Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Circular polarization for VHF repeaters?
FM broadcast is NOT changing to vertical polarity! Most stations today are going on the air with either circular polarity or cross polarity (consisting of signal in BOTH the vertical and horizontal poles) With FCC licensing today, a FM station licensed for 10KW can have 10 KW in the vertical plane and 10 kW in the horizontal plane. So there would be no reason to only have the power in one plane. In the last 3 years, I have built 2 FM stations. Both used circular or cross polarity. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:32:51 PM PDT From: petedcur...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Circular polarization for VHF repeaters? Hi, I remembered circular polarization was used for FM broadcast due to FM car radios, but when I looked it up I found out some interesting facts, see the link below, https://www.digitaltraders.com/index.php/index.php/components/com_kunena/template/default_ex/templates/ja_edenite/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=57Itemid=134 https://www.digitaltraders.com/index.php/index.php/components/com_kunena/template/default_ex/templates/ja_edenite/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=57Itemid=134Interesting white paper on FM Broadcast and why they had historically had circular polarization and why they are now changing to vertical polarization. Peter On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:22 AM, burkleoj joeburk...@hotmail.com wrote: Gary, I am in Southern Oregon and I understand exactly what you are experiencing. We have very similar problems down here with our club's repeater. I have often talked about and even done some serious looking at remodeling a set of broadcast loops and harness for 2 Meters. I know there was a southern California repeater back in the 70's that used circular polarization with excellent results. They were able to provide much better coverage in their main service area, but did loose some long distance coverage outside their main coverage area. We have had the best success by using a lower gain antenna. We have been using the Telewave broadband two loop antennas with 2 - 4 degrees of downtilt, for both our 2 Meter and 440 MHz repeaters. I have found much better close in (0-30 Miles) coverage, less muti-path, and they cost quite a bit less than a Super Stationmaster. Good Luck and keep us posted with what you find for results. Joe - WA7JAW --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Gary - K7EK gary.k...@... wrote: Greetings, I am in a particularly sticky situation with one of my two meter repeaters in Lakewood, WA (Tacoma). I have generally great coverage, however there is a very annoying problem with multipath and raspy signals in a large portion of my coverage area. Since the Puget Sound area of Western Washington is very hilly and mountainous, multipath is very damaging to all forms of VHF communication.
[Repeater-Builder] Duplexers
Our club was recently given a 220 repeater. We have two seperate antennas. We do not have a duplexer. My question is do we have to have a duplexer? How can we keep the transmitter from desensitizing the receiver? The antennas are apart but can be moved farther. Thanks Chris Kg4bek
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Coax length, etc.
I've brought that issue up a few times, and usually get the blank radio shack salesman type of stare. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:45:47 PM PDT From: Jeff DePolo j...@broadsci.com There is no simple rule of thumb, and if anybody tells you that there is, ask them how do you account for the unknown-length of coax that's *inside* your transmitter/amplifier before it gets to the antenna jack. --- Jeff WN3A
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Mastr II Mobile Repeater?
hello mobile operator. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:00:02 AM PDT From: Bill Isom bil.i...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Mastr II Mobile Repeater? Perry Mason. As I said, it was the OLD mobile telephone service. Some cities only had one channel and everybody had to wait their turn, like the old party line telephones. You could turn off CTCSS and monitor everyone's calls. Signaling was done (at least in my area) with dual tone sequential paging tones. The service was full duplex and there were channels on both UHF and VHF. I guess this may be showing my age. :-) Bill N4XIR From: Chris Curtis demo...@rollanet.org To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 8:32:52 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Mastr II Mobile Repeater? Perry mason or Ironside? kb0wlf -Original Message- From: bil.isom bil.i...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 7:25 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Mastr II Mobile Repeater? RCC = Radio Common Carrier. The OLD mobile telephone service. Before IMTS (Improved Mobile Telephone Service) and long before cell. BTW Perry Mason used RCC Bill N4XIR --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, La Rue Communications laruec...@... wrote: Gentlemen (And Ladies) I have a MASTR II Exec mobile here, I think its a UHF Repeater. I want to confirm with you - but I am curious what RCC stands for. Comb number YS55SSXX88A. Nothing comes up on Google and not sure which Comb spec sheet to look this up with Hall Electronics or here on RB Archives. Thanks for your input! John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 http://tinyurl.com/2dtngmn Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: showing our age (old HT's)
This is all before my time. When did Link stop making radios? -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:43:52 PM PDT From: wb6dgn wb6...@att.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: showing our age (old HT's) I cut my teeth on Link radios. In fact, I had a hard time adjusting to Motorola. It always seemed that they took much more circuitry and, thus, many more parts, to do the same job (not any better) as Link. My first Links on the ham band were the old 1905/2240 two box pair on the 146.2/146.8 repeater in the SF Bay Area. From there I graduated to a 6000-30VR-C1, a very modern (for the time) one piece unit. Also had some of the old 2975 Links on UHF. Some interesting stories about that but for another time. As I got the story, Fred Link retired and sold the company. The successor produced radios for a very short time but they did not maintain the Link reputation in any way. Some of the ones I got looked like prototypes; not a finished product. A rather inglorious end to a formerly great company. Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Sid purvis...@... wrote: RE: Link radios. My first ham station was a Link base unit on 40 something MHz given to me by the sheriff when they got new equipment. I reworked all the tuning coils and moved it to 52.525 MHz and used it for years. Those tubes looked nice at night with the lights off. Sid. WA4VBC --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Captainlance Captainlance@ wrote: Wow.. memories... A Link 50UFS low band base station.. We have one here, too... Still works. Lance N2HBA - Original Message - From: La Rue Communications To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] showing our age (old HT's) I think I automatically disqualify myself since I dont know too much about our units. But one of the cornerstone pieces of our shop is our Link Repeater. Im not trying to one up anyone - but rather share and get into the OLD stuff with the rest of ya. I also dont think I qualify because I grew up on CHiPs and Dukes of Hazard. :) So overlook that little fact and let me ask if anyone has dabbled with this machine? (See attached) John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 http://tinyurl.com/2dtngmn - Original Message - From: John Gleichweit To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] showing our age (old HT's) Whaddaya mean lunchboxes don't count? I have a pair of GE Portamobile II's in the shop just begging to be recrystalled and ready to rock. If course, I was considering building those into APRS trackers or packet boxes, where everything was built inside, and all you needed to do was plug in a laptop. I dug an actual GE HandiTalkie out of the bottom of a box that was full of surplus stuff from the county. In that same lot was a couple of MX300s. -- John Smokey Behr Gleichweit FF1/EMT, CCNA, MCSE IPN-CAL023 N6FOG UP Fresno Sub MP183.5 ECV1852 List Owner x10, Moderator x9 CalEMA 51-507 http://smokeybehr.blogspot.com http://www.myspace.com/smokeybehr - Original Message From: skipp025 skipp025@ To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 7:00:36 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] showing our age (old HT's) Allow me to show my age ... To me, the HT-220 is/was a Xtal Controlled Ht !! Allow me to show my age... The HT here is a VHF Engineering 2 Meter Portable assembled from a kit... and it still works. :-) s. ps: Surplus Motorola and GE Lunch Boxes don't count on the bragging scale. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GE Mastr Pro
They usually tune up fine. I have taken several of the 90 watt transmitter strips and receiver down to 146 Mhz with little or no problem. Occasionally the coupling with the final has to be slightly fiddled with to get a better match. -- Original Message -- Received: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:32:06 AM PDT From: Todd todda...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] GE Mastr Pro Does anyone have any info on moving a GE Mastr Pro repeater from VHF commercial to VHF Amateur? I am curious whether anyone has done it, would it be worth it before I end up parting them out for scrap. I also have about a dozen of the Mastr mobile of the era as well. Todd AE7V
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Control Operator via Other-Than-Phone-Line
For about 10 years I have been controlling my repeater using an internet connection. The repeater is 1900 miles away from me. Wireline control is legal for amateur radio! -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:31:52 PM PDT From: Mike Besemer \(WM4B\) mwbese...@cox.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Control Operator via Other-Than-Phone-Line At our club meeting tonight a discussion came up regarding the cost of the phone line to our 2-meter repeater system. Originally it was there for the Autopatch, but has evolved to being primarily used for me to program the controller (CAT-1000) and to control the system. (The autopatch is rarely used, since everyone carries a cellphone now.) Everyone understands that the phone line is needed for control and programming, but we started toying with other ideas. Specifically, having an Internet connection at the site seemed like it had a lot of potential, but frankly I don't know why! It'd be nice to run an I-Gate from that location (we already have an APRS weather node there), but it's not essential. I could probably use it to monitor the site as well, but that's not really much of a concern either. So, the question is, how can we use Internet to control/program the CAT-1000? We could get Internet at the site for about the same cost as the phone, and if we could use it for repeater control/programming AND the other things I mentioned, it'd be a better deal. Can IRLP be used for control/programming? I'm not familiar with that system whatsoever, but am always willing to learn. 73, Mike WM4B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GE MASTR Professional Equipment
Most of my repeaters are Mastr Pro repeaters. One of them in a carrier squelch repeater operating at a VERY high level RF site and it performs perfectly. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:08:04 AM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GE MASTR Professional Equipment To All: I am going to get completely away from MASTR Pro equipment. If anybody wants anything, contact me off net and I'll see if I have it. Cost very cheep plus shipping. Anything not gone in three weeks is going to the trash. Fred W5VAY That's a shame Fred later down the road you might realize the GE Master Pro Receiver is one heck of a decent unit and still quite usable. The transmitters a bit of a power pig because most of them have tubes in them... but again the receivers are still quite killer (good). Hopefully someone close to you will realize the receivers are well worth having and quite usable for a current project. cheers, s.
[Repeater-Builder] Charlotte, NC information
Is there anyone in the Charlotte, NC area who could help me with some non-radio information about the area? My e-mail is jmac...@usa.net thanks
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A
A Micor for carrier current paging at about 60 KHz?? never heard of such a thing. Please tell more??? -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:12:04 PM PDT From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A A = under 25mhz... the first I ever saw was a carrier current in-plant paging system at around 60KHz. B=25-50, usually 30-50 but I've seen a few radios in the 26mhz range. C=66-88, originally 72-76Mhz D=132-174, originally 136-172, but some product lines were limited to 150.8-172 or 174 E=395-525, originally 406-420 and 450-470. F=800 and 900MHz I don't know what they are using for 700mhz. Mike WA6ILQ At 09:07 AM 04/08/10, you wrote: Good suggestion, I might try that. I was under the impression that the part number starting with TLF was indicative of an 800MHz part. Now Im gonna need to try to confirm whether its 800 or UHF. :) John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 - Original Message - From: DCFluX dcf...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A They appear to be tripler / 2W amplifier sections from the Micor station. Possibly UHF. If its like the 2W UHF version you can disconnect and sweep the filter that is attached to the lid with a spectrum analyzer and that will tell you what frequency it is for. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, La Rue Communications laruec...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure if the pics will show up on the Group List, but here goes. John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 - Original Message - From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A On 4/7/2010 4:31 PM, DCFluX wrote: Lets get some pictures Well, TLF would indicate 800 MHz... On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, La Rue Communications laruec...@gmail.comwrote: Eric, No results as the Parts Department says they're obsolete. Duh tell me something I dont know. I was not able to get any info on the remote chassis, and two triplers that I have. TLF1053A and TLF1332A. Sorry I could not report better news. I will just keep scavaging unless someone else on the RB list has a similar model and can share what they know... Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 - Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A
OK, Micor was the subject line of what you were talking about, so I jumped to the conclusion that you were talking about Micors. Yea, the Micom and earlier HF equipment by moto did use the A. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:49:01 PM PDT From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A I never said Micor, John, you did a nice job of jumping to conclusions. The comment thread diverged to a generic discussion of part number prefixes, and I said A (as in TLA-) was under 25mhz and then I said that the first I ever saw was a carrier current tone-and-voice in-plant paging system at around 60KHz. To be complete, the RF sections inside the HF SSB Micom radios are also A series part numbers. I saw the carrier current system in the late 1960s or early 1970s. It was a B30something built in the early 1950s, housed in a black crackle finish rack cabinet with forced air cooling for the forest of tubes, a bank of over 90 large copper tone reeds, and multiple stepper switches for tone selection and lots of plug-in relays, and some plug-in-timer relays. The final looked like push-pull 6L6s. It was tied to the in-plant phone system (which was rotary, naturally) as an extension, and the operation was simple, and really cute. You'd dial extension 247 and it would ring one full ring, plus a little more (adjusted with the screwdriver adjust on an Agstat pneumatic timer) then answer. You'd dial the pager number using the rotary dial on your in-plant phone, and you'd hear the steppers follow the dialing (i.e. dial the first digit and you'd hear clunk, dial the second digit and hear clunk-ching). Then you'd hear the two audio tones corresponding to that pager number, then you'd hear a 2175 Hz tone (yet another reed) for about a half-second, then a click. At that point you had 9-10 seconds (another adjustable time delay relay) to speak your message, then you'd hang up (or it would hang up on you). These days you could do the whole thing in a box the size of a japanese multiband mobile, including the RF. One Atmel CPU and lots of code... Mike WA6ILQ At 02:03 PM 04/08/10, you wrote: A Micor for carrier current paging at about 60 KHz?? never heard of such a thing. Please tell more??? -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:12:04 PM PDT From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A A = under 25mhz... the first I ever saw was a carrier current in-plant paging system at around 60KHz. B=25-50, usually 30-50 but I've seen a few radios in the 26mhz range. C=66-88, originally 72-76Mhz D=132-174, originally 136-172, but some product lines were limited to 150.8-172 or 174 E=395-525, originally 406-420 and 450-470. F=800 and 900MHz I don't know what they are using for 700mhz. Mike WA6ILQ At 09:07 AM 04/08/10, you wrote: Good suggestion, I might try that. I was under the impression that the part number starting with TLF was indicative of an 800MHz part. Now Im gonna need to try to confirm whether its 800 or UHF. :) John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 - Original Message - From: DCFluX dcf...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A They appear to be tripler / 2W amplifier sections from the Micor station. Possibly UHF. If its like the 2W UHF version you can disconnect and sweep the filter that is attached to the lid with a spectrum analyzer and that will tell you what frequency it is for. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, La Rue Communications laruec...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure if the pics will show up on the Group List, but here goes. John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 - Original Message - From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Micor Part TCN1383A On 4/7/2010 4:31 PM, DCFluX wrote: Lets get some pictures Well, TLF would indicate 800 MHz... On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, La Rue Communications laruec...@gmail.comwrote: Eric, No results as the Parts Department says they're obsolete. Duh tell me something I dont know. I was not able to get any info on the remote chassis, and two triplers that I have. TLF1053A and TLF1332A. Sorry I could not report better news. I will just keep scavaging unless someone else on the RB list has a similar model and
