--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I think the vast majority on this list know quite a bit more of the
differences, but that's another issue, as John Q. Ham is not subscribed
to this list. (John Q. Ham doesn't BUILD repeaters)
Joe M.
I dunno-I've
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, JOHN MACKEY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't bother.
They have weak receivers weak transmitters. The IMTS duplexer
isn't very
good.
...and if it's VHF, it was designed for an in/out separation of at
least 5 Mhz, which is more then the entire 2M
Hi Skipp,
And we've seen some sloppy engineering in the
design of the audio and limiter circuits.
What you're saying here Bob... is that you've
owned at least one Icom IC-230 at some time in
the past.
:-)
Wow-there's one I haven't heard in a long time-I had one of those
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
Doesn't matter-in fact a repeater that's tied up all day with chatter
isn't available for emergency communications. Plus the more time it
spends keyed up, the less time till something fails.
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The director of emergency management insists on a Motorola shop
doing the
work, and there is only one in town. He is willing to send it out
of town
if it would be cheaper, or more effective.
One thing people
A common problem with that series of radios, and indeed most handhelds
of that vintage, was the PTT switch going flaky. I'd bet it's bad. Got
a spkr-mic that you can try? If the sp/mic sounds ok, it's the switch.
Of course, the sp/mic jacks could be bad too, so if it sounds bad,
it doesn't
Ed Yoho wrote:
Site prefixing (with supervisory lock down commands) is used by every
medium to large network I know of.
Having both control methods available allows the system management to
choose whichever method they prefer. Not having the ability for site
prefixing eliminates those
Ed Yoho wrote:
The basic difference is on systems with site prefixing as part of the
command structure, different inputs get different command requirements.
Using macros to simulate site prefixing is pretty inefficient. As an
example, a user wants to enter command 12345. From the main
kb1we6r wrote:
Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no
activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room
for a better repeater plan).
Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA
Nope-FM is only allowed above 29.500, so we only have 29.5-29.7 for ANY
FM
Ken Arck wrote:
Ooops, dropped a 2 from the Ebay item number. Here's the correct one
280185868722
Ken
Guy also has an old Aerotron handheld he's trying to sell as an
AEROTRON FM VHF BASE STATION RADIO.
|cP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim - you meant to say Repeaters are allowed above 29.500, not FM. FM is
allowed above 29.000 MHz.
LJ
No, the only thing I should've added was 'wide-band' FM, ie, anything
that occupies more bandwidth then a normal AM signal.
Paul Plack wrote:
...Your club elected a tech-challenged board,
...and they all actually believe that the made-for-ham repeater
equipment is better then commercial grade Motorola or GE simply because
it's newer.
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
I wish !!!
I've got Verizon now (formerly the Great Telephone Experiment)
Generally Trashy Electronics...
Just thought I'd mention here that I have left TransCore, and have
accepted a position with American Messaging paging. I will be
responsible for maintaining infrastructure across NE Ohio, most of W.
Virginia, and extreme eastern PA.
--
Jim Barbour
American Messaging
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
In the USA the 60-66MHz range is television channel 3, the 66-72MHz
range is TV channel 4, the 72-76MHz frequencies are used as
Operational Fixed / Repeater frequencies (essentially commercial
point-to-point links), 76-82MHz is TV channel 5 and 82-88MHz is TV
Ben wrote:
If you haven't tried to rx DTV yet it's time you did. I can watch
channels now in studio quality that in analog are almost unwatchable
by todays standards. HD signals are very nice too! It's easy to pick
these channels up with the antenna you have up now and the cost is
just
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
At 10:04 AM 01/17/08, you wrote:
Note that the built-in controller in the early Kenwoods (i.e.
the 720 models) is pretty brain-dead and does not meet
amateur requirements. Those that use those models just
set them up as duplex base stations and use an external
MCH wrote:
I'll take a few XTSs or XTLs for a couple hundred bucks each - or even
$600 each.
But that aside, why is a P25 radio the only one you should be able to
get to do 440-476?
Even so, P25 is a small percentage of Motorola's entire line.
