been around longer than the sublist or the new Google list. Please note that
I didn't bring this issue here, but when I read a tap dance I had to reply.
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote:
The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep
Threaded...
Spencer R. Peterson wrote:
You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct
comments to a more appropriate forum.
That's what I was doing - trying to move the discussion from the RB list
to the RB Coordination list.
Yes, I understand that he was trying to
Can you (either of you) specify what exactly is coming apart on them?
Joe M.
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
I've had the same intermittent issues with the smaller PowerPoles. I'm not
sold on them. Haven't tried the big ones yet.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: skipp025
Message -
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)
Can you (either of you) specify what exactly is coming apart on them?
Joe M
anyway?
Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly.
I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote:
Threaded...
Spencer R. Peterson wrote:
You have misread and misunderstood his
The list owner created
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder-Coordination/ for
coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done
specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list.
Joe M.
raffertysec wrote:
I will also disagree in that building a repeater
The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep
coordination discussions off this list. What is SCAROA anyway?
Joe M.
raffertysec wrote:
Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed.
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote:
The list owner created
If they were pulled apart, they were not put together properly.
Joe M.
Mike Naruta AA8K wrote:
I read about the Anderson Power Pole connectors
in QST and thought, What a great idea.
I started using them in our county's com van for
the portable 800 MHz repeater and ham gear, and
was I
There was one nationwide (minus the polarity) until NARCC changed...
Joe M.
wa6vpl wrote:
Eric,
I think you are referring to the differences between northern and
southern California 440 coordination administered by SCRRBA and NARCC.
The northern coordinator is NARCC (Northern
Separate the antennas. That's the only thing that worked with our 460
repeater. They put one antenna right beside ours.
Joe M.
Jim Russell wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to eliminate noise generated by
a Wireless
Internet System. The owner of the tower where our club has
Again, the requirement to discontinue transmitting within 5 seconds of
the loss of the input signal was removed from the rules. So, your tail
can be 30 days long now - retransmitting anything or not.
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
At 4/12/2009 15:04, you wrote:
Yet Amateur Radio repeaters can
True, but no interference, no request, and with the transmission comes
the 10-minute ID requirement.
Note that I also never said it made sense. It IS the government we are
talking about here...
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
At 4/13/2009 04:10, you wrote:
Again, the requirement to discontinue
Yet Amateur Radio repeaters can legally transmit 24/7/365 (literally)
and would then be required to put out and ID every 10 minutes...
Note that this was not always the case - the requirement that repeaters
cease transmitting within 5 seconds was removed from Part 97 in the 90s.
Joe M.
It doesn't have to be 'recognizable' (at least I never saw any such
wording in the rules). The key is that it's not IDing on its own - it's
being triggered by a signal on the input.
I use CTCSS on my repeaters (most of them) gated by the COS, so I hear
almost no IDs. Hence, they don't bother
MSR2000s are not programmable. They take crystals for the frequency and
reeds for the CTCSS.
Joe M.
Maire-Radios wrote:
*where is it at? can you reprogram the 2000?*
**
*thanks John*
**
- Original Message -
*From:* alphasxsignal mailto:video...@verizon.net
Absolutely not. No local, county, or state law/regulation/ordinance can
override a Federal license. It's called Federal Preemption.
Joe M.
Jacob Suter wrote:
The serious question is… does the county have the legal right to
prohibit such operations?
Motorola actually sells the 'dummy mic plug' that has this jumper in it.
I just use Ethernet tools and plugs and a piece of wire and make my own.
Joe M.
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
At 12:45 PM 04/03/09, you wrote:
Motorola Maxtrac - Radius Mic Plug Pins to Enable CTCSS decode?
Hello groovy
Interesting...
Joe M.
(List member #5 if I recall correctly)
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
As a moderator one of the things I do daily is log into the
group and check for pending messages and pending
members.
Well, when I got home at 0117 on Tuesday (after the
semi-annual sheriffs
Just because you call something a repeater doesn't mean it is.