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 900 meg Spectra radio
I have no doubt you are correct, but I'll still say that 900 Mhz amateur activity in the US is not very strong (compared to other V/U bands). -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:47:51 AM PST From: Mark n9...@ameritech.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 900 meg Spectra radio Not necessarily true, John. There are pockets of HIGH activity on 900 MHz - especially on the coasts, where PAVE PAWS has forced the reduction or elimination of 70cm repeaters. Unfortunately, I'm not on either coast (I'm in the Chicago area) so your observation is accurate -- for me anyway. :-( Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Because 900 Mhz is only available to amateurs in the US and not in Japan. The 900 Mhz amateur activity in the US is not very strong. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:02:17 PM PST From: Fuggitaboutit mikewm9v SNIP Why cant someone just come up with a 900 meg fm mobile for amateur use? They would sell a zillion of them.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 900 meg Spectra radio
Because 900 Mhz is only available to amateurs in the US and not in Japan. The 900 Mhz amateur activity in the US is not very strong. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:02:17 PM PST From: Fuggitaboutit mikew...@hotmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com SNIP Why cant someone just come up with a 900 meg fm mobile for amateur use? They would sell a zillion of them .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LOOONG audio runs
Using balanced audio in a broadcast environment, I have on rare occasions experienced issues with cross-talk between long runs of un-shielded balanced audio lines. (inductive pickup??) I always wondered if the wires were truly balanced when that happened. I prefer to used shielded balanced wiring for long runs. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:16:55 PM PST From: larynl2 lar...@hotmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LOOONG audio runs Shielding is not usually necessary for line level balanced pair audio on CAT 5 or any good twisted pair. CAT 5 is often used in broadcast audio work. Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 skipp...@... wrote: Joe k1ike_mail@ wrote: I wonder if CAT 6 would be better than CAT5 due to the difference in twist? Joe A number of different items in the specifications would be worth examining... like how much C per foot and I don't believe CAT network cables are shielded.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LOOONG audio runs
At the multi-FM broadcast transmitter site I work at ALL my network wiring is shielded cat5 or shielded cat6. I have never experienced some of the strange networking problems related to interference that I occasionally hear others complain about. At my studio I had a problem a couple years ago where a server was locking up on the NIC plus a few other problems and it was a 1GB network for the backbone. I replace the UTP-cat5 with shielded cat5 and all the problems went away. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:55:38 PM PST From: John J. Riddell ve3...@earthlink.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LOOONG audio runs Skipp, yes you can get shielded Cat 5. I've used it a few times when running near AC fixtures etc. 73 John VE3AMZ - Original Message - From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 10:43 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LOOONG audio runs Joe k1ike_m...@... wrote: I wonder if CAT 6 would be better than CAT5 due to the difference in twist? Joe A number of different items in the specifications would be worth examining... like how much C per foot and I don't believe CAT network cables are shielded. s. Oz, in DFW wrote: Make sure you use twisted pair. Station wire like that use to wire houses is often not twisted. Ethernet cable is good and has a high twist pitch - better for this application. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] LOOONG audio runs
I think when I made the original post it was late I was tired!! I work in broadcasting and use the 111C coils often in long analog audio runs for remote broadcasts. I do agree that transformers would be better than active balanced devices. The active devices are easier to deal with for short audio runs in a production room or control room when you have to interface with something that is consumer grade un-balanced. But for the long runs I definately agree that 111C coils are the best option. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:24:49 PM PST From: Oz, in DFW li...@ozindfw.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LOOONG audio runs I vigorously second Jeff's recommendation. This is an application where iron is still the right answer. Make sure you use twisted pair. Station wire like that use to wire houses is often not twisted. Ethernet cable is good and has a high twist pitch - better for this application. Repeat coils are the classic answer. Here's a hint about what you are looking for if you don't already know: http://users.snip.net/~mrbibbs/gearpix/Western_Electric_Repeat_Coils_4040.jpg http://users.snip.net/~mrbibbs/gearpix/Western_Electric_Repeat_Coils_4042.jpg http://oldphoneguy.net/Coils1.jpg Jensen's stuff is really nice, but you'd be paying a premium price for performance you can't use. If you can't find an old set of repeat coils, most small audio transformers with reasonable turns ratios will do the job fine. Reasonable in this case is probably less than 4 or 5:1, though 1:1 would be best. I'm not sure where you are, but if you can't find anything easily, the coupling transformers out of **OLD** modems (1200 Baud or less) are likely suspects. On 2/27/2010 10:32 AM, Jeff DePolo wrote: I'd definately go balanced, but I'd use transformers rather than active balanced devices. Decent transformers (even audiofile-grade Jensens) would still cost less than Henry matchboxes (or anyone else's active converters most likely), and be more reliable. Back in the old days, Western Electric 111C repeating coils were supplied by the telco for program audio lines. Look around broadcast transmitter sites and old studios, you'll probably find a few nailed up to the telco backboard that the LEC no longer has an interest in maintaining ownership of... The common mode rejection of Henry matchboxes isn't all that great, I've tested them. If you can, keep the audio level high on the sending side (I think 111C's were good up to close to a watt at 600 ohms!), and pad it down on the far side's secondary as necessary to maximize S/N. --- Jeff WN3A -- mailto:o...@ozindfw.net Rich Osman N1OZ POB 93167 Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Digest Number 7130
I agree! I just made another post and I definitely agree the transformers are the better route over active devices for long audio runs. The active devices are best suited for interfacing un-balanced devices to balanced connections in a production or control room. I am thinking of running a cable that has several shielded audio pairs between the two locations to give me room for future needs and to carry ptt and cor signals. This is an example of what I am thinking of using for cable... http://www.gepco.com/products/proav_cable/analog_audio/multi_gf22_M.htm -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:21:39 AM PST From: Al Wolfe k...@arrl.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Digest Number 7130 John, You will save yourself a lot of grief by using real transformer isolation at each end in addition to balanced lines. The $12 dollar ones at RS will work fine for communication audio frequencies. If you want to go first class find some WE111 repeat coils. For wire CAT 5 will work and give you four pairs to play with. Some E and M signaling or COR maybe.? Al, K9SI, retired BC engineer (now occasional highly paid consultant) LOOONG audio runs Posted by: JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net jmackey_usa_net Date: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:49 pm ((PST)) I have a odd situation where I need to run long audio cables between my repeater controller and two repeaters. In this case, the repeater controller will be connected to 2 repeaters in the same cabinette. The other two repeaters will connected thru about 140 feet of wiring to the other side of a building. I am thinking of using balanced audio wires for the long runs and using Henry Engineeering boxes to convert between balanced/un-balanced at each end. Anyone ever done long audio runs like this? Am I over engineering it and unbalanced will be good enough? I use the Henry Engineering boxes for several audio conversions in broadcasting, here is a link for what they are: http://www.henryeng.com/matchbox.html
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Tram Titan III 3 Information?
In the united states Class C Class D CB were always on 26/27 MHz. Class A Class B CB was 462/467 MHz. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:19 PM PST From: Chris chrismollcdx1...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Tram Titan III 3 Information? was the Cb band ever on 20 and 21 mhz? i have pictures of the manual and it shows 23 channels on 20 mhz --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jim in Waco WB5OXQ wb5...@... wrote: The Tram Titan original and Titan 2 were both high ene CB radios. The 3 may also be a CB radio. - Original Message - From: Chris To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:58 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Tram Titan III 3 Information? I have a tram titan 3 radio that I am looking for information on. I have the manual and the radio does power on. from the manual it lists freqs. in 20 MHz. I'm looking to sell it so any information about the radio is appreciated! -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2710 - Release Date: 02/25/10 13:57:00
[Repeater-Builder] LOOONG audio runs
I have a odd situation where I need to run long audio cables between my repeater controller and two repeaters. In this case, the repeater controller will be connected to 2 repeaters in the same cabinette. The other two repeaters will connected thru about 140 feet of wiring to the other side of a building. I am thinking of using balanced audio wires for the long runs and using Henry Engineeering boxes to convert between balanced/un-balanced at each end. Anyone ever done long audio runs like this? Am I over engineering it and unbalanced will be good enough? I use the Henry Engineering boxes for several audio conversions in broadcasting, here is a link for what they are: http://www.henryeng.com/matchbox.html
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2 tone paging tones
I don't think the Keynote could do PL decode, I think they could only do 2 tone sequential decoding. -- Original Message -- Received: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:10:32 AM PST From: DCFluX dcf...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2 tone paging tones just came across a motorola keynote, any one seen a service manual or schematic for one? trying to find a COS point to run the monitor button, or can these be programed to listen to the PL tone and unmute without beeping?
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Rebuild Project Input
The GP9 I used on the repeaters was on a hill that was about 900 feet elevation. The problems didn't seem to make any difference regardless if the user was 2 miles out or 10 miles out. I can not recommend a GP9 for UHF. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:20:21 AM PST From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Rebuild Project Input At 1/8/2010 23:39, you wrote: I used a Comet GP9 for about 2 years on a 444 Mhz repeater, then connected a 2 meter repeater to it. The 2 meter system performed FAR better than the UHF system. Both repeaters were nearly identical in performance otherwise, the GP9 simply performed much better on 2 meters. The GP9 does have significant nulls below the horizon on 440, so if your repeater was on a mountain you were trying to access it close-in, it would appear to perform much worse than on 2 meters, where the gain is lower. The only GP9 I have on a mountain is used for TX only, so I don't care about the close-in coverage. At 15 miles away the main lobe hits the ground. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Rebuild Project Input
I used a Comet GP9 for about 2 years on a 444 Mhz repeater, then connected a 2 meter repeater to it. The 2 meter system performed FAR better than the UHF system. Both repeaters were nearly identical in performance otherwise, the GP9 simply performed much better on 2 meters. A couple years later I changed sites and the repeaters each got their own antennas. Then they performed roughly the same. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:35:36 PM PST From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Rebuild Project Input I recommend the Comet GP9. It has 11 dBi gain on 440 MHz, on the horizon, also works well on 2 meters in the event you want to add a remote base. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts
I would not recommend that duplexer for a repeater. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:47:16 PM PST From: Michael Cox michaelh...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts Will this Duplexer work with the Mastr II repeater? http://cgi.ebay.com/UHF-50W-6-CAVITY-DUPLEXER-FOR-REPEATER-FREE-TUNING_W0QQitemZ350300447727QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item518f88a3ef On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:32 AM, WA3GIN wa3...@comcast.net wrote: For fun we operated a 400 watt erp repeater with two antennas and no duplexer. We were able to achieve about 100db attenuation by using the roof equipment penthouse. The transmit antenna was mounted on the top of the penthouse and the receive antenna was installed diagonally from the transmit antenna on the roof below the penthouse. Each antenna was physically separated by the penthouse structure. Transmit performance was good and receiver performance was good about 270 degrees minus the abstructed zone. No feedback or other issues. Eventually, we installed TXRX 6 can duplexer and utilized the penthouse antenna. Receive coverage regained 360 degree coverage. So, it is doable if you have the right antenna site. Best, dave wa3gin - Original Message - *From:* Kevin Custer kug...@kuggie.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, January 03, 2010 11:12 AM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts Michael Cox wrote: Thank you for your help. I appreciate it! I've put a couple of questions inline below. Well - you'll need a duplexer no mater the price... grin I was under the impression that if I had two antennas, I could get by without a duplexer. Thanks for the heads up. While two antennas will work, and you'd initially think there is a cost savings using two antennas, that isn't always the case. The determining factor usually ends up being the length and size of feed-line necessary to get from the repeater to the antenna. On UHF, unless the feed-line length is really short, you'll want to use some type of hard-line cable. The cost of this cable, depending on type and length, can be costly. It may be less costly to use one antenna and a duplexer then to install two antennas and have two runs of feed-line. In addition, you'll usually end up with a better balanced system using one antenna because using two can cause a disparity if both antennas don't have the exact same pattern - which could be difficult to achieve depending on the tower space available. In installations where you have to pay rent on tower space - it's usually by far cheaper to purchase a duplexer. RE: Power Amplifier Are these what I'm looking for? Generically - Yes. It looks like there is a UHF and a VHF version of the PA. Is that correct? Yes. Are they not compatible with each other? No. VHF and UHF are two totally different bands. You cannot use a UHF PA on a VHF repeater and vice-versa. The third one you listed is a Mobile PA - not something you'll want. You want a UHF Station PA like the second one you listed - but it isn't the exact one either. The one you want requires 200 mW of drive - not 20 watts - but, the correct one looks very similar to the one in your number two listing. I don't presently see a good candidate on eBay - but they show up all the time. Duplexer - used WACOM Products WP-678 (or similar), also available from eBay. I couldn't find any on eBay. Any guesses what I'd be paying for something like this? $250 plus shipping. Controller - I recommend a NHRC model that plugs into the Systems board, or, one of the Pion Simon models that plug into the card cage. http://www.nhrc.net/ge-stuff.php http://www.pionsimon.com/products.htm It looks like I can use the NHRC-4/M2 to make it a linked repeater. If I go with the Ham repeater, I'll most likely do that. That would require, if I understand correctly, another radio connected in, so that will have to be done later with future funds. :) Correct. If I decide to make it a GMRS repeater, I won't have to worry about that and will go with the PSE508-2, as its a little less expensive. Also a good choice. Kevin -- --- Michael H. Cox michaelh...@gmail.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts
