RE: [Repeater-Builder] Polyphaser Question
I recently opened up a Polyphaser unit we used on one of our remote sites. it covered both 2m and 70cm. We were experiencing poor receive at the site. Replaced the unit and receiver sensitivity is once again hot. Anyone want pics of the insides respond direct and I'll ship you the photos.not much to see. a gas tube and what looks like a surface mount resistor in series with the gas tube. 73, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Oz-in-DFW Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Polyphaser Question Polyphasers have a shunt protection element. It usually fails and becomes leaky so you get a loss/VSWR indication. It can fail open or short. If it's open, there is nothing to detect.
[Repeater-Builder] Polyphaser EOL ?
Hi folks, We noticed reduced sensitivity at one of our remote receivers recently. Went out to check things. All looked good. SWR to the receive antenna was good. Check it with and w/o Polyphaser in line. Replaced Polyphaser and tested again. same SWR but sensitivity much improved. Is this typical for a Polyphaser that has reached EOL? 73, Dave Wa3gin
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Hygain in Starkville MS
MFJ bought both Cushcraft and Hy-GAIN.too bad the didn't grab Telrex before they went under ;-( _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Dow Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:44 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Hygain in Starkville MS MFJ bought Cushcraft. Tom Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Hygain in Starkville MS Yes, MFJ bought Hygain. WA Brown
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Hygain in Starkville MS
HAHA, Did you ever have one? The elements used to wear a hole in the boom and fall out at the most un opportune times ;-) _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lee Pennington Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 3:43 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Hygain in Starkville MS Telrex didn't fall into the Mighty Fine Junk category! de Lee K4LJP 73 On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:21 PM, David Jordan wa3...@comcast. mailto:wa3...@comcast.net net wrote: MFJ bought both Cushcraft and Hy-GAIN.too bad the didn't grab Telrex before they went under ;-(
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GMRS License Help
Sounds like bogus information. why not just surf the FCC web site and quantify the rumor! _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fuggitaboutit Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:54 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GMRS License Help we are hearing that the fcc is going to limit output power to 2 watts in the gmrs service that would preclude all repeaters and implies handheld use only --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Andy agrimm0...@... wrote: I just applied for my GMRS license yesturday evening. I got a confirmation email saying that I did pay my 85.00 bucks. How do I know what my call sign is and all my license information. Will I get another email when all the data is processed by the FCC and everything is confirmed. Will they mail my license to me in the mail??
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Converting the Kenwood TKR-820 to use with D-STAR
HAHA D-STAR doesn't provide amateur radio price points either.D-STAR is off the shelf which makes it popular for appliance operator/trustees who want to tinker with digital as compared to digging into a P-25 mode and upgrade which takes significant technical skills when compared to appliance operator type. I think D-STAR will end up like Quadraphonic sound.just a matter of time. If prices drop 60% on D-STAR that might keep it alive longer but it is nonsense to think VHF users are going to walk away from analog under the current scenario and economic times. As stated earlier D-STAR makes no sense for ACS. Sorry for the drift, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:04 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Converting the Kenwood TKR-820 to use with D-STAR Some of the concerns are addressed in this posting: http://k7ve.org/blog/2007/07/d-star-repeater-audio-linking/ Basically, D-STAR is by far the most developed and deployed Amateur Radio specific true digital voice and data network out there (We see a few P25, MotoTrbo, and NXDN/IDas systems on Amateur Radio, but none with the network of D-STAR -- see http://dstarusers.org). Mototrbo, P25, etc. just doesn't provide amateur oriented radios at amateur oriented price points. But these are probably topics for other lists.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Converting the Kenwood TKR-820 to use with D-STAR
Sounds about right! _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Curtis Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:59 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Converting the Kenwood TKR-820 to use with D-STAR Easy with the laserdisk now ;) I still have a nice collection here. Kb0wlf -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- buil...@yahoogroups.com mailto:Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of nj902 Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Converting the Kenwood TKR-820 to use with D-STAR --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , David Jordan wa3...@... wrote: ... I think D-STAR will end up like Quadraphonic sound.just a matter of time. .. -- Agreed. D-Star had the misfortune to roll out just ahead of the economic downturn. D-Star may trudge on much like LaserDisk did - Pioneer was pretty much the only one backing it just as D-Star has one major backer. LaserDisk survived until a better format won acceptance so it will be interesting to see where amateur VHF/UHF digital voice winds up. This quote from the Wikipedia LaserDisk article may fit D-Star in a couple of years: ...the format was poorly received in North America. In Europe and Australia, it remained largely an obscure format. It was, however, much more popular in Japan ... Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2962 - Release Date: 06/29/10 06:35:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Converting the Kenwood TKR-820 to use with D-STAR