Another point: If the radio has a
Keith, KB7M wrote:
If by down-and-dirty you mean simple, you can do a HAAT (Height Above
Average Terrain) calculation. This is about as easy as it gets (
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html). This method is
easy, but only accurate if the terrain is mostly flat. It
swellesleys wrote:
We are looking for a Motorola Micor Vibraspondor TLN8381A 2Z 110.9 Hz
for use with our local repeater - K8VJ/R. Please email me if you have
one you would like to sell. TNX Steve N8AR
Just a friendly note-watch out if your repeater is on 2M. NE Ohio has
used 110.9 for 2M
TGundo 2003 wrote:
Your sources are mis-informed.
This isn't mis-information. This is personal experience. DTV requires
MORE antenna to work without breakup. Where a little snow is perfectly
tolerable, even a flinch of digital breakup once in a while can make it
unwatchable.
If your too
Gary wrote:
CFR title 47 is available on the FCC's website for all to view. 95.135(a)
reads No station may transmit with more than 50 watts output power.
Subpart (d) reads A fixed station must transmit with no more than 15
watts output power. 95.25 further defines land stations. My
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We? Who else are speaking for? I've submitted this question to the FCC for
clarification. We'll see what they say if they actually get back to me (they
usually don't).
Gary
uh-'We' as users/radio people.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good idea Richard especially since Mitreks are wideband radios so making them
meet the narrower GMRS specs is probably a monumental task. I wonder if a
Mitrek can even meet the required frequency tolerance.
Gary
You're not talking about the Part 90 narrowbanding?
Jack Hayes wrote:
I can't imagine why you'd want to go to the trouble of building
a GMRS repeater. Two years ago I purchased a Motorola Desktrac UHF,
tuned it up and set it up. Works fine -- no hassles. It is a little
more power than I need so I'm about to replace it with a Ritron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I should clarify that I was referring to new commercial gear coming
stock with 4Khz dev on 20Khz channels as one of the selectable
bandwidths per channel.
Educated guess-that's probably for the 800MHz NPSPAC channels. They are
slightly narrower assignments, with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul, the underlying and unexpected contridiction here was not
between 15Khz vs. 20Khz channel spacing but instead between 20Khz and
25Khz channels more commonly found on UHF which as you know is where
GMRS resides. Historically there's more than enough guard between
Nate Duehr wrote:
Interesting... sending to Illinois Digital, D-Star, and Repeater-Builder
lists; Raytheon has a box that supposedly takes baseband audio from an
analog repeater that has a P25 radio transmitting into it, and turns it
back into analog...
Jim Cicirello wrote:
Hi Chuck,
What are you hearing from the Sheriff Joe as your county is a BATA Site for
M/A-Com OpenSky. I am hearing horror stories. Some time if you have a minute
maybe you can bring me up to speed on your opinion as to if this system will
ever be accepted. I know
activity, or preventing transmission if there
is any, it needs to be redesigned, as it can easily be considered
illegal. P25 has it.
Jim
WD8CHL
ocwarren2000 wrote:
Er.. uh... Excuse me, but why all this commotion about painting
and preserving antennas???
If everyone used limited range, low gain, stacked folded dipoles,
then maybe so, but stacked folded dipoles are a low gain limited
range item.
A 4-bay stacked dipole
John Transue wrote:
I'm afraid there is no easy way to evaluate an antenna except from
signal reports. Even if you have a field strength meter, which I do not
have, the reading would only be relative except on a calibrated test
range.
Thanks for sharing your experience with me.
Ron Wright wrote:
Jim,
I tend to agree more spectrum is not needed on 2 meters just to
accommodate D-Star or any other mode, digital or analog. Many analog
boys are also starving for space for their repeaters.
D-Star does look for the proper D-Star format to unsquelch as one
might say.
RG-213 is NOT double-shielded and should NOT be used in a full duplex
repeater system.
RG-214 is the corrct substitute.
Ron Wright wrote:
Kris,
I guess the question would be are you now having problems you think
are caused by internal cable???
If not replacing RG213 with 142 is not a
Paul Plack wrote:
Actually, in theory, a fiberglas-enclosed colinear array fed from one
end requires more elements and length to equal the gain of an
otherwise comparable colinear array fed at each element. The upper
elements of a Stationmaster are seeing less RF current than the ones
closer
Nate Duehr wrote:
wd8chl wrote:
Good. D-Star and other digital voice modes do NOT need more spectrum on 2M.