mobile duplexers generally have poor performance, not enough for a decent repeater. The model you suggested is one of the worst. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:04:33 PM PST From: Michael H. Cox michaelh...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts Any reasons? Thanks, Michael H. Cox michaelh...@gmail.com -Original Message- From: JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:33 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts I would not recommend that duplexer for a repeater. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:47:16 PM PST From: Michael Cox michaelh...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts Will this Duplexer work with the Mastr II repeater? http://cgi.ebay.com/UHF-50W-6-CAVITY-DUPLEXER-FOR-REPEATER-FREE-TUNING_W0QQitemZ350300447727QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item518f88a3ef On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:32 AM, WA3GIN wa3...@comcast.net wrote: For fun we operated a 400 watt erp repeater with two antennas and no duplexer. We were able to achieve about 100db attenuation by using the roof equipment penthouse. The transmit antenna was mounted on the top of the penthouse and the receive antenna was installed diagonally from the transmit antenna on the roof below the penthouse. Each antenna was physically separated by the penthouse structure. Transmit performance was good and receiver performance was good about 270 degrees minus the abstructed zone. No feedback or other issues. Eventually, we installed TXRX 6 can duplexer and utilized the penthouse antenna. Receive coverage regained 360 degree coverage. So, it is doable if you have the right antenna site. Best, dave wa3gin - Original Message - *From:* Kevin Custer kug...@kuggie.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, January 03, 2010 11:12 AM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mastr II mods and parts Michael Cox wrote: Thank you for your help. I appreciate it! I've put a couple of questions inline below. Well - you'll need a duplexer no mater the price... grin I was under the impression that if I had two antennas, I could get by without a duplexer. Thanks for the heads up. While two antennas will work, and you'd initially think there is a cost savings using two antennas, that isn't always the case. The determining factor usually ends up being the length and size of feed-line necessary to get from the repeater to the antenna. On UHF, unless the feed-line length is really short, you'll want to use some type of hard-line cable. The cost of this cable, depending on type and length, can be costly. It may be less costly to use one antenna and a duplexer then to install two antennas and have two runs of feed-line. In addition, you'll usually end up with a better balanced system using one antenna because using two can cause a disparity if both antennas don't have the exact same pattern - which could be difficult to achieve depending on the tower space available. In installations where you have to pay rent on tower space - it's usually by far cheaper to purchase a duplexer. RE: Power Amplifier Are these what I'm looking for? Generically - Yes. It looks like there is a UHF and a VHF version of the PA. Is that correct? Yes. Are they not compatible with each other? No. VHF and UHF are two totally different bands. You cannot use a UHF PA on a VHF repeater and vice-versa. The third one you listed is a Mobile PA - not something you'll want. You want a UHF Station PA like the second one you listed - but it isn't the exact one either. The one you want requires 200 mW of drive - not 20 watts - but, the correct one looks very similar to the one in your number two listing. I don't presently see a good candidate on eBay - but they show up all the time. Duplexer - used WACOM Products WP-678 (or similar), also available from eBay. I couldn't find any on eBay. Any guesses what I'd be paying for something like this? $250 plus shipping. Controller - I recommend a NHRC model that plugs into the Systems board, or, one of the Pion Simon models that plug into the card cage. http://www.nhrc.net/ge-stuff.php http://www.pionsimon.com/products.htm It looks like I can use the NHRC-4/M2 to make it a linked repeater. If I go with the Ham repeater, I'll most likely do that. That would require, if I understand correctly, another radio connected in, so that will have to be done later with future
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Dropping the Autopatch--Keep 911
I don't think testing with a Nextel phone would be a valid test, since Nextel and Sprint are not (true) cellphones and have always been digital. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:33:39 AM PST From: Joe k1ike_m...@snet.net SNIP I don't know what kind of indication the 911 PSAP center gets when an unregistered phone dials 911. I don't know how much credibility they would give to the call. I'll be working in a PSAP sometime in the next week and I'll bring my old Nextel phone along and test it and ask some questions. As far as I know, a cellphone must have been activated at least once to make them capable of dialing 911 without paying for service. 73, Joe, K1ike
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Source of Coil Slugs
yes, if I were you I would reset all the slugs and try again on the receiver. Sometimes the L receiver (on low band) can be a bear to tune. Regarding tuning the transmitter, you are correct, there is no tune switch. However, if you read the manual about transmitter alignment it does tell you to drop the power supply voltage to something like 11 volts for initial transmitter tuning, then back up to 12.6 volts for final tuning of all stages. good luck -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:58:04 PM PST From: wb6dgn tallins...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Source of Coil Slugs John, That was my understanding as well and I expected the front end to tune that way. I did just what you described and could not find a peak on any one of the coils. My manual says to start with the slugs (202 through 209) at the top of the forms, which I did. Maybe, before I get too far off the track, I will reset everything and start over again. I was expecting a real easy alignment but with the exception of 201, 210 and 211, nothing seemed to act the way I expected. Interestingly, the transmitter tuned right up with no modifications required. Sure is uncomfortable though not having a TUNE' switch to reduce input to the final stages while tuning but everything worked out OK. Due to my present wimpy power supply, I only set the output to about 30 watts for now. Thanks for your comments, you've reinforced what I had expected. Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, JOHN MACKEY jmac...@... wrote: The 42 to 50 Mhz Motrac/Motran L receiver should tune 6 meters just fine EXCEPT for the crystal multiplier stage which will need 3 capacitors changed to lower values. If you are having trouble tuning the RF receiver front end, the manual tells you to remove the cover and use a signal generator thru a capacitor to inject signal into each stage for tuning the individual adjustments. Then inject signal in to the normal RF input and tune the entire front end. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:17:30 PM PST From: wb6dgn tallins...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Source of Coil Slugs I measured the existing coil slugs as follows; The slugs for L802 through L809 measure 0.129 at the outside of the threads. The slugs for coils L301 and L302 measure 0.180 I didn't measure the slugs for L801, L810 or L811 as those do appear to tune adequately. Hope this helps. Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wb6dgn tallinson2@ wrote: Sorry for the lack of detail. The radio is a 42 to 50 Mc. Motran with the L series receiver (same as used in the Motrac). There are a total of 13 tuned circuits in the front end and multiplier but only 3 of them seem to tune at all. Those are L801, 810 and 811. The other preselector coils, L802 through L809 do not tune nor do the multiplier coils, L301 and L302. Interestingly, the radio does receive a local repeater when I tack a short piece of wire onto the first mixer input point so, obviously, the multiplier chain is on the correct harmonic and has some output at the correct frequency. The test set indication is quite low, however, compared to the original frequency, so I know that the circuits are not tuned to resonance. I am not able to get even a strong signal through the front end, though. I did carefully remove all of the related coil slugs without breaking any of them and will mic them and repost later this evening. L802 through L809 are ABOUT 3/16 dia and L301, 302 are about 1/4 but will give more precise measurements later. Thanks much for the replies and suggestion. There's a good old-fashioned hardware store not too far from me, will check with them tomorrow. Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6fly@ wrote: Tom, If you identify the make and model of the radio, perhaps someone who has gone this route before can comment. Otherwise, carefully remove one of the slugs and take it to a good hardware store where you can use a thread gauge to identify the thread diameter and pitch. With luck, that store may have machine screws in brass and aluminum that can be trimmed to make the proper slugs. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wb6dgn Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Source of Coil Slugs I'm trying to modify a commercial boat anchor from 42 - 50 Mc. up to the 6 meter ham band. Not even one coil in the RF preselector and 1st oscillator/multiplier chain
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Source of Coil Slugs
The 42 to 50 Mhz Motrac/Motran L receiver should tune 6 meters just fine EXCEPT for the crystal multiplier stage which will need 3 capacitors changed to lower values. If you are having trouble tuning the RF receiver front end, the manual tells you to remove the cover and use a signal generator thru a capacitor to inject signal into each stage for tuning the individual adjustments. Then inject signal in to the normal RF input and tune the entire front end. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:17:30 PM PST From: wb6dgn tallins...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Source of Coil Slugs I measured the existing coil slugs as follows; The slugs for L802 through L809 measure 0.129 at the outside of the threads. The slugs for coils L301 and L302 measure 0.180 I didn't measure the slugs for L801, L810 or L811 as those do appear to tune adequately. Hope this helps. Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wb6dgn tallins...@... wrote: Sorry for the lack of detail. The radio is a 42 to 50 Mc. Motran with the L series receiver (same as used in the Motrac). There are a total of 13 tuned circuits in the front end and multiplier but only 3 of them seem to tune at all. Those are L801, 810 and 811. The other preselector coils, L802 through L809 do not tune nor do the multiplier coils, L301 and L302. Interestingly, the radio does receive a local repeater when I tack a short piece of wire onto the first mixer input point so, obviously, the multiplier chain is on the correct harmonic and has some output at the correct frequency. The test set indication is quite low, however, compared to the original frequency, so I know that the circuits are not tuned to resonance. I am not able to get even a strong signal through the front end, though. I did carefully remove all of the related coil slugs without breaking any of them and will mic them and repost later this evening. L802 through L809 are ABOUT 3/16 dia and L301, 302 are about 1/4 but will give more precise measurements later. Thanks much for the replies and suggestion. There's a good old-fashioned hardware store not too far from me, will check with them tomorrow. Tom DGN --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6fly@ wrote: Tom, If you identify the make and model of the radio, perhaps someone who has gone this route before can comment. Otherwise, carefully remove one of the slugs and take it to a good hardware store where you can use a thread gauge to identify the thread diameter and pitch. With luck, that store may have machine screws in brass and aluminum that can be trimmed to make the proper slugs. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wb6dgn Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Source of Coil Slugs I'm trying to modify a commercial boat anchor from 42 - 50 Mc. up to the 6 meter ham band. Not even one coil in the RF preselector and 1st oscillator/multiplier chain will tune into the ham band, which is very unusual for this radio. There are just too many tuned circuits to consider removing coil windings or changing capacitors so I want to try using brass or aluminum coil slugs in place of the powdered iron ones now used. Does anyone know of a source for these slugs? I can mic. the slug diameter and guestimate the thread pitch if anyone has any suggestions. TIA for any/all help. Tom DGN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Source of Coil Slugs
What model of radio are you working with here? -- Original Message -- Received: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:47:06 PM PST From: wb6dgn tallins...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Source of Coil Slugs I'm trying to modify a commercial boat anchor from 42 - 50 Mc. up to the 6 meter ham band. Not even one coil in the RF preselector and 1st oscillator/multiplier chain will tune into the ham band, which is very unusual for this radio. There are just too many tuned circuits to consider removing coil windings or changing capacitors so I want to try using brass or aluminum coil slugs in place of the powdered iron ones now used. Does anyone know of a source for these slugs? I can mic. the slug diameter and guestimate the thread pitch if anyone has any suggestions. TIA for any/all help. Tom DGN
RE: [Repeater-Builder] $2000 Motrac era repeater!
I hope your thanksgiving is also well! -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:49:22 AM PST From: k7...@skybeam.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] $2000 Motrac era repeater! Hi John, Now that is funny, I got quite a chuckle out of that post. I hope you and your family have a happy Thanksgiving.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: $2000 Motrac era repeater!
I'll undercut you and give the bargain basement sale of a Micor repeater ready to go on the 2 meter channel of choice with Zetron 38max controller duplexer for $4500.00!! -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:49:06 PM PST From: kc7stw kc7...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: $2000 Motrac era repeater! --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, JOHN MACKEY jmac...@... wrote: http://portland.craigslist.org/clc/ele/1477806751.html Well in this case. I have a Motorola Micor Base repeater ready to go on 145.270 100watts with Sinclair duplexers for 5000.0 ?!?! ;) I will throw in the Zetron 38max for a extra grand.. LMFAO!
[Repeater-Builder] $2000 Motrac era repeater!
http://portland.craigslist.org/clc/ele/1477806751.html
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Spectra 900's
Micor 900 receivers at +/- 5 KC. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:31:31 PM PST From: James Adkins adkins.ja...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Spectra 900's I wonder, are the Micor receivers 2.5 kHz bandwidth or wideband. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.comwrote: At 10:22 AM 11/22/09, you wrote: Been there done that seven years ago...it is a liiittle more than the three items listed that need to be done For the NUC RX idea, I have been thinking about doing a rx for that purpose, however, my concern is, will all that work have pay dirt... If some one can show the 902 rx front end is truly usable in high rf environment, I will work with them to...git-er-done... What's wrong with a Moto Aux Receiver (a Micor) on 900? They exist, work REAL well, have independent COR (channel busy) and PL decode lines, etc. The Aux Receiver chassis has the receiver board vertical, the MSF Link Receiver chassis has it horizontal to take up less rack space. I currently have two 900 spectras in a sales catalog bag with wide duplexer and controller to operate on any one of the eighty channels 902-903 and 927-928. All that's needed is twelve volts and antenna. Want to do an article on it? Mike WA6ILQ -- James Adkins, KB0NHX Vice-President -- Nixa Amateur Radio Club, Inc. (KC0LUN) Southern Missouri Frequency Coordinator - Missouri Repeater Council www.nixahams.net The Nixa Amateur Radio Club - There is no charge for awesomeness! (Well, only $1.00 per month)
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God
Unfortunately, very few receivers are capable of decoding stereo on AM. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:01:29 PM PST From: Chris Curtis demo...@rollanet.org To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God There are two drive-in theater close enough to drive to and be back before bed time near me. 1 uses the speaker on a string, the other use FM broadcast and is in 2 track stereo. Am stereo would be cool but my pickup doesn't have a capable am receiver. It does have the RB4 nav radio and an ICOM ic-7000 in it. No am stereo though. ;) Kb0wlf Oh yeah, I get flak all the time. I'm a motorcycle ministry evangelist and a 20wpm xtra class ham. Go figure :) -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:41 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God I like it. i am not offended at all. just the other day i saw a real still operating drive in movie theater. I am seeing bit's of Real amaerica starting to re emerge amongst the liberal PC garbage and i love it.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] AM stereo
KBPS in Portland, Oregon also runs AM Stereo. There is an entire web page
devoted to AM stereo.
http://users.hfx.eastlink.ca/~amstereo/
http://meduci.com/stations.html
-- Original Message --
Received: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:15:59 PM PST
From: Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis kc8...@hotmail.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] AM stereo
there were 5. kahn ISB, motorola CQUAM, belar, harris, and magnavox.
kahn and motorola were the most popular. you will sometimes find them in use
on 160, 80, and 75 meters in the AM portion of the bands.
