Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater
heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
Hi Mike, thanks for the tips, I will gather this up. I have found
that if I turn the power way down, it is not as bad. Someone had
mentioned to me that my power supply could be acting up, although it is only
drawing
: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
Hi Mike, thanks for the tips, I will gather this up. I have found that if I turn the power way down, it is not as bad. Someone had mentioned to me that my power supply could be acting up, although it is only drawing 22 amps on a 70 amp
This reminds me of an incident many years ago when Industry Canada (then
called DOC) contacted us re a ham 2 meter mobile interfering with
aircraft communications. To make a long story short, the local ham
wanted more power out of his transmitter and had physically adjusted the
low pass
Ok, this brought up a good point. Just for sakes I took the watt meter, from the amp into a 50 ohm load, I get 140 watts out, into the duplexer's I get 70 watts out, something there has changed. With a 2.2 dB insertion loss, I should be getting right about 90 watts out if I did the math right?
At 09:42 AM 7/8/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
Ok, this brought up a good point. Just for sakes I took the watt
meter, from the amp into a 50 ohm load, I get 140 watts out, into
the duplexer's I get 70 watts out, something there has
changed. With a 2.2 dB insertion loss, I should be getting right
At 09:42 AM 7/8/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
Ok, this brought up a good point. Just for sakes I took the watt
meter, from the amp into a 50 ohm load, I get 140 watts out, into
the duplexer's I get 70 watts out, something there has changed.
Wait a minute! You're saying that the amp is only
Oops on me, 140 into the duplexer with 70 watts out and a 2.2 dB insertion loss on the cans per TXRX. 3 Cans per side. I figured it up at 140 watts in which should give me about 88.6 watts back out of the duplexer.
Mathew
Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:42 AM 7/8/2005, Mathew
At 09:59 AM 7/8/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
Oops on me, 140 into the duplexer with 70 watts out and a 2.2 dB
insertion loss on the cans per TXRX. 3 Cans per side. I figured it
up at 140 watts in which should give me about 88.6 watts back out of
the duplexer.
OK, that makes more sense, and
/pascoskywarn/
All are welcome.
- Original Message -
From: Mathew Quaife
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/8/2005 10:42:19 AM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
Ok, this brought up a good point. Just for sakes I took the watt meter
Well I just did a quick tweak on the tx duplexer, with 5 watts in I get three watts out, but then put the 140 watts in and still only get 75 watts out of the duplexer. Why would it change with higher power levels? I had asked that question once before about the 3 cans in the tx side and was
.
- Original Message -
From: Mathew Quaife
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/8/2005 10:42:19 AM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
Ok, this brought up a good point. Just for sakes I took the watt meter, from the amp into a 50 ohm load, I get 140
At 10:16 AM 7/8/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
Well I just did a quick tweak on the tx duplexer, with 5 watts in I
get three watts out, but then put the 140 watts in and still only
get 75 watts out of the duplexer. Why would it change with higher
power levels? I had asked that question once
Typically to say, there is nothing in this area as far as repeaters, a few on 460 Mhz and one on VHF at 158 Mhz, other than the two cell towers more than 5 miles away, that is about it.
Mathew
Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:16 AM 7/8/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:Well I just did a
At 10:45 AM 7/8/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
Typically to say, there is nothing in this area as far as repeaters,
a few on 460 Mhz and one on VHF at 158 Mhz, other than the two cell
towers more than 5 miles away, that is about it.
This gets into an area that I need to understand better, how do
Well here is the final results of what I have done this morning, and listening to the aircraft band, I have not heard anything come back as of yet. I reduced the duplexers to 4 cans rather than 6, with 140 watts into the duplexer, I am getting 105 watts back out the antenna port. No decense
At 12:12 PM 7/8/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
Well here is the final results of what I have done this morning, and
listening to the aircraft band, I have not heard anything come back
as of yet. I reduced the duplexers to 4 cans rather than 6, with
140 watts into the duplexer, I am getting 105
At 7/8/2005 08:08 AM, you wrote:
Can you put a 1DB or 3DB pad in place between the TX and the
cans? Might be hard to find one at that power level, other than a
long hunk of coax. With a 3dB pad in, I would expect any reactive
impedances on the ends to be less interactive, and if this cleans it
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:45
AM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater
heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
Typically to say, there is nothing in this area as far as repeaters, a
few on 460 Mhz and one on VHF at 158 Mhz, other than the two cell towers more
than 5 miles away
At 7/8/2005 08:45 AM, you wrote:
Typically to say, there is nothing in this area as far as repeaters, a few
on 460 Mhz and one on VHF at 158 Mhz, other than the two cell towers more
than 5 miles away, that is about it.
