-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power
The policy of some repeater coordination councils to insist on a 100-
mile co-channel separation for UHF (and 120 miles for the lower-
frequency bands) regardless of the ERP seems like overkill to me. In
fairness, they do allow
Kevin Custer wrote:
If we went around putting 3 dB pads on our repeaters until someone
noticed, we'd soon have a repeater that no one would be able to use. In
this forum, most of us strive for the best operation we can afford, or
set-up up to our best ability. A matched system is one
Ray Brown wrote:
Absolutely. I have an Elmer here (okay, he's only 4 years older than
me but he's a lifetime ARRL member and QCWA member) and he
was putting up repeaters back in the 70's. He's been trying, unsuccessfully,
for the past 5 years to get coordination on a 2m repeater because his
Paul Finch wrote:
Hello,
Vocom must have changed a lot then. I remember some of their first attempts
at PA Amps and they were awful. The burned up a lot and had wires running
everywhere in the cabinet. Guess I ought to pull some of the old 250 watt
paging service PA's down off the
Jeff DePolo wrote:
Ok, I'll bite-what's AIP? I have a G707, and don't remember seeing
anything labeled like that.
Kenwood's AIP = Advanced Intercept Point. It reduces the sensitivity of
the receiver which has the effect of reducing receiver-induced intermod by
lowering the
Tony Faiola wrote:
For the past five or ten years, we have used the newer VOCOM 2 meter
amplifier. This is before they became Cresend, and I must say that this
250 watt amplifier has performed admirably for this length of time.
They have their act together, and I would now recommend them
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you try the V7A with AIP on? I have a G707 (very similar RF
construction IIRC) found it's performance similar: very sensitive RX but
horrible IMD performance: spur free dynamic range with AIP off is only 61
dB, which is on par with some of my HTs. Turning on
Ok, I'll bite-what's AIP? I have a G707, and don't remember seeing
anything labeled like that.
Kenwood's AIP = Advanced Intercept Point. It reduces the sensitivity of
the receiver which has the effect of reducing receiver-induced intermod by
lowering the TOIP/compression point. Although I
At 2/15/2006 09:41 AM, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you try the V7A with AIP on? I have a G707 (very similar RF
construction IIRC) found it's performance similar: very sensitive RX but
horrible IMD performance: spur free dynamic range with AIP off is only 61
dB, which is on
At 2/15/2006 09:46 AM, you wrote:
Ok, I'll bite-what's AIP? I have a G707, and don't remember seeing
anything labeled like that.
Kenwood's AIP = Advanced Intercept Point. It reduces the sensitivity of
the receiver which has the effect of reducing receiver-induced intermod by
lowering the
(was RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power)
At 2/15/2006 09:46 AM, you wrote:
Ok, I'll bite-what's AIP? I have a G707, and don't
remember seeing
anything labeled like that.
Kenwood's AIP = Advanced Intercept Point. It reduces the
sensitivity
of the receiver which has the effect
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Radio quality (was RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power)
At 2/15/2006 09:46 AM, you wrote:
Ok, I'll bite-what's AIP? I have a G707, and don't
remember seeing
PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power Amplifier
There are 2 Henry 3CX800A7 Amps on ebay right now - a 2M 2002 and a
432,
2004A. Nice ampsQRO
Did VOCOM evolve into Crescend??? Sure make reliable amps...
NU5D Steve
Mike Perryman
www.k5jmp.us
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris Kirby
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:40 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Paul Yonge wrote
At 2/12/2006 06:44 PM, you wrote:
I had to produce a ton of studies for my 6m pair. I based my studies on
Sounds as if you actually had trouble finding a clear 6 meter pair. Here
in SoCal we have many vacant pairs on 6; is 6 really that popular in your area?
Bob NO6B
Yahoo! Groups
73
Mike Perryman
www.k5jmp.us
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bob Dengler
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:14 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 6 meter pairs (was RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power)
At 2/12/2006
@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Perryman
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:34 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 6 meter pairs (was RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power)
Bob,
DC through blue light is popular in my area grin... I live just South of
Washington DC
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:34 pm, Mike Perryman wrote:
I really wanted a 500kHz split so that I could use the heliax-duplexer
approach..