A simplex repeater is not a repeater due to two things: 1. It does not
simultaneously retransmit, and 2. It transmits on the same frequency.
Point #1 was just clarified by the FCC Monday, but point #2 has never
been misinterpreted
???
Burt VE2BMQ
MCH wrote:
Just because you call something a repeater doesn't mean it is.
A simplex repeater is not a repeater due to two things: 1. It does not
simultaneously retransmit, and 2. It transmits on the same frequency.
Point #1 was just clarified by the FCC Monday, but point #2
themselves Channel 7.
Joe M.
wd8chl wrote:
MCH wrote:
Well, it matters to those of us who are playing in the RF pool. This
whole argument started because of an issue with a Channel 7
transmitter and some people saying if it's called Channel 7 and it's DTV
it may not be on RF Channel 7 (174
ignorance? (other than the government)
BTW, needs fixed = needs to be fixed the same as needs said =
needs to be said. The words to be are irrelevant aside from making
the post longer. (or is that making the post 'to be' longer...)
Joe M.
wd8chl wrote:
MCH wrote:
You know, I just though of another
installing one, the local engineer would come out
with his tape measure and God help you if you were off by more than 1/2
of where the specs said each component went
- Original Message -
*From:* MCH mailto:m...@nb.net
*To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
You would think he would have been smart enough to shut the radio off
first...
Joe M.
Gary Glaenzer wrote:
true story circa 1981
Illinois Power Company vehicle
these had the Motorola's with 'Quik-Call' hooked to horn and lights
'won't blow the horn' was the complaint
it did,
You know, I was doubting the arguments posed by the government, but I'm
starting to think they were right. It's just too much for the consumer
to grasp DTV as it currently sits. I mean, if a *technical* bunch like
this can't understand how a channel 2 station can be on RF channel
25, what hope
signal.
Joe M.
MCH wrote:
You know, I was doubting the arguments posed by the government, but I'm
starting to think they were right. It's just too much for the consumer
to grasp DTV as it currently sits. I mean, if a *technical* bunch like
this can't understand how a channel 2 station can
to compare an analog signal to a
digital signal both being on RF channel 7.
Joe M.
Thomas Oliver wrote:
It really does not matter what channel they are on as the tv's or converter
boxes scan for all possible channels when you install them.
plug and play.
tom
[Original Message]
From: MCH m
I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS
ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS. Again, I said 'most radios', not all
radios. Yes, many recent models do include CDCSS.
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote:
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs
What type of radios do you think the old hams are using? ;-
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:26 PM, MCH wrote:
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for
codes
for repeaters
FWIW, you do know there really is no such thing as 'inverted DPL', don't
you? Every 'inverted' code corresponds to a 'non-inverted' code. So,
even if you're using an 'inverted code', if someone tries all the
standard codes, they will eventually hit your code.
The inverted tone only inverts the
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes
for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
I would agree CDCSS is more secure for that very reason. I recommended a
customer switch to CDCSS from
Just about any LBLS Motorola will except the CDMs and HT750/1250 series.
Those units won't go a cycle out of their specified range.
Joe M.
ran...@farmtel.net wrote:
I'm familiar with which radios will do 444 MHz and 146 MHz. But what
about 29 MHz?
Low split Maxtrac? M208? CDM1250?
Huh? Maybe you're saying this, but out local CH 2 is DTV CH 25, but
after the CH 25 signal is found, it is entered as CH 2 again even though
the RF is on CH 25.
I agree with CHL - two signals on CH 7 (or any channel) should have the
same coverage from the same antenna either analog or digital.
Or a converter.
Not too much different than what's being done to Land Mobile, eh?
Joe M.
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
There's the rub.
People had TV that they could watch, that now goes away, forcing them to pay
for cable or dish.
Chuck
- Original Message -
Which shows again
What channel are they actually on?
Joe M.