No argument on more going on with D-STAR you can see it happening now.loads of used D-STAR equipment for sale on club swap and shop list, ebay, etc. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Converting the Kenwood TKR-820 to use with D-STAR --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , nj902 wb0...@... wrote: D-Star may trudge on much like LaserDisk did - Pioneer was pretty much the only one backing it just as D-Star has one major backer. You mean like MotoTrbo? :) BTW - there is a lot more going on in D-STAR and you will probably see a big growth spurt (especially in repeaters) later this year.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] D-Star Was: Molotora Gontor
D-STAR may not be adopted by the majority of VHF/UHF users until the end-user gear prices drop significantly. I think there will be too few users to justify the efforts of a trustee or club to migrate to D-STAR/digital. One D-STAR follower noted 12,000 units sold globally. That number of unit sales over a period of five years or more is a product line waiting to be dropped. D-STAR is no IPOD ;-) What is holding D-STAR adoption back is pretty obvious; no competition from Kenwood or Yasue that might help drive the prices down as has been the case with all previous technology evolutions. Kenwood actually offers D-STAR re-selling ICOM's units with a stick-on Kenwood label.doesn't look like Kenwood is going to adopt this technology as a viable alternative to analog systems. Without competition there is a dead-end coming around the bend for D-STAR travelers, IMHO. The digital repeaters are also very expensive. The new hardware/software workarounds for the repeater side make migrating to the digital mode less expensive for the trustees and clubs that are interested in the mode but users make a repeater system and without the users why bother. This isn't one of those build-it-and-they-will-come scenarios. Perhaps an analogy might be why tone a repeater in a vacation spot when most of the users are from out of town and won't know the tone. Sure you can tone but you'll reduce the number of users, at least that was the case before receivers were smart and could detect the tone for us. But you get idea. So, I suspect those considering digital are thinking about adding a new repeater rather than converting an existing system. That approach is also going to lead to that dead-end for ICOM D-STAR. I think it is great that repeaters can now be enhanced with bolt-on applications running on PCs but I can't imagine hand-held owners enjoying the few if any tangible benefits of D-STAR if they have to lug a lap-top around with them so their existing mobile or hand-held can operate the mode... Linking analog repeaters via the Internet may be a better approach then trying to force or wait for 99% of the user community to migrate to the new mode. I give ICOM D- for implementation. They totally misread the marketplace IMHO. Please flame direct ;-) Best, Dave WA3GIN/W4AVA/W4KGC _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Bade Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:50 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] D-Star Was: Molotora Gontor I would be glad to elaborate about D-Star Repeater conversions as there are multiple ways to do it now and Any EDACS capable or Smartnet Capable repeater would do D-Star as both fundamentally have the parts to transmit and receive GMSK type waveforms There are several Yahoogroups that are focused on alternate D-Star hardware and software devices. Doug KD8B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Zimmerman Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 8:54 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] D-Star Was: Molotora Gontor My biggest problem with the D-Star repeaters is that they didn't make them analog compatible. Knowing as little as I do about the D-star hardware, it would seem easy enough for Icom to have done so. All they would have needed to do would have been to look at the incoming signal, see if it was analog or digital, and process it correctly. While you'll pry my analog repeater pairs from my cold dead hands; if D-Star machines were analog capable, I'd swap every pair I have to that format tomorrow. As RB (the company) I have been asked about D-star more times than I can count. I tell people it's nice to play with, but what happens in an emergency? If Icom would have made the D-star machines analog capable, those that wanted to (and had D-star radios) could play with it all they wanted to. When an emergency arose and you had 10x as many people out there with analog rigs, the machine would *still* be useful. As it is at present, if an emergency arises, only those with D-star rigs can use a D-star machine. That concept is fine, as long as ALL of your volunteers have D-Star radios! (How many places is this the case?) Around here (Western PA) the governments bought Icom D-Star radios for RACES. I had no objection to that since those radios can be used in analog modes with analog repeaters. Now they are wanting to get D-Star repeaters for RACES and emergency use. I *strongly* object to that since they CANNOT be used in analog modes for emergencies. In my view, you'd be alienating much of your volunteer base that doesn't have the correct equipment right at the point where you need all the help you can get! Of course with the government in the mentality that they have been in the past few years, maybe that's their way of thinning the heard.