Well you can build the heliax duplexer for any split you want. Jeff's newer
design using a hybrid ring is truly cool, but alas I dont have VNA (yet) so
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bryan Fields
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:50 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 6 meter pairs (was RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power)
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:34 pm, Mike Perryman wrote:
I really wanted a 500kHz split so that I could use
Besides Henry Radio, who else makes a continuous-duty,
repeater service, stand-alone, add-on UHF power amp
that will accept around 20 watts of drive and produce
150-200 watts, in the 440-450 MHz range? Operation on
+14VDC would be preferred. Reliability, quality of
workmanship, and service are
-builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power Amplifier
Besides Henry Radio, who else makes a continuous-duty,
repeater service, stand-alone, add-on UHF power amp
that will accept around 20 watts of drive and produce
150-200 watts, in the 440
2:07 PM
To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power Amplifier
Besides Henry Radio, who else makes a continuous-duty,
repeater service, stand-alone, add-on UHF power amp
that will accept around 20 watts of drive and produce
150-200 watts, in the 440-450 MHz range
.
like I said before always like the Crescend the best.
thanks John
- Original Message -
From: N9WYS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power Amplifier
TPL makes one: 20-30W drive = 300W
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking of which, I look with despair at Yaesu's newest offering, the
FT-1802, which STILL doesn't have split tone. We need more complaints sent
into the big 3 about this.
Know you're probably not looking for such a full-featured rig for mobile
VHF/UHF repeater
Hi Bob,
Spectrum Communications
http://www.spectrumcoms.com/
I had to mention this company it's been over a year
since the last Spectrum flame war :)
Mike
--- Bob M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides Henry Radio, who else makes a
continuous-duty,
We've got lots of paper 6-meter repeaters around here. Either that or
they work terribly.
Chuck
WB2EDV
Bob Dengler wrote:
At 2/12/2006 06:44 PM, you wrote:
I had to produce a ton of studies for my 6m pair. I based my studies on
Sounds as if you actually had trouble finding a
At 2/13/2006 16:01, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking of which, I look with despair at Yaesu's newest offering, the
FT-1802, which STILL doesn't have split tone. We need more complaints
sent
into the big 3 about this.
Know you're probably not looking for such a full-featured
Kelsey
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:56 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 6 meter pairs (was RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power)
We've got lots of paper 6-meter repeaters around here. Either that or
they work terribly.
Chuck
WB2EDV
Bob Dengler wrote:
At 2/12/2006 06:44
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was happy to find that the FT-857 will HAPPILY do split-tone.
Yes, but kind of ridiculous to use an 857 just for VHF/UHF.
That's why you just use it for ALL the bands it'll work and enjoy the
split-tone feature in the process! ;-)
(Ooh, I was s close to
@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maire-Radios
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:55 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power Amplifier
have had more problems with the TPL amps and lighting and they have gone
back for more repairs than
, February 13, 2006 11:05 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power Amplifier
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/258 - Release Date: 2/13/2006
Yahoo! Groups Links
DePolo WN3A
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:50 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power
OK, here are the results of my quick bench measurements for whatever it's
worth. All receivers were on the same frequency (448.800 MHz). Signal
--
No virus
I still contend that in a mobile environment, under motion, that the
user will not detect the 6 dB difference. It will be barely
distinguishable most of the time.
I'm not arguing this point. There have been times when I've had a 75 watt
Micor PA die and I've had to run the output of the
At 2/11/2006 19:50, you wrote:
OK, here are the results of my quick bench measurements for whatever it's
worth.
MOBILE RECEIVERS
Kenwood TM-V7A (my most-hated radio): -125.0 dBm (0.13 uV)
1.3 dB to 6.6 dB. Personally I'd argue that the TM-V7A should be
disqualified too; it
Did you try the V7A with AIP on?
No, I didn't, but I'll do that later today if I get a chance. The other ham
rig in my truck is the other Kenwood dual bander (TM-708? getting old and
don't remember model #'s like I used to). I'm not sure but I think that has
the AIP function too. I never
Jeff, Kevin, Mike and others
Thank you for your insights and, especially to Jeff for the sensitivity
tests. I have enjoyed this thread and hope that no one has taken
anything to be any kind of personal attack on how anyone runs their
repeater.
Jeff's comment below pretty much sums up the
I have enjoyed this thread and hope that no one has taken
anything to be any kind of personal attack on how anyone runs their
repeater.
Of course not. No matter how much I or anyone else nit-picks technical
details, it's still supposed to be a fun hobby.