Gerald Pelnar wrote:
There was a problem in Florida with this. Channel 6 analog moved to UHF DTV
and kept channel 6-1. the new channel 6 DTV apparently put themselves up as
6-1 (supposed to be a UHF channel number). Confused a lot of receivers for a
Huh? Trunking only means that several repeaters are controlled and
coordinated as to use, and there are many repeaters that operate with
much less than a 1 MHz separation. Yes, the equipment is larger, but it
can be and is done all the time. So, it is technically possible to do it
there. Now,
My understanding of Class B (from this list, I think) is that it was a
lot power 465.000 MHz AM channel.
Joe M.
Ray_Vaughan_99 wrote:
Just a bit of US CB history... Class A CB is now known as GMRS.
462/467 MHz. Wide band FM and many repeaters. The one everyone
thinks of was Class D, the
There will still be TV channels 2-6 on DTV.
There is a Channel 2 in Harrisburg, PA.
It's not as if Broadcast is going to give up that spectrum.
Besides, it's fun to DX TV stations, and is a good beacon system to
tell you when the band is up.
Joe M.
Ray_Vaughan_99 wrote:
--- In
In general, same as analog TV uses. Any specific station can be looked
up the same as analog, too.
Joe M.
Maire-Radios wrote:
**
*Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:02 PM
*Subject:* freg
*we are going to put a repeater on a site near a new DTV site. could
anyone here give me the freg
18 miles apart and 1.2 MHz separation? How far apart do you want to
space repeaters? I know of repeaters only 210 kHz apart at the same site
that work fine.
Joe M.
AJ wrote:
When were these two repeaters coordinated? RX freq so close to the TX
freq of the other repeater doesn't exactly
frequencies are separated by 600 kHz, not 1.2 MHz (147.360 -
146.760 = 600 kHz), which causes mixing products to fall exactly on the
inputs.
73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH
Sent
/*
*/generating spurious signals on the inputs of the receivers./*
*/Gary - K7NEY/*
- Original Message -
*From:* MCH mailto:m...@nb.net
*To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2009 12:19 PM
*Subject
You need to reject the opposite TX on each repeater. Your BP filters were set
wrong. You rejected the RX on the TX side - something the duplexer should be
doing already. You need to install them in the repeater and reject the other
TX. IOW, install a filter in the .16 repeater and notch the
I've always liked 660 Hz - it goes with my 330/495/660 Hz CT.
Joe M.
Peter Summerhawk wrote:
Morning Crew,
I need some suggestions on what tone frequency people are using for the
ID on their repeater as well as speed for the ID. I am using a repeater
controller that I can adjust the
Weren't the LB models 32 CH, not 99?
Joe M.
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
At 12:54 PM 02/12/09, you wrote:
In possibly what may be the most blindingly dump question ever posted
here, but has there ever been a deconstruction of the codeplug files
for Motorola's HT600, P200, and MT1000 radios?
That's odd. We gave up commercial paging for the exact same reason.
Joe M.
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
Fire service relies on paging heavily. Although it can be sent via cell
phone, it is extremely unreliable, at least in our area. Sometimes pages get
held in que for hours or even days.
Chuck
Because most 'rice rigs' don't have high pass filtering on the
mic and false tones 'all over the board'. I know - I've tried it.
Joe M.
wb0vhb wrote:
I'm not sure why you think tone panels are not a good fit for a ham
repeater?
I used a program called (I think) Boot Camp.
Joe M.
John wrote:
MCH wrote:
Dual boot is the only way I know of...
What's the best way to do a dual boot?
John
Yahoo! Groups Links
I had the same thing when they installed their antennas immediately
adjacent to one of our 460 MHz repeaters. Swapping the TX/RX solved the
problem. I suspect that one was transmitter related.
Joe M.
wd8chl wrote:
Laryn Lohman wrote:
An ISP installed some Motorola Canopy equipment with the
As opposed to robbery not being illegal??? Remember that this is what
the radios were used in conjunction with. I suspect most robbers don't
get an FCC license. If they did, what would they put down as the
purpose? To coordinate activities and ensure employee safety while we
rob vaults?
This
Two more comments. First, prove that the radios were even TURNED ON!