If a digital voice mode does not have some sort of provision for
monitoring for non-digital activity, or preventing transmission if there
is any, it needs to be redesigned
Dan Blasberg wrote:
On May 9, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Ron Wright wrote:
D-Star rigs are expensive as Ham Radio rigs, but how expensive is
P25 radios???
Depends on the manufacturer and if you want new or used. Used P25
radios can be had for as little as $250 (you still need a programming
jimmylpowell wrote:
After reading all of the recent post about different types of coax
that are acceptable in duplex service, I made my self a list. Then, I
thought that this might be helpful to others. Here's what I came up
with so far. Please add any that I have missed.
RG-142 Be
Nate Duehr wrote:
(Hmmm... MIC-E packets from all the repeater's user radios with GPS
lat/long data embedded in them, a way to decode that at the mountain
and point the antennas az/el rotor and medium-sized yagis, mounted
vertically... hahaha now that I've said it, some nut will TRY
Nate Duehr wrote:
On May 11, 2008, at 9:40 PM, wd8chl wrote:
Ron Wright wrote:
Jim,
I tend to agree more spectrum is not needed on 2 meters just to
accommodate D-Star or any other mode, digital or analog. Many analog
boys are also starving for space for their repeaters.
D-Star does
Nate Duehr wrote:
On May 11, 2008, at 10:13 PM, wd8chl wrote:
That's what I was headed towards. The original post of the FCC answer
(the part I quoted) seemed to lead that the petitioners were
requesting
additional repeater spectrum partially based on D-Star users not being
able
Ron Wright wrote:
Nate,
I should have said a repeater radio cost over $1000, but then again I
thought the discussion was about repeaters on D-Star.
I paid $400 for the IC91AD. This is about the cheapest one can do
unless they get used like on e-bay. An equivlant analog is
Mark wrote:
I'm a fan of the andrew 1/4 inch superflex. You can terminate them with
standard PL259,
using the UG176 reducer meant for use with rg59, soldering the shield at the
top only. I've
not swept them but feel sure they would be sufficient for any frequency you
would feel
Well, the fact that no one s sing it (like they SHOULD be doing),
no one's using it...
|cP
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
The reason I like the MOTOROLA solution is that you can have a Digital TDMA
repeater on the air and now you can have to clubs split the cost of the
digital repeater and have TWO Digital voice conversations at the same time
using a narrow band channel. That is getting the
Bob M. wrote:
Regarding trustees: club stations certainly need one.
I think it's just customary even for privately owned
repeaters to have trustees, even if it's in name only,
and it could certainly be the station owner, but it
doesn't have to be. A repeater could be owned by a
novice (who
!
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM, wd8chl wrote:
Bob M. wrote:
Regarding trustees: club stations certainly need one. I think it's
just customary even for privately owned repeaters to have trustees,
even if it's in name only, and it could certainly be the station
owner
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Wd8chl wrote:
Understood-the bad news is if the repeater goes down, I'm pretty sure
the radios are dead. I don't think there's a simplex mode. If there is,
it's NOT TDMA.
What happens if a P25 repeater or D-Star module fails.You don't get out
unless you have
Wayne WA2YNE
I am being forced to change my user ID because for some STUPID reason,
ebay INSISTS that your user ID and email CANNOT start the same. All of
my email addresses start with wd8chl, so because ebay is a bunch of
jerks, I have to change my user ID to something like wd8chl1
Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote:
I just picked up a Midland WR-100 weather receiver to replace my sickly
Radio Shack unit here at the house. I've been toying with interfacing a
weather receiver with our repeater for a while and was considering getting
another WR-100 (they're only $29 locally) for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't worry even the guys on the personal radio website
can't figure this out. No one seems to agree on it.
But it seems like as long as I don't have it ID when no
one is on it then no one here will have a realy issue with
it. Oh wait that was another
Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote:
At a quick glance I see a problem using TA in a trunked radio system because
unless the RF channel is removed from the trunked system and subscriber
radios
set up for conventional TA on that frequency, other traffic on the trunked
system will collide with
atms169 wrote:
It's the KE5KAF Dstar system in Laredo.