[Repeater-Builder] FW: FCC Update - Amateur Radio Rules
Some good news from the FCC for Public Safety Oriented Trustees _ From: Robert Kenny [mailto:robert.ke...@fcc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:55 PM To: David Jordan Subject: FCC Update - Amateur Radio Rules Dave, I just wanted to update on developments on the amateur radio front as it relates to government-run emergency preparedness exercises and readiness drills and test (including participation by hospitals). Please go to the following the PSHSB home page at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/ http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/ and find the following notice under 'Highlights and Releases.' Please feel free to share with those who you believe will be interested in this notice and wish to provide comment. Thanks. 3/24/10 FCC Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Seeking Comment on Amateur Radio Service Rules Related to Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Readiness Drills and Tests. NPRM: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-45A1.doc Word | http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-45A1.pdf Acrobat http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-45A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-45A1.doc Rob Robert C. Kenny Director of Media Relations Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau US Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington DC, 20554 202-418-2668 202-355-2524 (Cell) 202-418-2817 (Fax) Email: mailto:robert.ke...@fcc.gov robert.ke...@fcc.gov
[Repeater-Builder] Commercial Antenna for 2m Repeater Question
Hi Folks, Our club has been given permission to use one of the Public Safety antennas for our 2m repeater. The antenna is a PD-220-3A 150.5-158.5MHz. Our repeater freq. is 146.745. The antenna is fed with some nice looking Cell Flex LCF-12-50 ju, hard-line. The PD-200 is one of those totally enclosed fiberglass antennas; we don't have funds to pay for a climb to take down or replace or tweak. Have two questions: We think we can live with the power loss if we build a coupler to match the inevitable high SWR. Can someone point us to a formula to estimate/calculate both the projected SWR and power loss, etc? WAGs R fine too. Is anyone aware of any 2m coupler projects that might work for this scenario? Our current repeater antenna is in the attic of one of our members garage at 25ft ASL.this antenna would be 425ft ASL.so even with losses we expect significantly better performance. 73, Dave WA3GIN
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Antenna for 2m Repeater Question
Hi Chuck, We couldn't do a proper test this weekend. The hard-line had its connector cut-off and we didn't have a compatible connector for this type hard-line. Ordering a connector today. I'm guessing about 3:1 but won't know for sure till we get some RF into it. Best, dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:29 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Antenna for 2m Repeater Question I'd consider a Z-matcher. Telewave, Sinclair, EMR and others make them. You don't want to make your transmitter unhappy. You didn't say how bad the SWR is. You might get away with doing nothing. Chuck WB2EDV
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Antenna for 2m Repeater Question
What is the power rating of the device? _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Curtis Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:07 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Antenna for 2m Repeater Question I've got a vhf-hi z-matcher up on ebay right now. http://cgi.ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=180482604103ssPageName= STRK:MESELX:IT com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=180482604103ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT decibel unit. Worked really well but no longer needed. Kb0wlf From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:13 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Antenna for 2m Repeater Question Hi Folks, Our club has been given permission to use one of the Public Safety antennas for our 2m repeater. The antenna is a PD-220-3A 150.5-158.5MHz. Our repeater freq. is 146.745. The antenna is fed with some nice looking Cell Flex LCF-12-50 ju, hard-line. The PD-200 is one of those totally enclosed fiberglass antennas; we don't have funds to pay for a climb to take down or replace or tweak. Have two questions: We think we can live with the power loss if we build a coupler to match the inevitable high SWR. Can someone point us to a formula to estimate/calculate both the projected SWR and power loss, etc? WAGs R fine too. Is anyone aware of any 2m coupler projects that might work for this scenario? Our current repeater antenna is in the attic of one of our members garage at 25ft ASL.this antenna would be 425ft ASL.so even with losses we expect significantly better performance. 73, Dave WA3GIN No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2756 - Release Date: 03/22/10 07:33:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Copper pipe rather than 2/0 copper wire
Strap meaning solid copper, not copper or silver tinned braid. However, one might argue that the copper tubing has an equal amount of surface area and is more robust than the thin copper strap being sold.. if you fold 3 wide copper strap into a piece of tubing you get a ¾ OD tube. So, does the inside surface count? If not then the strap is the clear winner with double the surface area. What a hoot, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Schafer Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Copper pipe rather than 2/0 copper wire Copper strap is better as you get the benefit of both sides of the copper. 73 Gary K4FMX
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Copper pipe rather than 2/0 copper wire
Softdrawn copper tubing comes in spools of 25-50-100ft. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lowell Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:10 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Copper pipe rather than 2/0 copper wire It will work, you just have to bond each 10' section to the next with something other than soft solder. Lightning will blow lead solder right out of a joint. Cadweld would probably be best. GL, Eric Eric Lowell Eastern Maine Electronics Inc. 48 Loon Road Wesley ME 04686 eme@starband.net www.satnetmaine.com 207-210-7469 _ From: Jesse Lloyd ve7...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 11:41:43 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Copper pipe rather than 2/0 copper wire Hey All, I am thinking about lightening protection for a site and using 1/2 copper pipe runs rather than a heavy guage wire like 2/0. 1/2 copper is about $2.20 a ft, while 2/0 is about $3/foot... and 2/0's diameter is about 0.36 inches so bang for the buck 1/2 copper pipe seems the way to go. I know skin effect plays a big role in lightening since its mainly RF, what do you think about the idea? Cheers, Jesse Y