My point was is it needed?
I
If we went around putting 3 dB pads on our repeaters until someone
noticed, we'd soon have a repeater that no one would be able to use. In
this forum, most of us strive for the best operation we can afford, or
set-up up to our best ability. A matched system is one that works as
well in one
The policy of some repeater coordination councils to insist on a 100-
mile co-channel separation for UHF (and 120 miles for the lower-
frequency bands) regardless of the ERP seems like overkill to me. In
fairness, they do allow the consideration of terrain/ERP factors at
locations below
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
Alright, I believe your numbers. A repeater receiver with a high-end
preamp vs. a ham grade mobile receiver averages just under 6 dB better.
I still contend that in a mobile environment, under motion, that the
user will not detect the 6 dB difference. It will be barely
- Original Message -
From: Paul Yonge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The policy of some repeater coordination councils to insist on a 100-
mile co-channel separation for UHF (and 120 miles for the lower-
frequency bands) regardless of the ERP seems like overkill to me. In
fairness, they do allow
three miles? the guy should get it.
- Original Message -
From: Ray Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power
- Original Message -
From: Paul Yonge [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Chuck Kelsey wrote:
typical mobile installation? Maybe not. Do we DESIRE to run a certain
level because we can? Sure, just like we may want to install a 100KW
generator on site to run 3KW of load. That's fine if you can afford it,
I suppose. My point was is it needed?
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Paul Yonge wrote:
The policy of some repeater coordination councils to insist on a 100-
mile co-channel separation for UHF (and 120 miles for the lower-
frequency bands) regardless of the ERP seems like overkill to me. In
fairness, they do allow the consideration of
I don't think that wet stacking is an issue on newer Cummins gensets.
The 5.9L ISB is PCM/ECM controlled and the injectors are electronically
fired. They run clean no mater what the load or how long.
Kris Kirby wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Chuck Kelsey wrote:
typical mobile installation?
I was planning on using natural gas ;-)
Chuck
WB2EDV
Kris Kirby wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Chuck Kelsey wrote:
typical mobile installation? Maybe not. Do we DESIRE to run a certain
level because we can? Sure, just like we may want to install a 100KW
generator on site to run 3KW of
At 2/12/2006 08:24, you wrote:
Did you try the V7A with AIP on?
No, I didn't, but I'll do that later today if I get a chance. The other ham
rig in my truck is the other Kenwood dual bander (TM-708? getting old and
don't remember model #'s like I used to). I'm not sure but I think that has
In circular polarization you will find that half the power goes into
the vertical polarization and half goes into the horizontal, thereby
having a gain of -3db (for one element). CP is why you
rarely,
but rarely have any hot spots or hear any mobile flutter on
the
FM broadcast band. You
-Builder] UHF Power
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Chuck Kelsey wrote:
Maybe Jeff or someone could explain the math here. I find
it difficult
to believe one needs to run 200 watts for reciprocal coverage to a
typical mobile. And that's ignoring where I live, you'll never get
frequency
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Mike Morris wrote:
More details at http://wa6tdd.tripod.com and it's really worth
reading. And wait for the photos to load - they are worth it as well
(just for the photo of WA6ITF 40 years ago). The Jampro story is just
under his picture.
That was an astounding
Wow~ solid, broadband, heated... the stuff dreams are made of g
Yeah, I'm jealous. ~/ N8BQN /~
Mike Morris wrote:
In this particular case the antenna was .. rebuilt to 146Mhz by Jampro
as a favor to 'OQK (who is a professional broadcast engineer).
serious snipage
Yahoo! Groups
If we were talking about 6-meters, I'd agree on the 6-dB
disadvantage in
the mobile environment. I've never seen anything like that on UHF. I
don't buy into this argument yet ;-)
Chuck
WB2EDV
OK, if you don't like the mobile noise environment model, let's just look at
raw sensitivity
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Mike Morris wrote:
More details at http://wa6tdd.tripod.com and it's really worth
reading. And wait for the photos to load - they are worth
it as well
(just for the photo of WA6ITF 40 years ago). The Jampro
story is just
under his picture.