1680 in princeton nj runs cquam and runs a jack type format.
i would like to find a sony srf42 am stereo walkman along with a component
am stereo receiver.
would really like to find some cquam rceivers that can do the X band on AM.
both component and walkman style
- Original Message -
From: osborne...@aol.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] AM stereo
I have a Sony in dash AM/FM cassette that decodes 4 or 5 of the original
AM stereo formats. I bought it from a distributor when AM stereo was just
starting and there were several formats
In a message dated 11/21/2009 6:29:13 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
demo...@rollanet.org writes:
Should have traded you for the symbol gear.
;)
Kb0wlf
-Original Message-
From: _repeater-buil...@repeater-buirep_
(mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) [mailto:Repeater-
_buil...@yahoogroupsbuil_ (mailto:buil...@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf
Of Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 7:20 PM
To: _repeater-buil...@repeater-buirep_
(mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com)
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God
sad considering i have a complete commercial grade 50 watt am stereo
broadcast station sitting in racks in my living room just gathering
dust.
- Original Message -
From: JOHN MACKEY _jmac...@usa.jma_ (mailto:jmac...@usa.net)
To: _repeater-buil...@repeater-buirep_
(mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com)
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 8:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God
Unfortunately, very few receivers are capable of decoding stereo on
AM.
-- Original Message --
Received: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:01:29 PM PST
From: Chris Curtis _demo...@rollanet.dem_
(mailto:demo...@rollanet.org)
To: _repeater-buil...@repeater-buirep_
(mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com)
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God
There are two drive-in theater close enough to drive to and be
back
before
bed time near me.
1 uses the speaker on a string, the other use FM broadcast and is in
2
track
stereo.
Am stereo would be cool but my pickup doesn't have a capable am
receiver.
It does have the RB4 nav radio and an ICOM ic-7000 in it.
No am stereo though.
;)
Kb0wlf
Oh yeah, I get flak all the time. I'm a motorcycle ministry
evangelist
and
a 20wpm xtra class ham.
Go figure
:)
-Original Message-
From: _repeater-buil...@repeater-buirep_
(mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) [mailto:Repeater-
_buil...@yahoogroupsbuil_ (mailto:buil...@yahoogroups.com) ] On
Behalf Of Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:41 AM
To: _repeater-buil...@repeater-buirep_
(mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com)
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Off topic ... a time for God
I like it. i am not offended at all. just the other day i saw a
real
still
operating drive in movie theater. I am seeing bit's of Real
amaerica
starting to re emerge amongst the liberal PC garbage and i love
it.
-
Yahoo! Groups Links
-
Yahoo! Groups Links
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.74/2515 - Release Date:
11/21/09 07:47:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] re: Early FM Repeaters (tubes and more)
I still have several Mastr Pro repeaters in operation on 6 meters, 2 meters, UHF. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:43:14 AM PST From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com I can't tell you how many GE Master Pro Repeaters I'd have in operation if I wasn't the one paying the power bill. Still... a Master Pro Receiver runs on 10 and 12 Volts (it's solid state) and has one heck of a great receiver so they could easily stay in operation (and often do...) I believe the Prog Receivers are also tube..? The only tubes I really want to light up are in guitar and vintage audio amplifiers with the other exception of high power RF Amplifiers for the HF War Zone(s) operation. Kind of the de-facto standard on some of the lower bands. s.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DB-212 detailed info wanted
I converted one about 15 years ago for use on 6 meters. It measured 52.5 inches from center to outer edge. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:41:05 AM PST From: cruizzer77 atlant...@gmx.ch To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] DB-212 detailed info wanted Does anyone have detailed info about the DB-212 antenna (converted to 6m) that make it possible to build one from scratch? All the measures and info about the mount and feed point are interesting in the first place. 73 de Martin HB9TZW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Early FM Repeaters (tubes and more)
No, I do not have to pay the electric bill. I only have to replace tubes about every 5-8 years. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:39:01 PM PST From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Early FM Repeaters (tubes and more) JOHN MACKEY jmac...@... wrote: I still have several Mastr Pro repeaters in operation on 6 meters, 2 meters, UHF. Ohhh ouch. Memories of burnt finger tips from trying to pull hot tubes. Are you paying the site electric bill John? It's gotta cost ya dearly to heat those tubes 24/7. s.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] re: mid-50's vintage Motorola trunk-mount
I have a T-Power crystalled up on 29.6 with factory PL and factory Extender still working (last time I fired it up was about 10 years ago). I simply can't part with it. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:34:14 PM PST From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] re: mid-50's vintage Motorola trunk-mount I have a mid-50's vintage Motorola trunk-mount (all tube, vibrator supply) in the garage with 34/94 in it still works, too! Please seek professional help... tell the shrink there's a boat-anchor in your soup. s.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB
This whole thread about ACSSB legality reminds me of read it again regarding TV channel 7 digital conversions of a few months ago. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:47:54 AM PST From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] ACSSB n0fpe wrote: One thing to remember. Amatuers are NOT authorized to use ACSSB above 30mhz. Please check part 97 for the exact modes we are able to use. heck if we were there would be tons of ACSSB repeaters already modified into the ham band. I don't believe that comment on legality. But no, the reason there isn't bunch of those on the ham bands is that many people have tried with no success. The firmware in those doesn't allow out-of-band, and so far no one has had luck hacking it. And there isn't much value in doing it anyway. As Doug said, it didn't work very well, so why try?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
It's been since the late 1950's that reverse burst has been around for PL tones. So for over 50 years the ham manufacturers haven't gotten on board yet. -- Original Message -- Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay
WHY would someone be using VOX in a system linked to a repeater (such as Echolink)? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:49:01 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay SNIP Helping my echolink node not get confused about what it is supposed to listen to is my primary purpose for having the delay. Audio delay lines are killer (great) for use with VOX (voice) operated logic... and a must have for many simulcast transmission packages.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay
Then why not do all that using the COS provided? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:53:51 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay Step right up... welcome to the show... Can any of you tell it's a Friday? JOHN MACKEY jmac...@... wrote: WHY would someone be using VOX in a system linked to a repeater (such as Echolink)? To delay the audio long enough for the vox circuit to first detect and provide COS/COR/PTT logic. The first portion of the inbound audio is not chopped off. s. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:49:01 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay SNIP Helping my echolink node not get confused about what it is supposed to listen to is my primary purpose for having the delay. Audio delay lines are killer (great) for use with VOX (voice) operated logic... and a must have for many simulcast transmission packages.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay
In the application you describe, it makes sense. But the thread I was responding to and asking about was specific to liking a repeater to Echolink. Echolink provides COS signaling, so I don't understand why someone would use VOX. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:09:23 PM PDT From: Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay John, I experimented with that once, and in some situations, it's the most elegant way to derive a COS-like logic signal from an audio stream that doesn't carry imbedded switching info. A fast, stable VOX gate listening to the output of a squelched radio receiver can provide a very useful switching signal. Set the VOX threshhold to a point where it ignores the quiescent noise level of the squelched receiver, but triggers reliably on any trace of CTCSS tone or ambient noise behind the party transmitting, and set the VOX delay to zero. Because it doesn't care about frequency, it can actually act more quickly than a PLL CTCSS decoder, especially on the lower tones. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay WHY would someone be using VOX in a system linked to a repeater (such as Echolink)? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:49:01 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay SNIP Helping my echolink node not get confused about what it is supposed to listen to is my primary purpose for having the delay. Audio delay lines are killer (great) for use with VOX (voice) operated logic... and a must have for many simulcast transmission packages.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay
Of course, if there is on COS provided, then VOX has to be used. But my question specifically referenced someone using Echolink, which provides COS!! -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:02:15 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay JOHN MACKEY jmac...@... wrote: Then why not do all that using the COS provided? What if there is no provided COS..? Just an audio source... s. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:53:51 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay Step right up... welcome to the show... Can any of you tell it's a Friday? JOHN MACKEY jmackey@ wrote: WHY would someone be using VOX in a system linked to a repeater (such as Echolink)? To delay the audio long enough for the vox circuit to first detect and provide COS/COR/PTT logic. The first portion of the inbound audio is not chopped off. s. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:49:01 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp025@ To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Delay SNIP Helping my echolink node not get confused about what it is supposed to listen to is my primary purpose for having the delay. Audio delay lines are killer (great) for use with VOX (voice) operated logic... and a must have for many simulcast transmission packages.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Free For Pick-up: GE Master Pro radios
I completely agree. About half my operating repeaters are still Mastr Pro. Fortunately I do not have to pay the power bill! -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:07:17 AM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Free For Pick-up: GE Master Pro radios The Master Pro Receivers are great for current repeater projects even though they are crystal controlled. I just order crystals from Bomar (keeping in mind they have a $50 min order amount). Actually, the transmitters are great too... you can saw off the final section from the rest of the chassis and make an amplifier out of it. They are also quite useful as transmitters if you're not paying the electric bill (tube type finals). The power supply also has interesting applications... that big fat yellow cap is worth saving if you junk the transformer. It's a shame some of the vintage tube radio gear people don't see how the Master Pro mobile power supply is a gem unto itself and well worth saving for future projects. Hope you can find a home for them... cheers, s. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Brad bradzieg...@... wrote: I have accumulated a number of GE Master Pro Radios (mostly UHF, from what I recall). They are free to be picked up within the next week or so here in St. Louis. I'm not interested in the hassle of shipping anything. I am getting ready to pull the receiver strips out of them and recycling the remainder of the radios, as I'm getting tired of looking at them accumulating dust (they've sat in the garage too long). If anyone is interested, email me (don't reply to the board) and we'll make arrangements to meet at the location they are stored. Thanks. Brad Ziegler bradzieg...@...