Special effects are added post-production - things such as hearing the
audio being received from a radio. That usually doesn't exist during
filming short of someone off set reading the lines that would have been
'received'.
wd8chl wrote:
MCH wrote:
Illegal? They were foreign terrorists. How many foreign terrorists are
going to give a rat's rear about compliance with FCC regulations.
Uhhh...Bruce Willis' character was using it, along with just about
everyone using a handheld in the movie
, February 02, 2009 4:39 PM
*To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Radios and Coms in TV and Movies
On Monday 02 February 2009 16:37:48 wd8chl wrote:
MCH wrote:
Illegal? They were foreign terrorists. How many foreign terrorists are
going to give
Wouldn't that be an illegal modification that violates the FCC T/A? ;-
Joe M.
DCFluX wrote:
Funny how a receiver acts like a Full duplex transceiver in the movies.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Just out of curiosity, what was your solution?
Joe M.
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Thanks for all the suggestions and solutions. I have found the solution
I am going to use and appreciate all the help. If you want to send me
any other suggestions please email me off the list.
Thanks,
But, if you have a ham license, those Part 15 power limits don't mean
squat. Remember, the 13 cm band goes from 2.3-2.45 GHz. It's not 2.3 GHz
only.
Channels 1-6 of an 802.11b/g system are shared Part97/Part15. Channels 0
and -1 are Part 97 only if you want to avoid interference from Part 15
It was clearly the Kenwood TH-41 model. They had different colored rings
around the top of the antenna for the different bands. UHF was green.
Odds are someone in the prop department was a ham and thought they could
find a use for the radios once the film was done. Or, maybe they
purchased
Wrong.
GMRS is Class A CB (FCC designation) while the 27 MHz band is Class D
CB. I don't recall what classes B and C were offhand. FRS didn't exist
until recently and has never carried an official CB label even though it
too is under Part 95. MURS is even more recent.
Both Class A and Class D
Were they on 465.000 MHz, and what that the only channel?
Joe M.
Joe wrote:
You probably saw a Vocaline Company of America, JRC-400, Citizens Radio
Class B transceiver. These were made many years ago in Old Saybrook, Ct
close to where I now live. A couple of hams in this area used to work
I would think it would be treated the same as the change to NBFM in the
70s (60s?) - the radios are lowered in deviation to meet the new specs
and everyone is happy. (until you get a close adjacent neighbor)
I think there are still TODAY radios in use that say Adjusted to NBFM
+/- 5 kHz
Threaded...
William E. Janes wrote:
Just turning down the deviation circuitry to 2.5 kHz
will reduce the amount of deviation, but not the bandwidth of the
emission overall. Turning down the deviation is simply not a legal
option.
Huh?
NBFM BW = (2x5)+(2x3)=16 kHz BW
SNFM BW =
Dual boot is the only way I know of...
Joe M.
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Does anybody know if one can get a DOS program to run on Windows XP.
Mike K7PFJ
BTW, if this is for Motorola programming, XP does not allow direct
access to the serial port.
Joe M.
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Does anybody know if one can get a DOS program to run on Windows XP.
Mike K7PFJ
Illegal? They were foreign terrorists. How many foreign terrorists are
going to give a rat's rear about compliance with FCC regulations.
The only part that was really far fetched is when John called the PD on
channel 9 - implying that they were using CBs and that the PD actually
monitored
anything on 6m around here without problems with ch 2 analog. Once
they go digital on ch 2 I'm expecting even more issues. But I guess
time will tell...
Paul
MCH wrote:
If it's like any other digital transmitters, more.
Joe M.
Paul N1BUG wrote:
I think this is on topic
That was the original plan, but the TV industry whined about losing
them, so they are back in the TV lineup. There is a CH 2 DTV station in
Harrisburg, PA.
I would say the NAB list is severely outdated.
Joe M.
Buddy Case wrote:
It is my understanding there will not be any channels between 2
.
Paul N1BUG wrote:
That's what I'm afraid of. It's already nearly impossible to do
anything on 6m around here without problems with ch 2 analog. Once
they go digital on ch 2 I'm expecting even more issues. But I guess
time will tell...