[Repeater-Builder] Super Station MasterPD-220 -3A 150.5-158.5 mHz
Hi Folks, Recently I read a note from a member of this list regarding retuning dipole elements of a commercial exposed dipole antenna, for 2m. Has anyone attempted same for subject type antenna? 73, Dave Wa3gin
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
4.9 is licensed spectrum. If Public Safety has an incident they are engaged in I think they have the where with all to manage the spectrum.I guess some of you all just like to worry about stuff. Have at it. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Walter H Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 4:34 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band And what happens if they deploy it in a municipality where there's a 4.9 GHz mesh network [like Phoenix, AZ]? Or a 4.9 GHz point-to-point microwave link? Or in the presence of a 4.9 GHz helicopter downlink? Frequency selection/coordination is a very big deal, and most of the IT/MBA types running these corporations [and the FCC] are clueless. I, too, am very concerned about this proposal, and not just for hams, but for the precedent that it creates. This is the equivalent of special legislation that benefits a single corporate entity. WalterH --- In Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, David Jordan wa3...@... wrote: Joe, I'd put them in the Licensed Public Safety Broad Band Data allocation 4940-4980Mhz band.plenty of room there.very little usage. My guess is the manufacturer doesn't have the technology or funding needed to build the cheaply made, significantly over priced crawling camera to operate in the GHz ranges. Like BPL.this vendor will disappear once their venture capital has been all used up. The military may purchase some of these units but with tax revenues down nationally, for the next several years, I don't think your local fire or police dept will be spending many dollars on this low value technology. I'm not worried about this order. Best, dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:42 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
I just read the FCC order.I don't see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. - the price is very high for what you get - few will be purchased - the technology implementation is lam - the incidents where the device would be used are few and far between - the device erp is .25watt to max 1 watt into a hand-held rubber duck antenna at the operator position and the device crawls on the ground with internal ant - the statement in the order makes the device operations secondary to amateur radio - there are many caveats in the order with regard to when the device may be used What am I missing? 73, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Henry Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:44 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band That IS the item... ReconRobotics' website has the disclaimer that the device has not received FCC authorization may not be sold.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Joe, The last time I checked our licenses were not purchased like wireless spectrum...I believe we fall under the category of granted privileges to utilize frequency spectrum owned by the government and administrated through licenses granted by the FCC. I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact. When this waiver was posted did this group craft a response and send it to the FCC? I haven't read the ham responses but the order seems to indicate that most of the filings in opposition had to do with satellite and weak signal operations, not repeater users. Best, Dave Wa3gin -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:07 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band What are you missing? The fact that it should be in bands where TV is authorized, and not in a band where it will be subject to random instances of interference from a service that has transmitters at any place at any time. I wonder how well a waiver would be received that would permit hams to use any frequency in the 406-512 MHz band at 1 watt maximum ERP with a non-interference basis to licensed users of that band segment. Would those licensed users sit still for that? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I just read the FCC order.I don't see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. - the price is very high for what you get - few will be purchased - the technology implementation is lam - the incidents where the device would be used are few and far between - the device erp is .25watt to max 1 watt into a hand-held rubber duck antenna at the operator position and the device crawls on the ground with internal ant - the statement in the order makes the device operations secondary to amateur radio - there are many caveats in the order with regard to when the device may be used What am I missing? 73, Dave Wa3gin *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *George Henry *Sent:* Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:44 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band That IS the item... ReconRobotics' website has the disclaimer that the device has not received FCC authorization may not be sold. Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Richard, The FCC has always had that option to re-assign spectrum.you use the term our frequency which implies you think we have some implied rights to utilize the spectrum. We have no rights, just privileges. The FCC can change those privileges any time they want, as they have just done in the subject case. The doors to encroachments as you say, have always been open, in fact there are no doors. We enjoy our hobby at the whim of the FCC and congress - no rights IMHO! Best, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:15 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band In my view this opens the door to other encroachments on our frequency allocations.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Joe, I'd put them in the Licensed Public Safety Broad Band Data allocation 4940-4980Mhz band.plenty of room there.very little usage. My guess is the manufacturer doesn't have the technology or funding needed to build the cheaply made, significantly over priced crawling camera to operate in the GHz ranges. Like BPL.this vendor will disappear once their venture capital has been all used up. The military may purchase some of these units but with tax revenues down nationally, for the next several years, I don't think your local fire or police dept will be spending many dollars on this low value technology. I'm not worried about this order. Best, dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:42 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