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Question on portable repeaters
Don't even try doing a portable repeater on 2 meters. Do it on 440 MHz or 900 Mhz. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:15:29 PM PDT From: Peter Dakota Summerhawk commcon...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Question on portable repeaters Morning, We are looking at building a portable repeater for special even use. This will be mobile mounted and 2M. My questions is this: If we are using two radios (one for TX one for RX) then what does the antenna separation have to be for all of this to work? Planning on mounting this in a SUV so roof space can be adjusted if need be. Thanks Peter Dakota Summerhawk Laramie County ARES
Re: [Repeater-Builder] For Sale - Micor Upgrade
what band/frequency range is this for? -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:09:32 PM PDT From: Ham-Radio ham-ra...@cap-comm.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] For Sale - Micor Upgrade Greetings all, Do you have a Micor that needs an upgrade? I have the ultimate upgrade for your Micor VHF Repeater. This is what I have. Motorola Micor Upright Base and Repeater (RT) Station manual: 68P81022E90-F 8560AS tubes in pairs- three pairs for total of six spare tubes TPN1132A Low Voltage supply board TLN1675 A-1 (also stamped TLN5706A) Meter Panel TPN1131 A-1 (also stamped TLN5699A) Power Supply TLN 4198A PA Deck - two complete units with tubes. This is an ALL or NOTHING deal. I have a figure in mind, but will consider any offer. This is some equipment that was removed from commercial service. It is not a part of my business as I acquired all of this on trade. Please contact direct at ham-ra...@cap-comm.com. Thanks, Charles Miller WD5EEH
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M
I've been watching this thread, and did contribute early in the discussion. All the trials and tribulations (which nearly all sound valid) are why I simply went with the comet 6m/10m diplexer. It has great bandwidth, essentially passing the bandwidth of connected antennas, in frequency sensitative rather then dependent on the impedence of the antenna, and is plug play. Of course, you still have to get the antennas tuned and working, but you have to do that anyway. If I was retired, or had lots of time on my hands, attempting to roll your own with the motorola method of specific coax lengths would be fun and probably cheaper. The comet diplexer cost about $60. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:38:23 PM PDT From: w6jk je...@lafn.org To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M The problem with this is it's not the way hams usually do things, so it's counter intuitive. The coax is acting as a transformer, not a stub. Worse yet, its purpose is to mismatch the antenna, not to match it. Specifically, you want the off-frequency antenna to present as high an impedance as possible, so that when it's connected across the active antenna the resulting impedance is as close as possible to 50 ohms. Then, when you switch bands, the roles are reversed, so to speak. The optimal cable lengths may well not be a simple fraction of a wavelength. Somebody probably used a Smith chart to work it out. A clever bit of engineering, that. Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Steven Schultz steven.schult...@... wrote: I did take into account the velocity factor in the simulations. In Ansoft Designer I can specify physical length and VF. In the antenna simulator I am currently using I cannot specify the VF so VF = 1 and I use coax lengths equal to free space wavelengths. The document was given to me in PDF format and I can pass it along. How do I go about doing so? After a brief discussion with my friend on this matter he recommended I check into Repeater Builder and that is what led me here. I looked thru the site's files but could not find the document or any mention of the subject. Thanks Steve On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Joe k1ike_m...@... wrote: The average coax cable of 1985 vintage probably had a velocity factor of 66%. If you didn't figure this into your calculations the coax would appear to be about 1/4 physical length, but would be an electrical 1/2 wavelength. Did you use a velocity factor in your calculations? Would it be possible to scan the Motorola document that you have and post it to the group? I've heard of it but I've never seen it. 73, Joe, K1ike Steven Schultz wrote: I will review my simulations and see if match bandwidth is adversely affected by the 1/2 wavelength transmission line. I will try to include cable properties.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M
The Comet CF-360B does exactly what you are asking for. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:09:06 PM PDT From: ka9qjg ka9...@wowway.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M I just picked up the X-9000 For 6 and 10 is it possible to use 2 Single antennas one for 6 and one for 10 and use a mobile duplexer If so Who makes the duplexer Thanks Don KA9QJG In looking at the original message in this thread, I have used the absolutely most simple solution that is likely available anywhere. I am using a Syntor X9000 on both 10 and 6 M without anymore than a cut for 6M mobile bird killer whip and its associated spring with a Hustler 10M coil on top. Rounding up the necessary fittings for the top might take some looking but I have found them at least at the vendors at Dayton. The mount that I am using on one car is a homemade bracket that fastens between the fender and the hood and has an SO239 on one end and a 3/8 x 24 thread going at 90 degrees. It works perfectly. In fact I have two of them in use on two different vehicles. Simply cut the whip for probably 52.5 or so and establish the lowest SWR with the 10M coil attached and then adjust the 10M coil for resonance on 29.6. Other than the coil getting smacked once in awhile coming to near destruction I have had little problem with this set up. In probably about 5 years with this set up I've only lost one coil. Just one tech's / ham's idea/opinion.Now if the bands would only open up a little bit. HI! Thanks Steve Waltman KB3FPN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M
I did this same thing but went about it by a different direction. I mounted the 52 mhz antenna and the 29 mhz antenna on the roof of my Ford Explorer. I ran the coaxes down and connected them both to a Comet 10meter/6meter diplexer and plugged the common end of the diplexer into my radio. Look for the CF-360B: http://www.cometantenna.com/products.php?CatID=1famID=6childID=0 Usually I like to roll my own but I was in a hurry to make this installation work, so I just bought the comet diplexer. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:45:43 AM PDT From: steven_schultz92 steven.schult...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M Hello, I am new to this group. A fellow ham recommended I look into this group to answer a question I have. I am also interested in amateur radio equipment design and building so this motivated me to join the group as well. My question is related to the design of a diplex low band antenna installation. It is described in a Motorola technical publication 68P80100W86-A dated 9/27/85. This note describes how to connect two low band antennas (30 to 50 MHz) to a common coax. A coaxial cable cutting chart is provided in the note. The installation is such that a given length of coax is connected between say a 30 MHz antenna and a T connection and another different given length of coax is connected between say a 50 MHz antenna the T connection. The third connection of the T connection is connected to the radio with an arbitrary length of coax. The cutting chart refers to what they call standard RG-58A/U coax. For a 30MHz and 50MHz antenna installation the chart prescribes a 47 inch length of coax for feeding the 30 MHz antenna and a 100 inch length of coax for feeding the 50 MHz antenna. My ham friend says these are 1/4 wavelengths of transmission line for the opposite band (100 inch is approx 1/4 at 30 MHz and 47 inch is approx 1/4 at 50 MHz). Being an analytical guy I modeled the antenna system in both Ansoft Designer and an antenna modeling program. In Ansoft Designer the antennas were modeled as a series RLC load with 50 ohms at resonance and a Q of 15. Transmission lines were modeled with VF equal to that of RG-58A/U coax. In the antenna modeling program the antennas were modeled as 1/4 verticals with transmission lines having VF=0, antenna spacing of 1 meter, and perfect ground (assuming auto metal). The Motorola note suggests a minimum spacing of 3 feet between antennas. My conclusion was that the values in the Motorola cutting chart for 30 MHz and 50 MHz antenna diplexor are not optimum. Much better results are obtained with transmission line lengths corresponding to 1/2 wavelengths. With 1/2 wavelength transmission line the impedance is repeated. For 1/4 wavelength verticals the out of band impedance is high and with the in band impedance being low the total impedance is governed by the in band antenna. I would like to know what others might know about this 30 MHz and 50 MHz diplexor made of coax and what is the basis for the cutting values in the Motorola note. I tried to find information about this system on the Repeater Builder site but I could not. Thank You Steve Schultz WB8WGY
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M
It is on the repeater builder website already. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:32:31 PM PDT From: Joe k1ike_m...@snet.net SNIP Would it be possible to scan the Motorola document that you have and post it to the group? I've heard of it but I've never seen it.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M
Mike- How about using an automatic antenna tuner with a whip 6 foot whip? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:50:49 PM PDT From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Diplex antenna installation using coaxial cable for 10M and 6 M At 05:32 PM 09/11/09, Joe, K1ike wrote: The average coax cable of 1985 vintage probably had a velocity factor of 66%. If you didn't figure this into your calculations the coax would appear to be about 1/4 physical length, but would be an electrical 1/2 wavelength. Did you use a velocity factor in your calculations? Would it be possible to scan the Motorola document that you have and post it to the group? I've heard of it but I've never seen it. It's been on the repeater-builder website for several years, on the Antenna Systems page, in the Mobile section. It's about the 5th one up from the bottom. I've been thinking about setting one up, as a future project is to set up a mobile, either a low band Syntor-X9000 or a Maratrac, with some channels on Red Cross and the rest on amateur 6m. I may have to go to a screwdriver antenna as a 1mhz wide window for 6m may not be enough We currently have active 6m repeaters from 51.24 to 53.76 Mhz. See http://www.scrrba.org/BandPlans/51-54.pdf And local Red Cross uses 43.00, 45.92, 47.42, 47.46, 47.50, 47.54, 47.56, 47.58, 47.62, 47.66 and a few high band and UHF channels. The 47 MHz channels will be no problem in a 1 mhz wide dual-whip system, the 45.93 and 43.00 channel will be a problem. The radio isn't the problem it would have been when I still had Motracs in a Ford station wagon with . It's going to be interesting to make a low band mobile antenna work across all the channels. And then to make a 99-channel MT1000 do it as well. Low band rubber ducks make better blackjacks than antennas, but that's the only thing that isn't fragile. It may take two separate rubber ducks - one for Red Cross, one for 6m. Or a UHF handheld talking to/from UHF to low band mobile crossband repeater. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wireless electricity
that's what I was thinking, it has to be RF. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:07:09 PM PDT From: Ted Leonard n2...@verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wireless electricity Makes ya wonder, supposedly it is a magnetic field that does the deed but the fact that there is an inductor and cap in each side there is resonance someplace. Sounds like RF to me. Ted Chuck Kelsey wrote: My first question is what frequency does it operate on and, then, what kind of RFI will it cause? Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - *From:* tracomm mailto:trac...@yahoo.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, September 06, 2009 9:55 AM *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Wireless electricity Interesting video, worth the time. Wireless electricity, quite interesting. Pass it on... http://tinyurl.com/muwom9 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.80/2349 - Release Date: 09/06/09 05:51:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: De-sense question
I've heard that many times right before I had to fix someone else's mess. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:32:59 PM PDT From: jmp46534 w...@arrl.net SNIP The radio was tuned using a service monitor by the Ham that set up all of equipment. He owns multiple repeaters and does know what he is doing.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need a TLD-2601A PA
Hello from Yokosuka, Japan! IT2 John Mackey -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:48:02 PM PDT From: Glenn Little WB4UIV glennmaill...@bellsouth.net Was in the US Navy for 22 years. 73 Glenn WB4UIV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Apparently you are one of the former Chief Engineers at the station I am currently the engineer of! -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:36:11 AM PDT From: Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com In my years in broadcast radio, I often saw program directors and general managers who wanted engineering to alter equipment to accommodate some prima donna morning talent too lazy to exercise proper mic technique or maintain proper levels. One particularly brave chief engineer responded, I'm sorry, this is engineering. You're describing a human resources problem.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression
what equipment have you used to do the compression? -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:07:45 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Yeah, I know a decent number of you are in-stone same-in to same-out repeater audio levels types. However, I've changed my opinion. A number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio and I always seem to be reaching for the volume control. So I've started adding a modest amount of audio compression to a few repeaters and the difference is a very pleasant and well received change. Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system if you're constantly reaching for the volume control while listening to more than one person talk at different levels. I'm experimenting with higher and even dynamic audio compression values but for most situations the above values seem to work well. If you're not sure how to add a bit of audio compression to your specific system... wouldn't be hard to describe it as in most cases the hardware is already in place. Transparent or flat through repeater audio can be made louder without causing the world to come to screeching halt. cheers, skipp
Re: [Repeater-Builder] how can i link 2 vhf repeaters?
Get a 2 port controller and use the controller to hook them both up. If they are at different sites, you will need to use RF link radios on a different band, perhaps UHF. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:44:22 AM PDT From: sv2hql sv2...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] how can i link 2 vhf repeaters? hi all a have a big question how it is possible to make a link between two vhf repeater? both repeaters is yaesu vertex standart!! than
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
The issue you point to of CW being allowed in the voice band is a bandwidth issue. That has nothing to do with repeater sub-bands. You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:57:07 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Again, I will point out that just because you *can* do something it does not follow that you must or you should. Their wording is obviously a block in which repeaters are legal. That does not mean repeaters are intended to cover the entire block. If you look carefully at Part 97, you will see that repeaters are legal everywhere except the satellite and other weak signal parts of the band. So, it's more of a matter that 146.520 is neither that it's included in the authorized repeater sub-band. And such a block does NOT make a bandplan. Again, CW is an authorized mode on all of 40M. Does that mean there should be no voice communications on 40M? Again, just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it should be done. I pointed this all out in previous posts. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Actually, part 97 DOES have what are, in effect, bandplans. Look in part 97.205-B, where it defines the repeater sub-bands: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. 146.52 Mhz falls right in the middle of the FCC designated repeater band and not in the frequency range which the FCC has reserved for simplex communications! Someone could land a repeater input or output on 146.52 Mhz and it would not be illegal. Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing a frequency does not make it illegal. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2265 - Release Date: 07/26/09 17:59:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
But that is not always an option. We have some repeater owners/trustees who simply are not mentally stable. I've seen trustees shut repeaters down because of the following: 1. People were talking about guns. 2. People were talking all night. 3. Someone allowed his child to talk on the repeater. yea, those repeaters sit idle until someone starts using them, then the repeaters get shut down because someone is using them for legal activity! -- Original Message -- Received: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:12:07 AM PDT From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Yes, and there are plenty of open repeaters sitting there idle. Go use one of them.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
-- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!!
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
When I first started as a board member for the Oregon Region Relay Council in 1989, we would have approved a closed repeater if the rest of the application was in order and acceptable. Later, we started strongly urging people to NOT apply for closed repeaters on 2 meters or 10 meters. The last couple years of my time on the ORRC board (leaving in 2003) we started to not approve applications for closed repeaters on 2 meters or 10 meters. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:50:15 PM PDT From: Mike Mullarkey k7...@comcast.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Hi John, When you were on the Board along with me, what would you have done if there were an application for coordination come through that was intended for a closed system. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ 6886 Sage Ave Firestone, Co 80504 303-954-9695 Home 303-954-9693 Home Office Fax 303-718-8052 Cellular From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:05 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2264 - Release Date: 07/26/09 11:07:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Actually, part 97 DOES have what are, in effect, bandplans. Look in part 97.205-B, where it defines the repeater sub-bands: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. 146.52 Mhz falls right in the middle of the FCC designated repeater band and not in the frequency range which the FCC has reserved for simplex communications! Someone could land a repeater input or output on 146.52 Mhz and it would not be illegal. Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing a frequency does not make it illegal. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] ROIP - Cheap
Personally, I have always liked eQSO. I've used it since about 2002. I have also used Echolink. For several years I had my repeater set up to interface with both Echolink eQSO. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:45:04 PM PDT From: wa5jxy wa5...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] ROIP - Cheap OK, I have searched the ROIP posts, and I have to say all the posts I have viewed just miss the point of what I am looking for. Yes, there are MANY ROIP commercial product related posts. All What I am looking for is a SIMPLE and CHEAP solution for ROIP for AMATEUR service. OK, I understand the commercial product line and the need for small business solutions (). Raytheon NXU etc. What about the amateur service trying to break into the ROIP solution? I built a P25 repeater for amateur service just because the technology is there. It works and is cheaper than buying a complete P25 commercial repeater. Now I want to build a ROIP interface similar to IRLP and Echolink without a central server owned by someone else. I have the dedicated fiber infrastructure (10GB backbone) in place I can utilize for ROIP. What I need is a schematic so I can build my own ROIP cards for PC or a cheap already built card available on ebay. There must be a Asterisk and cheap card solution out there. Anybody already done this? I have an Asterisk PBX server already built and working. Anybody set up Asterisk for ROIP and what card(s) did you use? I see then for $159 on ebay but I already have MANY parts and can build them cheaper, but still need a schematic or pre-built card. If not, how about starting a discussion to do this? My goal is to link several repeaters via ROIP other than echolink or IRLP. Thanks! Neil WA5JXY
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Bi-Level Squelch Circuit
Try cleaning all the RF schielding and IF schielding connections for that receiver. Those low-band Micor receivers had issues where they occasionally started having squelch and sensitivity problems when those contacts became less than perfect. I've used Micor receivers on 10 meter FM and had them work well with the squelch circuit. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:44:51 PM PDT From: kq2h k...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Bi-Level Squelch Circuit I've been impressed with the operation of the Micor bi-level squelch circuit based on the M7716 IC. I use Micor Spectra-Tac receivers exclusively on 440, 902, 6 Meters and 222 MHz (VHF to 222 conversion) with excellent results. However, I am perplexed by 10 Meters. The Spectra-Tac squelch circuit doesn't work well at all. It squelches up on fading signals that aren't all that noisy and drops out for no apparant reason. It appears that the squelch is set too high, but it isn't. I've tried different audio/squelch modules, receiver boards and housings. Even the IMTS modification which defeats the short squelch tail doesn't help the situation. When a UHF reciever is substituted in place of the 10 Meter receiver, the squelch circuit works fine. An old 25-30 MHz Motrac receiver, with its simple 3 transistor squelch circuit, works perfectly on 10 Meters. There are no problems with drop outs. The receiver squelch remains open well into the noise. This leads me to believe that the Micor bi-level circuit needs to be optimized for 10 Meters. Does anyone know of any component value changes in the Micor bi-level circuit to optimize operation on 10 Meters?