Paul
MCH wrote:
If it's like any other digital
If it's like any other digital transmitters, more.
Joe M.
Paul N1BUG wrote:
I think this is on topic for the list since it could affect some 6
meter repeater owners.
After transition I will have a local channel broadcasting DTV on
their low VHF channel 2 assignment. I'm curious... does
Only some are made low cost (and coupon 'eligible'). There are a lot of
models that are not eligible for the coupon that have more features than
the basic models - such as 1080p support. I have not seen any with any
scheduling features, either, however.
Joe M.
TGundo 2003 wrote:
There is a
That will be a loss for all RF users because where there is INGRESS,
there is usually EGRESS, too (and often to the point it's not legal).
Cable is supposed to be a closed system. As you said, the problem will
still be present - just not dealt with as swiftly - if at all.
The only ones who
As it sits, it would have quite a bit of UPtilt on the 400 frequencies.
That's not good unless your repeater is in a valley.
Joe M.
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Has anybody took the 1152-2 station master up in freq from 412-420Mhz to
the 440Mhz ham band. I have new never used in the tube and want
Typo - make that 440 frequencies, not 400.
Joe M.
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Has anybody took the 1152-2 station master up in freq from 412-420Mhz to
the 440Mhz ham band. I have new never used in the tube and want to bring
up the antenna to operate in the 445Mhz area.
Mike K7PFJ
it at the 445Mhz freq area. I am sure someone out
here has modified one and documented it.
Mike
*From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *MCH
Yea - like the majority of hams are going to buy replacement rigs, or
(trying not to burst a seam) modify their rigs for SNFM!
These are the folks who can't even install a CTCSS encoder if their life
depending on it!
Yea - narrowbanding is going to be a real big deal in the ham bands.
My vote is that it's the antenna.
You didn't say what type of feedline you're using, though. Could be that.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope some of the experts here can shed some light to help solve this
problem. And I apologize if this question is off-topic.
I'll try to do my best
A (commercial) repeater does not have to have a CWID. The control
stations and mobiles can ID for it.
In some services, such as Public Safety, the ID can even be made from a
different transmitter.
Joe M.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:59 PM, n6nmz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone told me that this
And loss of a license would adversely affect the ability of any PS
agency to do their job. You would be essentially putting them out of
business. Then, the municipality could come after you for the costs to
pay another municipality to cover their area. After all, they only have
to pay because
That assumes that a coordination should last forever once granted. A lot
of coordinators would have a big problem with that thinking. In some
areas, a coordination does not expire, but in some, they DO. If it does,
the person should have no expectation that it's still valid if it has an
, and that certainly is the least
the uncoordinated repeater can do.
Joe M.
Kevin Custer wrote:
MCH wrote:
Coordination is not required, but when one repeater is coordinated, and the
other is not,
*the uncoordinated one must resolve the problem*. That's in Part 97.
I'll pick on Joe here
conflict.
The coordination council coordinated another system where they knew a repeater
had been operating without confirming it was no longer operational.
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:53:38 PM PST
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
This thread has gone from helping out a builder with a coordination
problem to a discussion of internal ORRC politics.
The only question I would have is whether any of the OTHER coordinators
are working with anyone other than ORRC. If not, the new groups are not
considering the existing
If he is uncooperative, and uncoordinated, just call the FCC. That's
about all you can do. You might mention this option to him and that may
make him more receptive to acceptable solutions.
Joe M.
Camilo So wrote:
Hi sorry for out of topic question, because most of the friend I have
ask no
The NFCC will not get involved with internal issues such as this.
Joe M.
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Camilo,
The other guy that let his coordination expire is out of luck and needs
to vacate the channel. Being a past chairman of the ORRC Oregon Region
Relay Council. If the guy that has
02:28:15 PM PST
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
If he is uncooperative, and uncoordinated, just call the FCC. That's
about all you can do. You might mention this option to him and that may
make him
And I will emphasize my previous point that you should call them ONLY
after all other resolutions have been tried. But, if there is no
acceptable alternative, you have the high road on the complaint.