2 Meters
120 watts after duplexers
Telawave 4 cans 600 Split
Coax LMR-400 80feet
Antenna I want to put up is a Commercial Anitron-150 Similar to a DB220
A 2-bay folded dipole array is 3 dBd gain, not 6.
So to get the same gain, you need
atms169 wrote:
Well as you know, one is never satisfied with their own repeater.
Always wanting to have better!
Yes, the Dstar system is great. I am changing the fiberglass vertical
to the Anitron-150 which is a set of folded dipoles.
I'm running a TE Systems PA and a Chip Angle
jistabout wrote:
Hi Scott, I've been running a somewhat complex system which uses an old
PC as the controller for several years now and it works just fine. You
can see pictures and details at:
http://www.ka7btv.com/cora.htm http://www.ka7btv.com/cora.htm
This system deos not use the
Coy Hilton wrote:
XP actually runs quite well. As long as you don't load up every
program that you can find on the web on it. for a dedicated
controller just load what it takes to run it and it'llsuprise you!!!
AC0Y
ummm-I had both laptops as new XP installs. Both ran crappy with nothing
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
At 09:06 AM 06/17/08, you wrote:
I am building a large repeater system here in SE Kansas for SkyWarn
and I am wanting to use the RVS-8 Voter.
Our system uses Motorola Maxtracs for pretty much every aspect
of our giant 15 county coverage repeater.
Has anyone
Craig wrote:
Ed
It's refreshing to see someone use proper radioman terminology these
days. The term MORT is falling into oblivion these days.
Craig
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Com/Rad Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I share this crazy deal with y'all
Some Mort ...
Joe wrote:
Hello Groupies,
I had this question posed to me and I am looking for your opinions. The
question below has been edited to protect the innocent2 meter
repeater..
73, Joe, K1ike
I have a technical question with which I need assistance
jistabout wrote:
Just my opinion and experience of course, but I've found the Linux
Distros which I've tried (Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake and a few others)
to be cumbersome to set up and somewhat quirky compared to Windows,
especially a stripped-down lean copy of XP. Also, its not as easy to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 6/20/2008 15:52, you wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. I would think that for peak and valley detection to
work right, you need to look at the voice spectrum, not the noise spectrum,
and use the ratio of the peaks to valleys to compute a value indicitive of
the S/N,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 6/23/2008 19:28, you wrote:
Folks
We're moving a VHF amateur repeater to a 96' Trylon self supporting
tower. The overwhelming opinion is that our current 210C4 four bay folded
dipole would be too much of a weight and wind load for that tower.
One comment
year working. I have cables for the 7, although I don't
think they are factory cables.
I'd like to get $50 a piece for them. Send me an email off list!
Jim WD8CHL
Steve wrote:
I have a question if someone might be able to awnser it grate .
I am getting ready to Setup a GMRS Repeater . However the Repeater that
I would be using is a P25 Digital / Analog Repeater . I was wondering
if P25 Astro Digital Can be Used on the GMRS Band ? I have called the
In a message dated 7/2/2008 2:49:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve,
in my limited experience P25 is (I think) designated as an F2E emission type
in a conventional application such as this but since you were unable to get
an answer I'm gonna try
wd8chl wrote:
Speaking of that, I have 7 CSI-32's I want to sell off. An 8th is up at
a site and will be replaced soon. All were removed from service at the
end of last year working. I have cables for the 7, although I don't
think they are factory cables.
I'd like to get $50 a piece
de W5DK wrote:
Not to hijack the thread, but a dummy load is NOT always a perfect
test to eliminate the equipment. I think it’s a good start though.
I just solved a situation where I had 15 db desense into a 600ft
feedline / antenna and ZERO desense into a dummy load. This was using
a
Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
And some evening spend some time reading this:
http://www.repeater-builder.com/db/db-about-rf-communications.pdf
Yes, some of the info is 40 years old, but the physics of RF hasn't
changed.
Mike WA6ILQ
And never will!