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Building HT antennas
On my Azden 10 meter FM HT using the stock rubber duck antenna with a BNC connector, when I was transmitting listeners noticed a definate increast in signal when I put my thumb and finger on the BNC connector ground. So then I started carrying a 9 foot long wire connected to an aligator clip which I would connect to the BNC ground and again noticed a definate increase in signal strength. But certainly you are correct, a low band HT on a rubber duck has poor performance. Despite that, I have worked Sioux City, Iowa to Portland, Oregon several times on my 3 watt HT on 29.6 Mhz. I know that K7LJ has worked US to Japan on his HT-200 (using telescoping antenna) on 29.6 Mhz several times. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:43:24 PM PDT From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Building HT antennas FWIW I have a 99-channel 42-50MHz MT1000 that I bought with the intention of using it for both 6m and 47 MHz Red Cross channels. The radio came with a 32-channel model number, but the radio took 99 channels just fine. The radio is not in service yet as it needs to be modified from the 42-50 MHz range to 46-54 MHz. And I do not know if the radio front end (or the transmit VCO) will reach to both 47mhz and 52-53 MHz. If anybody has done any work in that direction I'd like to hear from you. If it does end up to be usable on both I know that I'm going to need to have two separate antennas - a shorter one for ham and a second, longer one, for Red Cross. Over the years I've learned that you should not expect any real transmit performance from a low band HT, especially an HT200 or an MT1000. Why? Two reasons... First: A 1/4 wave at 52 MHz is about 54 inches (about 4 1/2 feet). An antenna with a decent ground plane would have a 1/4 wave radiator and a 1/4 wave ground plane, for a total of just about 9 feet long. I can just see a 9 foot long coaxial antenna plugged into a 7 1/2 inch long radio. Second The MT1000 uses a hot-only antenna connector, with no ground (at least the GP68 got that part right). The only way to get a RF ground is to use a cheezy plastic adapter that uses an earphone plug to adapt the radio to a length of RG174 coax. (see the photos on http://www.repeater-builder.com/motorola/genesis/genesis-index.html and look above the photo of a hand holding a radio) FWIW I've seen a couple of the adapters converted to a BNC mounted into the top of the adapter. So without re-engineering the radio your choices are a footlong rubber duck that would make a good truncheon, or an external antenna. And the NAB6064B duck is about $24-$25 each. More and more I've been thinking that a crossband repeater from a Red Cross UHF frequency (locally there are several already coordinated, licensed and in use) to the particular 47 MHz frequency (locally we have at least three, one of which is the nationwide 47.42) might just be more practical. Mike WA6ILQ At 01:42 PM 07/10/09, you wrote: Albert, In the 30-50 MHz band, the antennas for a portable radio must be cut for proper operation, over a very narrow range of frequencies. The length of a whip antenna must be changed by 1/4-3/8 inch for every 1 MHz. Motorola still offers the NAB6064B tunable antenna for the MT1000 radio, which must be cut to length for the specific frequency needed. In other words, there is no such thing as a broadband antenna for low band, and the radio's PA could be damaged by using an antenna that is not the right length. The NAB6064B antenna costs about $23 from Motorola Parts. Call 800-422-4210 to order. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Albert Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Building HT antennas Hey guys, I posted this question over on the HT600e forum but didn't get anything. I was wondering if anyone here could be of assistance. I recently acquired a low band MT1000 for use on the 6m band. It has a nice new commercial antenna but I was wanting to do something a little better. No one that I can find supplies or can supply me with a better antenna for this radio. Even smiley antenna, my usual go to company for custom antennas for the Genesis line can't help me. So I was thinking of building my own. My first thought, since the antenna connector on the MT1000 is basically a 1/4-32 hole, I could thread a piece of aluminum round stock to create a base. Then I could just make a 1/4 wave whip from stainless rod. I know it would be silly long but it is a start. If I do this, do you think I should just use the standard 1/4 wave vertical formula? Would I need to compensate for the HT's lack of a ground plane? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Albert KI4ORI
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Mobile Duplexer for 30W repeater ok?
Likewise, I also have used the 6 section flat mobile UHF duplexers in a few situations and they seem to met specs. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:54:30 PM PDT From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Mobile Duplexer for 30W repeater ok? At 6/21/2009 14:43, you wrote: Tony, Most UHF mobile notch-only flatpack duplexers will work fine below 50 watts at a 5 MHz split- but their performance rapidly deteriorates when operated outside of their stated band limits. For example, a commercial-band mobile duplexer that was manufactured to operate in the 450-470 MHz band will likely perform poorly in the 440-450 MHz Amateur band. Although such a duplexer may SEEM to be working in the Ham 70 cm band, it may have excessive insertion loss that the owner may not realize. That's because the coupling loops are set at the factory and not readily adjustable by the owner. I once tried to use a commercial-band mobile duplexer on 70 cm in a portable repeater, and was disappointed in its performance- especially receive sensitivity. I then ordered a new Celwave duplexer of the same model, but factory-tuned for my Amateur pair. What a difference! Once the new Once again, I'm going to go out on a limb say the above experience is more the exception than the rule. I have several 6-section UHF mobile duplexers here originally tuned in the 460-470 MHz range (so I assume they were made for 450-470 MHz) they all either MEET specs in the 440-450 MHz range or are only off by a small amount - maybe 1.8 dB loss instead of 1.5 dB. I'd say go for it. If there is excessive insertion loss it can be easily measured with a synthesized TX, isolator, wattmeter 50 ohm termination. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repurpose a Mitrek UHF PA
I know of a group that did exactly what you are talking about with Mitrek boards about 10-15 years ago. It was a HELLUVA lot off work to get it right, and a pain to work on when it failed. Get a power amp meant to do the job, or stick with 40-50 watts (no one will notice the difference anyway)! -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 31 May 2009 10:38:56 PM PDT From: Eric Grabowski ejgrabow...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Repurpose a Mitrek UHF PA A local ham radio club wants to add a 100 watt continuous duty power amplifier to their UHF repeater. They have available a 110 watt PA from a Mitrek mobile and some massive heat sinks. It doesn't appear that it would be very difficult to transplant the Mitrek PA onto one of the heat sinks and then mount that assembly to a 19-inch rack panel for installation in the repeater cabinet. Before I spend a lot of time on this effort, however, I'd like to know if anyone has done this before and, if so, is a how-to article available somewhere. Thanks for the bandwidth. 73 and aloha, Eric KH6CQ District Emergency Coordinator Hawaii ARES
[Repeater-Builder] Tripplite Inverters
Anyone every had any problems with Tripplite 12vDC to 110vAC inverters? I am thinking of permanently mounting one in my car but I don't want one if it causes RFI or other problems. thanks
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Tripplite Inverters
How long ago was that or how old was the unit. Tripplite just came out with a new line of inverters about a year or 2 ago. Do you happen to know the model of the unit you had that generated the RF hash? -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 28 May 2009 03:33:01 PM PDT From: ka9qjg ka9...@wowway.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Tripplite Inverters John, I use to Volunteer working Midnight Security at a large Church, and I had My Ham equipment in the Veh . I did not have a DC Adapter for My old IBM Laptop , So I got a Tripplite 300 Watt Inverter to power it , I the RF Generated Noise was so bad I could only hear Strong PKT And other Digital signals , The RF Hash was so bad on My Icom 706 Mk-2 It blocked most Signals on HF . The design may have changed since then but that was My experience Good Luck Don KA9QJG
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re:Dayton
I remember Hamvention before, during, and after that third party management group. My experience as an attendee is it was better without them. -- Original Message -- Received: Mon, 18 May 2009 03:58:03 AM PDT From: Adam T. Cately atcat...@bright.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re:Dayton Maybe one of the members of DARA reads this list... Years ago, when the club farmed out the running of the Hamvention to a real business that new what to do, it was nice to have your vendor packet in the mail by January, so that you could make your plans way in advance and have all of your ducks in a row - the flea market was well- organized and the help was there (and also the policing!) Since the club has taken over the duties, they have been very lax as to actual hamfest service, as I truly believe that THEY think we all will show up anyway, no matter WHAT level of service they give. I haven't been there as a vendor since then, and I don't think I'll go back as a vendor until they change their attitude... (...READ - Don't hold your breath...) At 11:44 PM 5/17/09 -0400, you wrote: That said, this year was MUCH better than last year. Still, I hope there are many more improvements next year. Hint: Start planning it NOW and start putting anything needed for then together NOW. Joe M. Paul Dumdie wrote: The folks that run the flea market spaces need to work harder on getting things sent out in a timely manor. Yahoo! Groups Links - Adam -
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Dayton 2009
I used to stay at the Red Room Inn Dayton North - it is on I-75 about 1/4 mile south of I-70. Year after year, same type of thing LOTS of little problems, and management was less that helpful!! One yaer, the front desk gave our registration to a group that myself and another had confronted for jamming the local talk in repeater. We know it was the front desk that gave our registration information, as the room was registered under the name of our room mate to had to cancel out at the last minute due to a family emergency. The jammers knew the name of our friend and that he was from Seattle. Since he was not actually there, and his name was only used for check in, only the front desk could have given this information. I had multiple problems with the Red Roof Inn Dayton North, and complained to the Red Roof Inn headquarters since the local management refused to ever do anything after multiple requests. I then received a letter from the local manager stating I was not welcome to stay there anymore. The only reason I stayed there was to be with a friend of mine, so moving wasn't a big deal. Clearly, the manager didn't give a damm. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 17 May 2009 03:12:35 PM PDT From: N9WYS n9...@ameritech.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Dayton 2009 Nope - Magnuson Hotel in Dayton... right off I-75 just south of I-70. LOTS of little problems, and management was less that helpful. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of nj902 --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, N9WYS n9...@... wrote: I left Saturday afternoon, mainly because I'd spent my allocations of money - but more so because I was staying at Motel Hell. ... --- The Super Inn in Lewisburg? Ugh. Never again...