Joe M.
Daron Wilson wrote:
If the other guy is smart he'll call the FCC first, as he was on
,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 9:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Vertex vs. Kenwood
I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just
because a site is more quiet. If they work
I'm still trying to comprehend why you would need replacements just
because a site is more quiet. If they work at the crowded site, they
should work fine at the quiet one.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
My club has some 3-year-old VHF and UHF Vertex repeaters at a high-RF
site.
Thunderbird has a *lot* of settings in the advanced section of the
options. You can probably make it do anything.
Joe M.
Joe wrote:
I've been using Thunderbird for months now and it is working very well.
I have it set up to check 4 separate email addresses automatically when
launching the
Permission to crosspost your post to other groups?
Joe M.
skipp025 wrote:
Evidently there's a new service called Grouply. It offers
to put all your Yahoo-Groups onto one page and somehow merge
all the messages in a way that makes it easier to navigate. Most
think Yahoo's method is fine
One comment: EFJ has some really strange ideas on P25 trunking and don't
follow the P25 standard. Not sure if that would affect conventional P25
or not.
Joe M.
tgundo2003 wrote:
Anyone on the list have comments/expierences on the New EF Johnson P25
capable repeaters? Good, no good? Tune to
If the EFJ radios are the same as Motorola, how do you explain the
Motorola radios not working with the EFJ radios? (specifically with
respect to Private calls that EFJ responds with a system busy queue
rather than a private call grant)
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I currently use EF
Many times, YahooGroups messages are delayed because the summary does
not include the reply which is cut off (there is only so much of the
message quoted via email). When that happens, there is no way to verify
what is in the post that is new. Besides, I have yet to see any email
client that
I bet I can take *any* controller and connect
it in such a way it will not decode DTMF tones. ;-
That said, two things to remember about Motorola DTMF mics. First, the
bias was already mentioned. If the mic isn't getting voltage, how could
it ever produce DTMF tones? Second, many times the
It shows you can get a bad 'anything'.
Many people who swear by the MASTR II. Others swear AT them. Maybe that
example will seem more 'relevant' even though it's saying the same thing.
Joe M.
Dave wrote:
what has that to do with repeater building?
Doug Zastrow wrote:
I bought a brand new
True, but the reason was likely to prevent the 'button press' when the
PTT was active. How many times have you hit a button accidentally on a
DTMF mic? In the commercial world, most would not have understood what
happened - especially if the controller mutes DTMF (which most
commercial
it up without incurring too much cost, by all means do so. If it works out,
try to coordinate. But DO NOT get all hung up on it should we disagree with
you.
MCH wrote:
That's odd, as the FCC HAS enforced local bandplans in the past. Feel
free to tell them they didn't have
TMARC (MD, E-WV, N-VA)
Yes, it's for D-STAR, but it's mixed with the analog repeaters. So, you
go from 2 spacings (12.5 kHz 25.0 kHz) to 20 spacings (from 2.5 kHz to
25 kHz) from existing repeaters.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9/3/2008 16:11, you wrote:
Those and the local bandplan
In fact, they DID make high power non-tube amps. They used the standard
amps, divided the drive, then combined the output of each amp to get the
higher power.
Joe M.
Joe Burkleo wrote:
Also as Nate said, GE did not make a high power solid state amp. The
Mastr II high power stations that I
group
putting up a 6 meter repeater and it has just gone 'on the air with a 1
meg split. They are not now coordinated and may never be so. As long as
no interfearnce issues (as in any spectrum area hf or higher) there is
only operator license regulation required.
MCH wrote:
Not true
The math isn't that hard. 200W (53.01 dBm) is about 7.6 dB over 35W
(45.44 dBm), so the RX would have to be about 7.6 dB better than 0.15 uV
(-123.5 dBm), or about -131 dBm which is 0.06 uV.
The antenna gains and losses cancel each other out since they apply to
both TX and RX.
Joe M.
Nate
201 - 300 of 1021 matches
Mail list logo