At least not until somebody figures out how
Laryn Lohman wrote:
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wd8chl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds to me like the PA wasn't aligned properly. Or the duplexer is
not aligned properly. Most, but not all, MastrII PA's have an output
filter section that is tricky to align correctly
Ron Wright wrote:
Bob,
One other note on the VHF lo and 6 m. 6 might improve due to the
HDTV stations will be able to run considerably lower power. Our Ch
10 on VHF hi will go from 42 kW RF, 216 kW ERP, to avarage 2 kW with
10 kW peak RF. They will also like the electric bill more, hi.
Ron Wright wrote:
I have a few friends that have gotten their top set boxes for HDTV
receiving it over the air with antenna and all are so excited about
the very noticable quality improvement.
If someone is a few miles from a typical TV station and cannot
receive it with rabit ears it aint
TGundo 2003 wrote:
As for picture quality- If it's an SD program it may look the same on
analog vs digital, but if your HD looks the same then something is
wrong. Period.
Yeah-there's something wrong alright-it's all hype. DTV is a big rip-off.
aat3ok wrote:
Can anyone that knows the MCX100 tell me if it is a reasonable choice
for making a repeater. I have one of these that was given to me and am
trying to figure what I want to do with it.
Thanks
Jim
It might be OK as a rx, but it's pretty much a forgone conclusion it
will
I made an isotee today by cutting off the central pin in a F-M-F
tee. I measured the attenuation by comparing the power through the
tee to the power that escapes from the isotee port. With the central
pin cut off flush with the dielectric the attenuation is about 38
dB. With the central
One BIG glitch-depending on the band/frequency, it may not program to
the new frequency. On VHF especially, there are channels that cannot be
programmed in the synthesizer.
Another problem is cost. If whoever is doing this doesn't have someone
on staff qualified to do this, it's not economical
Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey Rochelle wrote:
Just a shame some of us won't be able to see this interesting doco,
not in the cont USA. Unlikely our TV companies will show this any
time soon, maybe ever. Any change someone will record it and make it
available via a torrent? Heres hoping.
Eric Lemmon wrote:
Tom,
The TIA-recommended standard deviation for CTCSS is 500 Hz on a 16K0F3E or
20K0F3E emission. Most CTCSS decoders can reliably detect tone deviated as
low as 100 Hz. Any deviation greater than 500 Hz can be considered
excessive.
The TIA spec is for +/- 500Hz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:41 AM 7/19/2008, you wrote:
I have seen at least one clearly demonstrated case where even
adjacent hard-line runs have had excessive mutual energy coupling.
Go figure...
Not surprising at all, if the antennas they were connected to were poorly
decoupled
Gary Glaenzer wrote:
anyone see a problem with a M-II operating thus:
RX 161.70
TX 170.15 or 166.25
no duplexer, separate antennas (rx @ 450 ft, DB-224; tx @ 100 feet, yagi)
thoughts ?
Not right off. 350' of vertical separation, and frequency separation of
5-10 MHz, should yield no
Eric Lemmon wrote:
My statement about the definition of Standard CTCSS Modulation is correct,
and thank you for confirming that. As others have pointed out,
manufacturers are not necessarily bound to comply with TIA standards. I
guess the real issue is, why should any manufacturer set CTCSS
Joe wrote:
YupWas it my imagination or was there an excessive number of
commercials?
Joe
There's ALWAYS an excessive number of commercials...
Nate Duehr wrote:
snip
(When we added mandatory CTCSS to our repeaters a few years back, one
of the techs jokingly wanted to title the article for the e-mail
newsletter That 70's Repeater, since we were finally implementing
1970's technology.)
ROFLMAO!!!
snip
Or figure out how to link
mickupi wrote:
Does anyone still use DC remotes?
Mick
They're pretty handy for in-house remoting, ie, a hospital ER on the
first floor with a med channel base on the roof. They respond much
quicker then a tone remote, so if you have a dispatch center that wants
to patch radios together
Is that on Snopes anywhere?
;c)
jk
Joe wrote:
You are correct!
The Scotch Kote (Gealic spelling of coat) was very successful at
preventing wardrobe malfunctions of the kilt. Years ago, a 3M
executive who was attending the British Open golf tournament at St.