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Dayton
I didn't even bother going to Dayton this year. To busy with other things in real life. To bad, Blake, you and I could have talked about the old days and old wars! -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:43:53 PM PDT From: Blake Bowers bbow...@mozarks.com To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Dayton What does everyone who is here think? This is my first year with a booth, but the longtimers are telling me that attendence is down again, and purchases are slow. I know we still have all our MastrII stuff sitting here, as well as most of the MSF stuff. Not even getting offers. Duplexers seem to be stagnant too. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Dayton 2009
Skipp - Please tell more about the Cow-girl Drill Team (for those of us who couldn't make it to Dayton this year and want to hear about best of Dayton!) -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 16 May 2009 08:46:22 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com SNIP Sunday is the big finish... Last Brat from the Cow-girl Drill Team (you have to have or be here to know about the CGDT) and then back on the healthy diet Monday morning. SNIP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
Repeaters need functional band coordination. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 08 May 2009 07:52:59 PM PDT From: Dean Nash n4...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination I'm sorry, can SOMEone please tell me how this thread related to building repeaters? 73 de N4SHD From: Ed Yoho w6yj_ya...@67hz.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 6:17:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination raffertysec wrote: It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place.. You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to one message. http://scaroa. org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start. This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset of that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone anyway? Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly. I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread. (Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post) I am not sure where the well over 100 repeater owner members comes from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today (likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater owners as members. Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of repeater ownership. The repeater-builder- coordination group has 35 members. The last posting was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well accepted by repeater owners. Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners. I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local committee(s) . Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is stopping you or anyone else from running for office. I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better (and still hold a full time job). Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either. Ed Yoho W6YJ (an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater information please
Yea, the dispatcher and the firetower radios were very similar and both built out of HT-200's. They were not fun to work on and the performance was a compromise. The Motran was the first REAL radio that was solid state. The high band LLT was unpleasant and the UHF MSN could be disappointing. The low band LLT and the high band MSN were fine. But looking back on it, those radios both went thru a LOT of work to produce the power they produced! -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:15:36 AM PDT From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater information please True. I had forgotten that one. It was a PAIN to work on as it was positive ground internally. The same hardware was in the firetower repeater. Mike At 05:11 PM 04/15/09, you wrote: Minor technicality - Wasn't the mobile radio that was made from HT-200 boards the first solid state Motorola mobile transmitter? -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:13:47 AM PDT From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater information please As to MSNs The 43MSN high band mobile was the first all solid state Motorola mobile transmitter. It was the first radio labeled Motran and was a direct swapout of the Motrac - same cable, same head, same everything. The center chassis section that held the T-supply in the Motrac was all empty space. The 44MST came along later and was based on the same basic design (and came in 4 freq and 12 freq models). In the 4-freq models transmit F1-F4 was in the exciter, receive F1 and F2 were in the receiver chassis, the receive F3 and F4 channel elements were in a corner of the open center area. The 12 freq was developed for the mobile telephone industry and was labeled MARK XII. It was the first binary switched radio in the Moto lineup. It was all 12v - the open center section of the chassis held the additional 18 channel elements. The high power 74MST was a 4 freq UHF MOTRAN (and used a 28volt PA deck run by a 12-to-28 transistorized switching power supply in the center section) along with the receive F3 and F4 channel elements. To get back to the topic, his station has an M series receiver, and an S series exciter that puts out about 20-30w on UHF. It's loosely based on the 74MST design but less the finals, I forget if the MST driver (the final of his exciter) is a 12v stage or a 28v stage. Mike WA6ILQ At 10:24 PM 04/14/09, you wrote: If I am decoding the model numbers properly... The first station is most likely a 250W UHF MOTRAN base station, but has a tube in the final PA. The second station is a high-power continuous-duty 800 MHz (or possibly 900 MHz) MICOR. (Check the channel elements for the exact freq.) Someone will correct me if I am wrong. ;-) http://www.repeater-builder.com/motorola/motorola-suffixes.html Can't help you with manual numbers off-hand, but I'm sure someone else will chime in. Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of bene6148 Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:55 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater information please I have a Motorola Motrac model #B94MSB-1106A, and a Micor model #C75RCB6105AT. I would appreciate any information on these two models as well as manual numbers. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater information please
Minor technicality - Wasn't the mobile radio that was made from HT-200 boards the first solid state Motorola mobile transmitter? -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:13:47 AM PDT From: Mike Morris WA6ILQ wa6...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater information please As to MSNs The 43MSN high band mobile was the first all solid state Motorola mobile transmitter. It was the first radio labeled Motran and was a direct swapout of the Motrac - same cable, same head, same everything. The center chassis section that held the T-supply in the Motrac was all empty space. The 44MST came along later and was based on the same basic design (and came in 4 freq and 12 freq models). In the 4-freq models transmit F1-F4 was in the exciter, receive F1 and F2 were in the receiver chassis, the receive F3 and F4 channel elements were in a corner of the open center area. The 12 freq was developed for the mobile telephone industry and was labeled MARK XII. It was the first binary switched radio in the Moto lineup. It was all 12v - the open center section of the chassis held the additional 18 channel elements. The high power 74MST was a 4 freq UHF MOTRAN (and used a 28volt PA deck run by a 12-to-28 transistorized switching power supply in the center section) along with the receive F3 and F4 channel elements. To get back to the topic, his station has an M series receiver, and an S series exciter that puts out about 20-30w on UHF. It's loosely based on the 74MST design but less the finals, I forget if the MST driver (the final of his exciter) is a 12v stage or a 28v stage. Mike WA6ILQ At 10:24 PM 04/14/09, you wrote: If I am decoding the model numbers properly... The first station is most likely a 250W UHF MOTRAN base station, but has a tube in the final PA. The second station is a high-power continuous-duty 800 MHz (or possibly 900 MHz) MICOR. (Check the channel elements for the exact freq.) Someone will correct me if I am wrong. ;-) http://www.repeater-builder.com/motorola/motorola-suffixes.html Can't help you with manual numbers off-hand, but I'm sure someone else will chime in. Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of bene6148 Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:55 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater information please I have a Motorola Motrac model #B94MSB-1106A, and a Micor model #C75RCB6105AT. I would appreciate any information on these two models as well as manual numbers. Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater ID Enforcement
Didn't something come out a few years ago where the FCC relaxed those rules and a repeater can now ID every 10 mins without activity? -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:42:38 PM PDT From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater ID Enforcement Generally speaking, the FCC has decreed that a repeater shall not speak unless spoken to, with common-sense allowances for final IDs a few minutes after the last transmission from a user. Recurring transmissions originated from the repeater station itself are one-way transmissions are not permitted unless they are occasional QSTs of general interest (i.e. AR Newsline). A repeater IDing every 10 minutes on its own is continuously sending one-way transmissions or broadcasts, is not permitted. I once received a Notice of Operating Conditions from the local field office back in the 80's stating such, but can't find it now. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB
California does a lot of things like that, with 15KHz outputs away from inputs in the 2 meter repeater band. It does work if your keep the deviation down to under 4.5 KHz. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:21:03 PM PDT From: Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thank You - Interference Help - WTB Why is their output 15 KHz away from your input? Is someone upside-down? Sounds like a bad coordination... even 100 miles away, if one or both ends are on high sites. A 5 KHz deviated signal doesn't really fit into 15 KHz of channel space, this is well-known. But why is their output on top of your input like that? Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E
If you want it to work well, then replace the Q2220E with a better duplexer. If you are willing to accept a compromise in performance, then continue using it and add extra cavities onto it. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:40:17 PM PDT From: AJ aj.grant...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E Any suggestions for improving the situation with our existing Q2220E duplexer? We could turn the P/A down even further, but there's not much more room to work with with this 40 watt P/A from it's current 25 watt level without causing spurs... On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, John J. Riddell ve3...@earthlink.netwrote: *Re the Sinclair RES-LOC Q2220E Duplexer, they make a much better version, * *the Q2330E model.* ** * We use one here on VE3KSR, 146.970* ** *It has 100 Db of Tx - Rx isolation at 500 Khz and midband isolation of 55 Db* *as opposed to 30 Db in the Q2220.* ** *Power rating is 350 watts on each unit.* ** *The Q2330E** has three cavities on each side.* ** *73 John VE3AMZ* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - Original Message - *From:* AJ aj.grant...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q2220E We have one in place right now on the 600 KHz split at 25 watts from a MastrII... Very noticeable desense... Not very happy with the setup... But we're doing the best we can with what was on the hill when we started... Oh well lol. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, ve7fet yahoogro...@woldanski.comwrote: Actually, the comment below isn't quite true. The Q2220E is a Res-Lok duplexer, but there are no machined coupling ports between the cavities. I just took the loops out of one to confirm. The coupling between the cavities is a function of the pickup loop inside the cavity, and the coax between them. However, in the C2034 type Res-Lok combiners, there ARE coupling ports machined between the bandpass section cavities (confirmed that too). Of interesting note on the Q2220E, the docs from Sincliar show two different harnesses available, presumably one for high split, and one for low. I have two Q2220E's here, one factory 143/148 and the other 152/157. They both have the same harness on them (320mm inter-cavity of RG400), and the pickup loops are the same size too (110mm). If you run the numbers for 320mm and a velocity factor of 0.695, you get a center frequency for the harness of 163MHz. If you wanted to optimize the tuning for the best response in the ham band, you may want to consider re-building the harness and changing the inter-cavity lengths to 355mm. I wouldn't change the lengths of the pickup loops as that is going to significantly change the response. Also note, the Q2220E makes a good candidate to modify for 220MHz... just ask Dave Cameron... http://www.irlp.net/duplexer Cheers! Lee --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Part of the problem is that the Q2220E duplexer uses the Res-Lok design, wherein the coupling between cavities of each pair is via a machined port between them, rather than a cabled coupling loop that can be adjusted.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
The callsign is extremely relevant, which is why I am asking. But you seem more inclined to argue and reject those trying to help. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:40:23 PM PDT From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work JOHN MACKEY wrote: I agree, this should not be difficult. But for some reason, it is and the poster is unable to answer simple questions. Instead, he responds with READ IT AGAIN! That is why I asked the callsign of the station we are talking about, to look at exactly what they are doing since the poster is unable to answer those questions. AGAIN-THE CALL SIGN IS IRRELEVANT! CH 7 IS 174-180 MHz-ALWAYS!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
I am a Comcast VOIP customer, the service works good. Comcast is a sleezy company, and I have had experiences with their IP blocking and/or packet interruptions. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:36:45 AM PDT From: Mike Naruta AA8K a...@comcast.net Remember when network neutrality was voted down? This means that your Internet provider can delay or tamper with your packets. Here is my personal experience. I started having trouble with packet loss on my VOIP traffic on my broadband connection, both on my IRLP node and other VOIP. I did extensive troubleshooting with my PC (Windows XP Home Edition). I substituted another clean PC with Windows XP Pro. I built another PC with just Ubuntu Linux on it. I tested with only one PC directly plugged into the cable modem. In each case I was experiencing about a 10% packet loss with garbled voice and delayed syllables. On a whim, I tried using the original PC, but I disconnected my Comcast High Speed Digital LAN connection and had my PC dial up a modem on my other Internet provider. The connection was at 45.2 Kbps. My packet loss dropped to ZERO! The voices were clear, without garbles and delays. Each time that I have repeated the test, whenever I use the Comcast High Speed Digital, I get 5% to 15% packet loss and when I disconnect the Comcast and use a dial-up modem on my other Internet provider, I get 0% packet loss. Now, I do not use the Comcast Digital Voice VOIP service that Comcast sells, because I cannot use it for the IRLP or my other app. I'm guessing that the customers that do use Comcast Digital Voice do not have the same problem, or they would not still be customers. Of course, if you were using a Comcast Digital Voice competitor like Vonage and had this VOIP type of problem, you would probably discontinue Vonage. I appear to not be the only one experiencing problems: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080129-p2p-users-blast-comcast-in-fcc-proceeding.html I am on waiting lists for DSL and fiber optic service, but they are not available to me yet, even though I am a short distance from the telephone office. I used to use two-way satellite for my IP and now regret ending that service. I had only very brief storm outages compared to my downtimes with Comcast. Also, during power failures, Comcast has been going down here not long after the power does, so your Internet connection may not be available when you need it the most.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] How about a Freq list for the new DTV channels
Try this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_channel_frequencies -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 07:42:29 AM PST From: Jeff sys9...@pacbell.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] How about a Freq list for the new DTV channels It would be nice to have an updated TV chan freq list so I could see what kind of antenna would actually work best for this
Re: [Repeater-Builder] How about a Freq list for the new DTV channels
Same here in Portland, Oregon; the TV stations on hi VHF will stay there with digital. Yet some areas will have low VHF digital TV; central nebraska being one of them. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:01:41 PM PST From: Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] How about a Freq list for the new DTV channels On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Hap Griffin wrote: Not quite right. The majority of stations are staying on their assigned digital channels. It is EXTREMELY expensive to change channels, so unless there is a compelling reason to move back to a station's analog channel, most are staying put. Out of eleven stations in the network I'm CE for, we moved one back to its VHF analog channel on 2/17. There's a mix here. The channels that were Low VHF are abandoning their original frequencies. The high VHF channels are on low(er) power UHF temporarily until their final cut-over dates, and have some monster Harris transmitters just sitting idle, waiting to be fired up on High VHF. I got an opportunity to see our big three network's shared site, and the place looks like you could almost eat off the floor. Gotta love a site rebuild and tower-sharing... the guys up there are rightly proud of their work. The only fair thing to say, is that there's NO rule of thumb in this. You MUST go look at the stations in your area that you're interested in, if you want to know what's really happening and going to happen... Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the autopatch was active. But it would be nice if amateur radios consistently could support separate encode and decode of pl tones. That is rare on amateur radios, but now common on commercial radios. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:52:37 PM PST From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL At 3/5/2009 14:24, you wrote: On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater access and a different PL tone for DTMF commands (including autopatch access). The repeater generated the normal PL tone for repeater access. Too bad most amateur grade radios made today don't support different encode decode tones. This is the reason I continue to use my G5T in spite of the bad battery contacts other intermittents that make TXing problematic with that radio. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
What frequency was channel 7 digital and frequency channel 7 analog? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:12:39 AM PST From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work Paul Plack wrote: Jim, You might want to READ IT AGAIN yourself. Here's where the misunderstanding started. John wrote that if the digital is on a very different frequency, reception may be different. Your response was that if your antenna worked on one, it should work on the other, Period. You appeared to have a misunderstanding. Don't get mad at people who try to help. That's kinda why this place exists. No, that's not what I said. I said that if an antenna works on CH7 analog, it should work on CH7 digital, and if it doesn't, the problem is the source.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
Specifically, channel 7 in what city? Or tell us the callsign? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:12:39 AM PST From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work Paul Plack wrote: Jim, You might want to READ IT AGAIN yourself. Here's where the misunderstanding started. John wrote that if the digital is on a very different frequency, reception may be different. Your response was that if your antenna worked on one, it should work on the other, Period. You appeared to have a misunderstanding. Don't get mad at people who try to help. That's kinda why this place exists. No, that's not what I said. I said that if an antenna works on CH7 analog, it should work on CH7 digital, and if it doesn't, the problem is the source.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