The 2 vs. 3 cans on the TX side of a 2 meter duplexer has been extensively
At 02:01 PM 7/8/2005, Bob Dengler wrote:
At 7/8/2005 08:45 AM, you wrote:
Typically to say, there is nothing in this area as far as repeaters, a few
on 460 Mhz and one on VHF at 158 Mhz, other than the two cell towers more
than 5 miles away, that is about it.
The 2 vs. 3 cans on the TX side of
Best bring the biggest hammer that you have. It's back at it. There has got to be something near here that is mixing. All morning it has been clean and now it's back to it's old tricks.
Mathew
Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:38 PM 7/8/2005, Mike/k1eg wrote:
Mathew you clearly have
that Dave will be able to help you solve this.
Mike/K1EG
- Original Message -
From: Mathew Quaife
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
Typically to say, there is nothing
Is heat an issue?
I recall once when I lived in the Piedmont of NC that a large
university hospital's paging transmitter would go wild with spurs in
the summer but only when someone closed the equipment room door and
upset the ventilation.
When overheated, it would throw out spurs heard
Bob Dengler wrote:
At 7/8/2005 08:08 AM, you wrote:
Can you put a 1DB or 3DB pad in place between the TX and the
cans? Might be hard to find one at that power level, other than a
long hunk of coax. With a 3dB pad in, I would expect any reactive
impedances on the ends to be less interactive,
At 7/8/2005 12:21 PM, you wrote:
Best bring the biggest hammer that you have. It's back at it. There has
got to be something near here that is mixing. All morning it has been
clean and now it's back to it's old tricks.
Mathew
I say throw an isolator on the amp output. This is standard
Well I think with Dave's knowledge and equipment, he might be able to see what is going on. I'm certain he will find a number of my mistakes as I call them. I'm a tinker with a dangerous plan. I've talked with the EE Spectrum engineer at the aviation department, he seems to think I am riding
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater
heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
Well I think with Dave's knowledge and equipment, he might be able to see
what is going on. I'm certain he will find a number of my
. Intermitant problems like this can be the hardest thing to track down so all info you can gather will help Dave.
73,
Mike, K1EG
- Original Message -
From: Mathew Quaife
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater heard
/K1EG
- Original Message -
From: Mathew Quaife
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
It is very weird, all evening I have been working with the repeater, and what ever
I have been reading these post for a
couple of days now and seen in the original post that you are loosing 110 watts
in the duplexer. Maybe Im the only one that thanks this may have
something to do with the problem.
What is the SWR between the tx
side of the duplexer and the
: July 7, 2005 12:23
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder]
Repeater heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
I have been reading these
post for a couple of days now and seen in the original post that you are
loosing 110 watts in the duplexer. Maybe Im the only one
Comments mixed into the text below...
Mike WA6ILQ
At 07:58 PM 7/5/05, you wrote:
Mathew,
The Maggiore EV-1 is a very basic, crystal-controlled exciter that has none
of the filters, power control, or SWR protection features of commercial
units. I have one that I took off the air because of its
Ok, something new has been discovered this morning, while going back
to the repeater for further testing. I turned on the SM to get ready
to check a few things, while set to 132.950 the squelch on the SM was
open I could hear a pulsing noise. I then went to the output of the
repeater, I
I powered down the Mastr Pro receiver, noise still there,
only thing left was the cat controller, powered it down and noise is
gone. This noise was heard over a large frequency spread in the
aircraft band on the SM. Could it be possible that the controller
could be the cause sending havac out
At 7/6/2005 02:35 AM, you wrote:
Comments mixed into the text below...
Mike WA6ILQ
At 07:58 PM 7/5/05, you wrote:
Mathew,
The Maggiore EV-1 is a very basic, crystal-controlled exciter that has none
of the filters, power control, or SWR protection features of commercial
units. I have one
At 7/6/2005 07:37 AM, you wrote:
Ok, something new has been discovered this morning, while going back
to the repeater for further testing. I turned on the SM to get ready
to check a few things, while set to 132.950 the squelch on the SM was
open I could hear a pulsing noise. I then went to the
No - 157.870 IS the correct mix to combine with 145.410 and end up on
132.950 MHz - do the math again. The difference is 12.460 MHz.
145.410 - 12.46 = 132.950
145.410 + 12.46 = 157.870
Joe M.