Andrews Old Course in
I think we are making much ado about nothing here. Certainly, for UHF
and VHF duplexers, the lengths of the cables that came with it should be
fine for the ham band as well. At least I've never seen one that it
matters. Now, I suppose moving one that is for 160-175 down to 146,
yeah, you'd
George Henry wrote:
There ARE frequency coordinators for commercial pairs,
as well... a list is on the FCC website at
http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/public-safety-spectrum/coord.html.
It appears that the filing fee for a new land mobile
license below 470 MHz is $60.00, according to the fee
Jason Greene wrote:
If I understand DC remotes correctly, they are controlled by polarity
and voltage?
Close-current. Usually transmit on F1 (channel 1) is either +5 to 6mA or
+11 to 12 mA. Voltage is varied to provide that current.
Output frequency is 145.450 input is
144.850. How do
I figure out
what length the cables should be between the rx side
and tx side
that
connect to the T-Connector? Thanks and 73's !
Gary K2ACY
If the duplexer was supplied from Telewave on 2M, then what you have is
right. LEAVE
and handle
mail of different priorities at different times, and it often sets
them off when a topic is slightly questionable.
Well said, Nate!
Jim
WD8CHL
;c)
mickupi wrote:
I need a good receiver for our 6 meter repeater. It is on
53.090/52.090. What would be a good radio to look for. Preferably
crystal controlled and easy to tune. I am not completely ruling out
programmable radios, it's just that they are not my preference. If you
have something
Tom reminded me-yes, the Mitrek makes a very good 6M rx as well, little
to no mods.
Most rx mods involve front end helical work-needs a LARGE soldering iron
or torch.
Tom wrote:
If it were me, I'd be looking at a Motorola Mitrek, Micor or possibly
even Motrac receiver. The Motrac is an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7/29/2008 20:37, you wrote:
Rber s, I posted a note very early this week about my looking for a
someplace to get a 220 duplexer tuned in the TAMPA area. Having not much
luck I contacted a local MOTOROLA shop and paid $95 for the service. The
receipt
n9wys wrote:
Well, Joe - I got it to work!
What I ended up doing was chasing the audio path from the goes-inna
through the backplane. I found that on the Squelch Gate card, it was not
being passed, even though the jumper was in place. I added a hard-wire
jumper to the backplane between
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check the repeater-builder site for a mod to the station control module to
make it DISABLE the transmitter and add a status LED as well.
Bill - WA0CBW
Right-mine is similar. I re-purposed the PL disable transistor to
function as the F1 channel element enable
skipp025 wrote:
skipp025 at yahoo.com
www.radiowrench.com
ps: Same good things can be said about many of the other
Controller Mfgrs who are also members of this and other
Yahoo Groups... like Ken, Ron, Steve and Alan. Each one has
been more than fairly accessible on the phone and by
mark_n2mh wrote:
Thanks to LW, SD, and Eric for answering my request.
Sorry for any confusion, but the antenna as given to me, has no
radials at the present time. I will have to fabricate them.
My original thought was to make the antenna work in its original
frequency range, 30-40 MHz.
chappyr wrote:
A club is considering Kenwood TKR
repeaters for 2M and 440. The 2M repeater
will be carrier squelch--no tone.
Would appreciate comments how well the
Kenwood squelch works, compared to the famous
Micor squelch, RLC-MOT, MASTR2, etc.
Thanks -- kd4ss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike,
Now wait just a minute. Cochran is not in the middle of nowhere because
I live in the middle of nowhere. I like the two repeaters with carrier
squelch. I have always thought of CTCSS as an inconvenience, but maybe
in more populated areas it is becoming much
enjoyacold807 wrote:
Your basic GE Mastr II rack mount pwr supply (ref PL19D436272G1 Rev
A) was part of club WA8UXP's 2m GE MastrII (base) repeater (146.985
Mhz) until it started acting up (a few years ago). Basically, the no
load voltage looked ok. But, once the 100w PA kicked in the
Siegfried Jackstien wrote:
hi folks
just a question:
end fed halfwave with radials???
impedance 50 ohms???
an endfed halfwave has a builtin stepuptransformer or something similar
so impedance on the connector is probably 50ohm BUT ... no radials needed
it is an end fed vertikal
1 - 100 of 422 matches
Mail list logo
