17 PM, Craig House wrote:
We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a
guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two wa
SFPs? :-)
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Craig House"
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 3:21:54 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149
one at a time to localize it to a
> > device?
> > I would suspect ethernet noise.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Craig House
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at
Jun 6, 2017 2:33 PM, "Chuck McCown" wrote:
Ferrite and shielding.
-Original Message- From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of
Chuck McCown wrote:
Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a
device?
I would suspect ethernet noise.
-Original Message-
From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
We have equipment
Sent: 6/6/2017 4:32:59 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
Ferrite and shielding.
-Original Message- From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
I'm afraid you may be right.
Ferrite and shielding.
-Original Message-
From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
I'm afraid you may be right. Yes we have killed all of the devices one at a
time and it appears the
k McCown wrote:
>
> Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a
> device?
> I would suspect ethernet noise.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig House
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG]
Have you killed each of your devices one at a time to localize it to a
device?
I would suspect ethernet noise.
-Original Message-
From: Craig House
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz
We have equipment located
We have equipment located on to Towers one is a water tower the other is a
guyed110 foot tower. In both locations there are two way repeaters located on
the towers that are receiving interference from what appears to be our
equipment. Nothing is substantially common between the way the two tow
36 matches
Mail list logo