I'm an HFer.Interference doesn't bother me ;-) _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band On 3/4/2010 1:54 PM, David Jordan wrote: I just read the FCC order.I don't see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. It's operating on a ham band at more than flea power-maybe as much as several watts. How can it NOT interfere? Trust me, it WILL! It defies the laws of physics to generate RF on a frequency without interfering with others on the same frequency within the area.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Ah George, Don't worry! The first time the device fails to deliver the goods to the Public Safety guys, they'll stop using it. Good luck to them. They'll have fun running up against the 1,000watt erp of many 70cm repeaters. 73, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Henry Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 2:15 PM To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Re: the waiver request by ReconRobotics for 420 - 450 MHz operation. Hams get the shaft again... George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
There are plenty of options.the FCC has set aside spectrum just for Public Safety and such devices, but they need input from us or all they hear is the vendor biased story.not sure why the FCC felt compelled to allow this request. Perhaps the vendor was concerned about building attenuation. I believe the erp of the devices is extremely low. I understand future 4G wireless services may be moving to 3.5Ghz, so the really big carriers won't be interested in UHF. The world has to be in a position to provide a dedicated channel per sq meter of area and that number of channels is only available when you start at the 1.9GHhz range and work your way up! 70cm is going to be around for a long time. Enjoy, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 4:10 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Since they'd be competing with high powered repeaters and government radars, I thought 2.4 gig would have been a better choice than 70cm, but that's just me... Richard www.n7tgb.net http://www.n7tgb.net/ Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -- Ronald Reagan _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DCFluX Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:24 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Take that crap up to 2.4 GHz with the rest of the garbage.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] kendecom repeaters on 220
Why don't you call the factory! They are very helpful if you don't keep them on the phone too long. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Custer Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:02 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] kendecom repeaters on 220 n...@no6b.com wrote: At 10/21/2009 13:23, you wrote: Anybody got any suggestions about fixing the squelch circuit? (Spare me the get a REAL repeater comments please!) Is the MICOR squelch still available? Anybody done it to one of these? I added a Micor squelch board from LinkComm to a Kendecom RX once. It worked fairly well, though it was still somewhat susceptible to off-channel signals, making the squelch excessively tight whenever a strong signal was present 15 kHz away, regardless of modulation level on that signal. I suspect this to be due to design flaw in the MR4 design (mid-stage IF amplifier overload). A 10 kHz LPF in front of the Micor squelch board may cure that problem. Bob NO6B Funny you should mention that, Bob... The Kendecom repeater the local club had would indeed overload. If you were within a mile of the repeater site and forgot to go to low power on the mobile rig, the repeater would remind you - by cutting you off. If you reduced the power level on your radio to 5 watts, you could use the repeater almost right up to the site. This is the only repeater we have utilized at that site that exhibited this behavior. It was replaced about 7 years ago with a 30 year old MICOR. Kevin Custer
RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Bases - Illegal?
Here in Arlington County, VA OEM/RACES we have two Internet Remote Amateur Radio (IRAR) Stations build around the Kenwood TS2K w/ 80-6M and 2m-70cm antennas. Our RACES volunteers check-in to the weekly exercise nets using the IRAR stations when they are traveling for business or just for fun. One of the stations has antennas mounted on the roof of the court house about 425ft above sea level. That station on VHF-UHF can hit most repeaters 50-60 miles away; lots of fun. Riley Hollingsworth has toured the stations as have other FCC officials and there is no regulation issue involved with operations of this type. It is not a problem! Where there is a problem is when folks attempt to use Echo Link for HF. The end user has no control over the freq. and the minute the Echo Link connection is made it announces itself over the HF station. Our HF net on 40m had a problem with a ham up in Erie, PA who thought it was cool to have Echo Link on his HF radio but the damn announcements would come in over top on-going conversations creating a lot of confusion. That was not a good use the Internet and it created some ill will. I think the folks at Echo Link have since create an application that offers better controls that eliminate unwanted interference. Not sure about that part of it. 73, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of larryjspamme...@teleport.com Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:43 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Bases - Illegal? From the tenmet...@yahoogroups mailing list (mainly a group of people who participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.) There's a discussion on the list about how HF Remote Base stations are most likely not legal.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Bases - Illegal?