Bob Dengler wrote:
At 7/6/2005 02:35 AM, you wrote:
Having a look at 157.5275, which is 12.1175
At 7/6/2005 12:26 PM, you wrote:
No - 157.870 IS the correct mix to combine with 145.410 and end up on
132.950 MHz - do the math again. The difference is 12.460 MHz.
145.410 - 12.46 = 132.950
145.410 + 12.46 = 157.870
Joe M.
OK, 12.46 is the difference between the actual spur Mathew's output,
At 02:47 PM 7/6/2005, Bob Dengler wrote:
At 7/6/2005 12:26 PM, you wrote:
No - 157.870 IS the correct mix to combine with 145.410 and end up on
132.950 MHz - do the math again. The difference is 12.460 MHz.
145.410 - 12.46 = 132.950
145.410 + 12.46 = 157.870
Joe M.
OK, 12.46 is the
Is the 12.46 that you are coming up with, the xtal inside of the transmitter itself. I'm looking, there is a repeater near here that is right around 158 megs, I'm looking it up now.
Mathew
Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:47 PM 7/6/2005, Bob Dengler wrote:At 7/6/2005 12:26 PM, you
At 7/6/2005 01:26 PM, you wrote:
Is the 12.46 that you are coming up with, the xtal inside of the
transmitter itself. I'm looking, there is a repeater near here that is
right around 158 megs, I'm looking it up now.
Mathew
No, 12.46 MHz is the difference between your repeater output the freq.
The repeater pair that is about 3 miles from here is, and I have not checked to see which way the offset is, but 153.920 and 158.820 is the pair given.
Mathew
Bob Dengler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7/6/2005 12:26 PM, you wrote:No - 157.870 IS the correct mix to combine with 145.410 and end
Ok, now I get where they came up with that. Was just trying to make the association. I've realigned the transmitter, checked everything that I can think of and still can be heard clipping on 132.950, bu then if I goto 133.075 I can hear the repeater real plain, as also another user that is
OK, 145.410 MHz. I should have read ALL the posts before asking that. Is
there anything in your area on 157.875 MHz? Those could mix to end up on
132.945 MHz. Same with something on 139.180 MHz, although that us much
less likely, I think.
What is your crystal frequency and multiplication factor?
The only frequency close to that anywhere in the are is the town's sewer repeater at 153.920 and 158.820. The output is 145.410 and the multiplication factor is by 12.
Mathew
mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, 145.410 MHz. I should have read ALL the posts before asking that. Isthere anything in
12.46 is the difference if it's a mix. Look at the math I posted.
145.410 - 132.950 = 12.46
145.410 - 12.46 = 132.950
145.410 + 12.46 = 157.870
If it's mixing, the repeater would have to mix (well, the most likely
mix which is 2A-B) with 157.870 to end up on 132.950 MHz.
Joe M.
Yahoo!
158.820 is too far away. That would mix to produce 133.000 MHz. You're
looking for something on 158.875 MHz which would mix to end up on
132.940 MHz, but that's close enough to hear on 95 if the frequencies
are a little off (145.41 is a little high and 158.875 is a little low).
Joe M.
Ooops! I messed up the math. 15*8*.820 MHz is WAY too far away. That
would end up on 132.000 (not 133 MHz - that would be a mix with 157.820
MHz).
You're looking for something on 157.875 MHz, not 158.875 MHz as I stated
below. That is the input to an old IMTS pair, but it wasn't used in the
USA -
Nothing in the area that I can find that is on that frequency. Will have to listen over then next few days.
Mathew
mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
158.820 is too far away. That would mix to produce 133.000 MHz. You'relooking for something on 158.875 MHz which would mix to end up on132.940 MHz,
Hi Matthew,
I powered down the Mastr Pro receiver, noise still
there,only thing left was the cat controller, powered it down and
noise isgone. This noise was heard over a large frequency spread
in theaircraft band on the SM. Could it be possible that the
controllercould be the
One thing to think about.
145.41/12 = 12.1175 MHz
12.1175 x 11 = 133.2925 MHz
It could be related to this as it is harmonic of the fundamental crystal freq.
A low pass filter would not take this out. A band pass cavity might do the job if from your tx.
73, ron, n9ee/r
But the interference is to 132.950 MHz, not 132.2925 MHz.
The harmonic is about 657.5 kHz away!
Joe M.
From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One thing to think about.