That was an
Jeff DePolo wrote:
If we were talking about 6-meters, I'd agree on the 6-dB
disadvantage in
the mobile environment. I've never seen anything like that on UHF. I
don't buy into this argument yet ;-)
Chuck
WB2EDV
OK, if you don't like the mobile noise environment model, let's just look
But, any 3 dB TX ERP loss is accompanied by a 3 dB RX loss as well. As I
said before, any antenna gains or feedline losses cancel out when it
comes to TX vs RX ability.
Joe M.
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
Jeff DePolo wrote:
Would you not agree that a good UHF repeater receiver with a GaAsFET ahead of it
will have better sensitivity than a typical mobile radio? If so, by what amount?
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
No. A "typical" UHF ham rig will have better sensitivity than most
) units, so Im hoping for a bit better RX
sensitivity.
Mark N9WYS
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kevin Custer
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006
5:33 PM
To:
Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder]
UHF Power
I
No. A typical UHF ham rig will have better sensitivity than most
repeaters with a preamp. A commercial mobile (without preamp)
will have
sensitivity slightly worse than the repeater with the preamp. 99% of
hams will be using a ham rig, not a commercial one.
OK, tell you what. It's
At 2/10/2006 21:54, you wrote:
At 03:48 AM 2/10/06, you wrote:
Maybe Jeff or someone could explain the math here. I find it difficult
to believe one needs to run 200 watts for reciprocal coverage to a
typical mobile. And that's ignoring where I live, you'll never get
frequency coordination
And that's my whole point.
Chuck
WB2EDV
Jeff DePolo WN3A wrote:
I'd be interested in someone actually trying this with a UHF
system that
is running 200+ watts. Drop it to 100 watts without telling anyone.
Leave it there for a week or two and see if anyone notices.
Chances are
Sure they would. There was a long time ham (now SK) who would not run
anything less than 100 watts from his mobile. Didn't matter what band --
had to be at least 100 watts or he wasn't happy.
I've seen the same thing in public safety service. For years you
couldn't get the local fire
Here in OZ we only run 25 watts for mobile and 50 for bases / repeaters.
Cheers
Brett
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power
Sure they would
OK, here are the results of my quick bench measurements for whatever it's
worth. All receivers were on the same frequency (448.800 MHz). Signal
source was a Fluke/Philips 6060A sig gen locked to a rubidium reference
oscillator, modulated by 1 kHz AF at +/- 3 kHz peak deviation. The output
of
-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power
And that's my whole point.
Chuck
WB2EDV
Jeff DePolo WN3A wrote:
I'd be interested in someone actually trying this with a UHF
system that
is running 200+ watts. Drop it to 100 watts without telling anyone
Alright, I believe your numbers. A repeater receiver with a high-end
preamp vs. a ham grade mobile receiver averages just under 6 dB better.
I still contend that in a mobile environment, under motion, that the
user will not detect the 6 dB difference. It will be barely
distinguishable most of
At 01:15 PM 2/11/06, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, any 3 dB TX ERP loss is accompanied by a 3 dB RX loss as well. As I
said before, any antenna gains or feedline losses cancel out when it
comes to TX vs RX ability.
Joe M.
I agree, if it's a single duplexed antenna and feedline.
But in this
Maybe Jeff or someone could explain the math here. I find it difficult
to believe one needs to run 200 watts for reciprocal coverage to a
typical mobile. And that's ignoring where I live, you'll never get
frequency coordination for that much power anyway.
Chuck
WB2EDV
Kevin Custer wrote:
, 2006 8:37 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Power
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Chuck Kelsey wrote:
Maybe Jeff or someone could explain the math here. I find
it difficult
to believe one needs to run 200 watts for reciprocal coverage to a
typical mobile
At 03:48 AM 2/10/06, you wrote:
Maybe Jeff or someone could explain the math here. I find it difficult
to believe one needs to run 200 watts for reciprocal coverage to a
typical mobile. And that's ignoring where I live, you'll never get
frequency coordination for that much power anyway.
Chuck
There must have been a problem with the transmitter then, as most
mobiles don't run 200W and the receivers on both the repeater and the
mobiles can be easily matched uV for uV. In fact, it's easier to get
more sensitivity out of the mobiles since they don't have to worry about
duplex concerns, so
Gee- do you really need 150 watts?
Most of the UHF installations I have seen, that employed a decent
receiver with preamp, could have easily used 150 + watts to be
matched. I know of several GE Mastr II UHF 200 watt repeaters, using
good preamps, that are matched in performance with
71 matches
Mail list logo