Well, the operator knows that EL broadcast immediately after the IP connection is established. SO, in my view the operator should know better than to place the radio on top of a net freq. I'm speaking of 'control' operator, not the user at the remote end of the Internet connection. Best, dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:01 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Bases - Illegal? EL is just another control link method - in his case land line. That said, EL should be smart enough to not transmit on active frequencies. That's a shortcoming of EL or the interfacing, not necessarily the operator.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Bases - Illegal?
I'm glad to see EL was enhanced. When we had trouble a few years ago it did not have those features. Best, dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Delancy Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:19 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Bases - Illegal? Echolink has the capability to not transmit over active frequencies. You can also shut off the announcements if you desire. If you use COR instead of VOX with echolink, it works even better. James MCH wrote: EL is just another control link method - in his case land line. That said, EL should be smart enough to not transmit on active frequencies. That's a shortcoming of EL or the interfacing, not necessarily the operator. Joe M. David Jordan wrote: Here in Arlington County, VA OEM/RACES we have two Internet Remote Amateur Radio (IRAR) Stations build around the Kenwood TS2K w/ 80-6M and 2m-70cm antennas. Our RACES volunteers check-in to the weekly exercise nets using the IRAR stations when they are traveling for business or just for fun. One of the stations has antennas mounted on the roof of the court house about 425ft above sea level. That station on VHF-UHF can hit most repeaters 50-60 miles away; lots of fun. Riley Hollingsworth has toured the stations as have other FCC officials and there is no regulation issue involved with operations of this type. It is not a problem! Where there is a problem is when folks attempt to use Echo Link for HF. The end user has no control over the freq. and the minute the Echo Link connection is made it announces itself over the HF station. Our HF net on 40m had a problem with a ham up in Erie, PA who thought it was cool to have Echo Link on his HF radio but the damn announcements would come in over top on-going conversations creating a lot of confusion. That was not a good use the Internet and it created some ill will. I think the folks at Echo Link have since create an application that offers better controls that eliminate unwanted interference. Not sure about that part of it. 73, Dave Wa3gin -- *From:* Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *larryjspammenot@ mailto:%2Alarryjspammenot%40teleport.com teleport.com *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 12:43 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Bases - Illegal? From the tenmet...@yahoogroups mailing list (mainly a group of people who participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.) There's a discussion on the list about how HF Remote Base stations are most likely not legal.
RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available?
I think the requirement over here is Technician class. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dmur...@verizon.net Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:20 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Cc: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available? True, MARS has changed with the times and now they are making it a requirement to have at least a General license. When I first got into MARS in the 60s I was able to start off with my NOVICE class license. MARS has had some hard times with frequency allocations sharing some of the spectrum with cross the border comms but today they are a valuable part of DOMS and FEMA for comms support. David
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available?
That was a good recommendation whoever made it. I heard NAVY MARS has been shut-down. Please go direct on further discussion about MARS.doesn't have much to do with repeaters. dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dmur...@verizon.net Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:34 AM To: dmur...@verizon.net Cc: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: EOC Frequencies Available? Per the new training from Cheif ARMY MARS the new requirement is to have a General class amateur ticket. Right now they are giving 1 year for Technicians to up-grade to General. Not sure what Air Force or NAVY are requiring.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II Repeater Controller Recommendation
I have four of the ARCOM controllers and have had excellent performance. Ken is responsive when asked reasonable questions even though the answers are in the manual, haha. Best, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tedd Doda Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:36 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II Repeater Controller Recommendation Rick Szajkowski wrote: if you want to support a ham .. and a DARN good controller . Arcom 210 I have very good luck with my 210 and Ken is a verry stand up kind of guy ! I agree with Rick. I have the 210 controlling 2 Mastr II repeaters (UHF and 6m) and a Phoenix link radio. what can I say, I like GE :) Tedd Doda, VE3TJD