145.41/12 = 12.1175 MHz
12.1175 x 11 = 133.2925 MHz
It could be related to this as it is harmonic of the fundamental
At 7/6/2005 01:31 PM, you wrote:
The repeater pair that is about 3 miles from here is, and I have not
checked to see which way the offset is, but 153.920 and 158.820 is the
pair given.
Mathew
Doesn't sound like that has anything to do with the problem. If you can
see the spur coming out of
It is very weird, all evening I have been working with the repeater, and what ever it is, it is very inttermittant, because it will come and go, and there is no pattern for it. I just learned of that pair, but it is the only pair that is close to me that I know of.
Mathew
Bob Dengler [EMAIL
-
From:
Mathew Quaife
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:14
AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater
heard on Aviation Channel! HELP
It is very weird, all evening I have been working with the repeater, and
what ever
Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercial
aircraft on 132.950 Mhz. At first they was able to identify one user
of the system, this was in June. Then again the repeater was heard on
June 22, this time stating they could hear several users on the system.
The did not
At 08:48 PM 7/5/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercial
aircraft on 132.950 Mhz.
Ouch! BTDT, with a kenwood synthesized transmitter that didn't
detect out of lock properly.
I had to pull the plug till it was resolved.
I've looked at the
At 01:48 AM 7/6/2005 -, you wrote:
Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercial
aircraft on 132.950 Mhz. At first they was able to identify one user
of the system, this was in June. Then again the repeater was heard on
June 22, this time stating they could hear
At 09:06 PM 7/5/2005, Ken Arck wrote:
At 01:48 AM 7/6/2005 -, you wrote:
Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercial
aircraft on 132.950 Mhz. At first they was able to identify one user
of the system, this was in June. Then again the repeater was heard on
June 22,
Yes, they was able to identify one user of the system, and that particular day they his audio was terrible, to the point I was trying to identify what was wrong with his audio. Ken Arck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:48 AM 7/6/2005 -, you wrote:Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being
Mathew,
The Maggiore EV-1 is a very basic, crystal-controlled exciter that has none
of the filters, power control, or SWR protection features of commercial
units. I have one that I took off the air because of its tendency to
produce spurs. It is perhaps not a good idea to use a relatively
Is your repeater on 145.035?
73
Glenn
WB4UIV
At 09:48 PM 07/05/05, you wrote:
Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercial
aircraft on 132.950 Mhz. At first they was able to identify one user
of the system, this was in June. Then again the repeater was heard on
June 22,
Dave VanHorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:48 PM 7/5/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercialaircraft on 132.950 Mhz.Ouch! BTDT, with a kenwood synthesized transmitter that didn't detect out of lock properly.I had to pull the plug till it
Nope, it is on 145.410
Mathew
Glenn Little WB4UIV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is your repeater on 145.035?73GlennWB4UIVAt 09:48 PM 07/05/05, you wrote:Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercialaircraft on 132.950 Mhz. At first they was able to identify one userof the
The Vocom amp is a commercial made amp, designed for repeater use, this particular model is no longer made, but the company still makes them, all new design and new staff. I think what my biggest concern is, that all of this did not crop up until after I installed the new DB224 antenna. I have
There is a wound of coax on the output of the exciter to reduce the
power going into the amplifier, as the amp only needs 2 watts of draw to
run it.
That dosen't help you here, the stub specifically attenuates the
bad frequency, and passes the good one.
Your repeater cans probably don't
At 10:17 PM 7/5/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
The Vocom amp is a commercial made amp, designed for repeater use,
this particular model is no longer made, but the company still makes
them, all new design and new staff. I think what my biggest concern
is, that all of this did not crop up until
What frequency is your repeater on?
Joe M.
Mathew Quaife wrote:
Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercial
aircraft on 132.950 Mhz. At first they was able to identify one user
of the system, this was in June. Then again the repeater was heard on
June 22, this time
145.410 Mhz.
Mathew
mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What frequency is your repeater on?Joe M.Mathew Quaife wrote: Ok, the situation is that my repeater is being heard by commercial aircraft on 132.950 Mhz. At first they was able to identify one user of the system, this was in June. Then again
I'm almost to the point of just scraping the iron and starting back at the basics. Actually I am almost ready to pull hairs. With so much time lapse in playing with this, I have forgotten most everything, so I really have to scratch my head. Might just have to find an elmer to come in and go
At 11:56 PM 7/5/2005, Mathew Quaife wrote:
I'm almost to the point of just scraping the iron and starting back
at the basics. Actually I am almost ready to pull hairs. With so
much time lapse in playing with this, I have forgotten most
everything, so I really have to scratch my head. Might
71 matches
Mail list logo