It would be nice to know the callsign of the channel 7 we are talking about. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:09:28 AM PST From: Tom Parker t...@ntin.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work You realize that Ch 7 digital may be on Ch 39 analog's frequency even though it comes in as CH 7 Digital. wd8chl wrote: Paul Plack wrote: Jim, You might want to READ IT AGAIN yourself. Here's where the misunderstanding started. John wrote that if the digital is on a very different frequency, reception may be different. Your response was that if your antenna worked on one, it should work on the other, Period. You appeared to have a misunderstanding. Don't get mad at people who try to help. That's kinda why this place exists. No, that's not what I said. I said that if an antenna works on CH7 analog, it should work on CH7 digital, and if it doesn't, the problem is the source.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level setting, you won't need any extra bandwidth. I've made it work on my repeater and all receivers were able to decode with tone with the presence of the other. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:05:24 AM PST From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL At 3/6/2009 00:20, you wrote: I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the autopatch was active. Not really an option in my case: extra bandwidth required, some radios don't decode well when there's a 2nd tone in the CTCSS band.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
What is the callsign of the (ch. 7) station we are talking about? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:35:36 PM PST From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work The same. - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work What frequency was channel 7 digital and frequency channel 7 analog? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:12:39 AM PST From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work Paul Plack wrote: Jim, You might want to READ IT AGAIN yourself. Here's where the misunderstanding started. John wrote that if the digital is on a very different frequency, reception may be different. Your response was that if your antenna worked on one, it should work on the other, Period. You appeared to have a misunderstanding. Don't get mad at people who try to help. That's kinda why this place exists. No, that's not what I said. I said that if an antenna works on CH7 analog, it should work on CH7 digital, and if it doesn't, the problem is the source. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
I agree, this should not be difficult. But for some reason, it is and the poster is unable to answer simple questions. Instead, he responds with READ IT AGAIN! That is why I asked the callsign of the station we are talking about, to look at exactly what they are doing since the poster is unable to answer those questions. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:35:35 PM PST From: Ken Decker wa6...@cox.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work Good grief folks, how difficult is this? Checkout the website site below. For example: in San Diego it shows KPBS as channel 15-1. Click on the call letters. It shows channel 15, the former analog channel and what it still is identified as.. Then it shows (RF 30), that's the channel it's on in the digital transition, but it identifies as Channel 15-1. The nice map also shows where the transmitter is located and a engineering SWAG as to the signal level to expect. The Digital TV Transition: DTV Reception Maps http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ Ken - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work What is the callsign of the (ch. 7) station we are talking about? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:35:36 PM PST From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work The same. - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work What frequency was channel 7 digital and frequency channel 7 analog? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:12:39 AM PST From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work Paul Plack wrote: Jim, You might want to READ IT AGAIN yourself. Here's where the misunderstanding started. John wrote that if the digital is on a very different frequency, reception may be different. Your response was that if your antenna worked on one, it should work on the other, Period. You appeared to have a misunderstanding. Don't get mad at people who try to help. That's kinda why this place exists. No, that's not what I said. I said that if an antenna works on CH7 analog, it should work on CH7 digital, and if it doesn't, the problem is the source. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
You're partially correct. It certainly is true to two different PL tones each deviating at 300Hz are going to generate a combined deviation of about 700-750 hz (because there will be some third order/mixing entered into it also). In my situation, I used 2 Comm-Spec TS-32 boards. One board was generating 100 Hz and the other board was generating 179.9 Hz. I took the output of each board and ran them thru an R/C network which should have rolled off anything above about 220 Hz. I experimented with varying the level of signal generation of my service monitor to see how weak a signal I could make most receivers reliably decode PL tones (using a variety of receivers for testing. I found that, in general terms, a weak signal (like .25 uV) had trouble decoding much below 300 Hz deviation. So I set my deviation for 350 Hz on each encoder (being sure to kill power to the other encoder as disconnecting the encoder output would change the impedence of the circuit). That gave me a combined deviation of about 750-800 Hz when BOTH PL tones were active. I never had any receiver PL decoders that had a problem with this setup and nearly all the radios used were amateur radio grade radios (Yae-Com-Wood) from the 1990's. The transmitter was a GE Mastr Pro. That same repeater is still operating today but I am no longer using the second PL tone feature. (probably one of the few Mastr Pro repeaters still operating today!) In my opinion, 750-800 Hz deviation for a PL tone is the high end of acceptable. Motorola used to recommend 750-900 Hz deviation for PL tones. My other repeater transmitters usually run about 500 Hz deviation for PL. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:09:11 PM PST From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL At 3/6/2009 12:40, you wrote: If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level setting, you won't need any extra bandwidth. You'll always need more bandwidth than what's needed for a single tone. If you can turn down the deviation of each tone to, say 300 Hz for a total deviation of 600 Hz, then one tone by itself will work @ 300 Hz deviation. However, decoding under weak signal conditions will be poor. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
There are also HD-3 channels! There is some talk about trying to take TV channel 6 and making it into a Digital radio broadcasting band after analog TV fully vacates. But that will be difficult because there will be a few places in the country where broadcasters will be using TV channel 6 for digital broadcasting. note- I am NOT talking about virtual channel 6, I am talking about 82-88 MHz TV channel 6!! -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:17:44 PM PST From: Ken Decker wa6...@cox.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work Want to get more confused? And more OT? HD radio (does NOT mean High Definition). I think it's Hybrid Digital. They have channels with -1 -2 which essentially is the digital sidebands that can contain different programming. HD radio is causing all kinds of interference problems, especially with night time DX. They would have been better off going to DRM. Of course that would not be compatible with existing AM. If we ever get the 76-88 MHz range for broadcast, DRM would work well there. Ken - Original Message - From: MCH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 19:48 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work You know, I just though of another example that needs 'fixed'. My local Channel 2 is on RF channel 2 on the cable system (a mistake, I'm sure). 4 is on 3, 11 is on 12, 53 is on 7, 22 is on 10, and 13 is on 9. If people can understand that the channel name isn't always the channel number on the cable systems, why can't they understand the same will now be true for DTV where 2 is on 25, 4 is on 51 and 11 is on 48??? It seems that the main source of the confusion is the alias that shows 02-1 rather than 25-1. The very item designed to avoid confusion seems to be the cause. Maybe we should just make it easy and make them use their callsigns again so you can know WTAE is on OTA Channel 4 (STD), OTA Channel 51 (DTV), and 3 (STD) or 210 (DTV) on cable? BTW, KPBS is on OTA Channel 15 (STD) and Channel 30 (DTV). It may show 15-1 as an alias, but it's RF Channel 30 for the DTV signal. Joe M. MCH wrote: You know, I was doubting the arguments posed by the government, but I'm starting to think they were right. It's just too much for the consumer to grasp DTV as it currently sits. I mean, if a *technical* bunch like this can't understand how a channel 2 station can be on RF channel 25, what hope is there for the consumer? Maybe it should be postponed indefinitely until the stations all get their original channels back or they simply change they logo from Channel 2 to Channel 25 and forget this alias XX-Y channel format. Joe M. Ken Decker wrote: Good grief folks, how difficult is this? Checkout the website site below. For example: in San Diego it shows KPBS as channel 15-1. Click on the call letters. It shows channel 15, the former analog channel and what it still is identified as.. Then it shows (RF 30), that's the channel it's on in the digital transition, but it identifies as Channel 15-1. The nice map also shows where the transmitter is located and a engineering SWAG as to the signal level to expect. The Digital TV Transition: DTV Reception Maps http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ Ken - Original Message - *From:* JOHN MACKEY mailto:jmac...@usa.net *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2009 12:41 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work What is the callsign of the (ch. 7) station we are talking about? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:35:36 PM PST From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work The same. - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net mailto:jmackey%40usa.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work What frequency was channel 7 digital and frequency channel 7 analog? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:12:39 AM PST From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com mailto:wd8chl%40gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
Unfortunately, this problem was caused mostly by 1 person who simply doesn't understand. When we attempted to ask questions and explain it to him, his response to us was READ IT AGAIN!!! Several of us work professionally in the field of Broadcast Engineering, including myself. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:33:53 PM PST From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work You know, I was doubting the arguments posed by the government, but I'm starting to think they were right. It's just too much for the consumer to grasp DTV as it currently sits. I mean, if a *technical* bunch like this can't understand how a channel 2 station can be on RF channel 25, what hope is there for the consumer? Maybe it should be postponed indefinitely until the stations all get their original channels back or they simply change they logo from Channel 2 to Channel 25 and forget this alias XX-Y channel format. Joe M. Ken Decker wrote: Good grief folks, how difficult is this? Checkout the website site below. For example: in San Diego it shows KPBS as channel 15-1. Click on the call letters. It shows channel 15, the former analog channel and what it still is identified as.. Then it shows (RF 30), that's the channel it's on in the digital transition, but it identifies as Channel 15-1. The nice map also shows where the transmitter is located and a engineering SWAG as to the signal level to expect. The Digital TV Transition: DTV Reception Maps http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ Ken - Original Message - *From:* JOHN MACKEY mailto:jmac...@usa.net *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2009 12:41 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work What is the callsign of the (ch. 7) station we are talking about? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:35:36 PM PST From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work The same. - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net mailto:jmackey%40usa.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work What frequency was channel 7 digital and frequency channel 7 analog? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:12:39 AM PST From: wd8chl wd8...@gmail.com mailto:wd8chl%40gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work Paul Plack wrote: Jim, You might want to READ IT AGAIN yourself. Here's where the misunderstanding started. John wrote that if the digital is on a very different frequency, reception may be different. Your response was that if your antenna worked on one, it should work on the other, Period. You appeared to have a misunderstanding. Don't get mad at people who try to help. That's kinda why this place exists. No, that's not what I said. I said that if an antenna works on CH7 analog, it should work on CH7 digital, and if it doesn't, the problem is the source. Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.8 - Release Date: 3/4/2009 12:00 AM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Most of the new ham radios support at least encode CTCSS. Anyone still using an old radio that does not have CTCSS encode needs to upgrade or get it installed. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:24:12 PM PST From: Rick Szajkowski va3r...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL its about time the new 'ham' radios support encode and decode CTCSS (pl) I hate to have to buy and extra board to support encode I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older radios with out encode the fun debate about CTCSS and CDCSS Thanks to the group for a good read ! On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS. Again, I said 'most radios', not all radios. Yes, many recent models do include CDCSS. Joe M. n...@no6b.com no6b%40no6b.com wrote: At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote: You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram. Perhaps this is region dependent. Most radios made for the past several years can encode DPL, most hams I know around here use fairly recent equipment. In fact I feel like a throwback sometimes, sticking with my older equipment - I sometimes get comments about my ancient Alinco G5T. Yet I have radios in the car here in the shack that will do DPL. I think the main reason DPL is only used on one or two systems here (out of nearly a thousand) is because it's considered not worth the trouble given that most can encode it, would inconvenience those who still use older equipment that can't make it. There's also an issue with several radio models not implementing DPL properly: when encoding they also force decode of the same DPL code, making the feature useless on any repeater than doesn't regenerate the same DPL code. Of those one or two systems here that use DPL, none regenerate. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater access and a different PL tone for DTMF commands (including autopatch access). The repeater generated the normal PL tone for repeater access. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:55:07 PM PST From: AJ aj.grant...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL HAHAHAHA Gov't coupons for TS-32s LOL... I run cross tones... Inverted DPL input, 110.9 PL output for normal operation, same Inverted DPL input, standard DPL output for special events/call outs... Let's users keep their radios muted from the regular rag chew traffic during the day by setting the radio to the DPL decode. Also strip CWID entirely of signaling. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com wrote: How did those older users get the idea that their Regency HR2's would be the last purchase they'd have to make as hams? Are they still grumbling about the FCC outlawing spark-gap? I'd love to run my repeater using FM, but all the guys with the Heathkit lunchboxes would stop paying dues, yada yada. I'm beginning to think electrolytic caps drying out is a gift-in-disguise for repeater operators. Perhaps we've created some unintended expectations through poor public policy choices. Maybe we need $40 government coupons good toward TS-32s. Now, get off my lawn! ;^) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - *From:* Rick Szajkowski va3r...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:24 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older radios with out encode... On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS... .
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Interference or Intermod ( ? ) Help....here goes
Don't analog TV receivers us an IF of 45 MHz? About 15 years ago I lived in an apartment where I had a 29.6 Mhz Mocom 70 remote base and a LPB series 330watt Motrac base on 52.525 MHz operating from a Utility room about 200 feet away. Both were connected by DC remotes to myself and another ham in the same apartment complex. Suddenly, after about a year of my base stations working fine, I received complaints that my radios were interfering with clock radios, phone answering machines, stereos, etc. Several people in apartments around were pointing the finger at me, because everyone knew the antennas were mine. But both of us were not home when the interference occurred (myself and the ham in the other apartment who shared remote use of the base stations). The things people reported hearing sounded like CB. Taking a brief walk around the complex I found a semi-cleverly hidden big stick CB antenna, with white coax leading into an apartment of a new tenant. When he came home I spoke to him and he proudly showed me his system, a CB radio with a big amp hooked up running about 300 watts. Looking at it with my spectrum analyzer showed it raised the grass level 20 DB and very little power was on frequency. We switched the map to low and it was producing about 175 watts, all on frequency, and the grass on the analyzer was acceptable. I ask the guy to keep the amp on low power and showed him the analyzer running on both hi and low so he could see that in hi power he wasn't getting any power on channel. I always knew when he switched into hi power. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:32:21 PM PST From: Michael Ryan mryan...@tampabay.rr.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Interference or Intermod ( ? ) Helphere goes I am told that There IS IN FACT a high power cb operator working from a building about 50ft from the tower where the repeater's antenna is mounting. I never considered that an option.tell me you're kiddin'. - Mike From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of james f potter Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:41 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Interference or Intermod ( ? ) Helphere goes Hi Possib. a high power C.B. operater. - Original Message - From: skipp025 mailto:skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:51 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Interference or Intermod ( ? ) Helphere goes I remember that Neutec Unit... saw it on Ebay. Mike Do you have any analog television stations on channel(s) 11 through 14 in the area still on the air? If so, I might suspect an IF image might be possible. I had the same type of problem here from channel 13 getting into a number of Icom receivers. I had to notch the image frequency of my IF to get rid of it. s. Michael Ryan mryan...@... wrote: My recent efforts at putting a 220 repeater on the air here in western Florida have been mildly succesful. I am using a Neutec designed repeater. ( I know there are some uhf and vhf models around, this one is on 220, a RANGER brand ). The repeater is open access. And runs quiet all day or night, nothing cracking the squelch at all. But during times when there is a conversation going on after a few minutes a rather nasty signal captures the repeater sometimes in short bursts, sometimes much longer. Sounds like someone talking into a reverb chamber.. I had been using a Mirage brick amp in the rack, but suspected that this amp might be the problem, some oscillation or internal mixing of some sort. This turned out not to be the case, the amp though still in the circuit is OFF but we still get the garbage. When the amp would be ON, and I would sometimes hear this stuff start, and I could turn OFF the amp an it would stop. But shortly later even with the amp OFF, it is back.very odd that it would appear to me. Now, all cables in the rack are RG-400. Every one in the rack. Half inch hardline runs to the antenna, though there is a splice with a double male N connector as I recall. The Neutec unit does about 25 watts output but I have it cut back to about 10 watts thinking it will run cooler. Thus with the small brick amp it was doing about 65 watts output to the Telewave 4 cavity duplexer. While at the site tonight, I could hear something getting into the recvr. The repeater was UP, but no one talking at that moment. Again, nothing on it's own ever appears to break the squelch. The noise was heard through the repeater's on board speaker, meaning it was coming through the antenna / recvr and not something produced in the rack I would assume. There is a cel tower about 1,000ft away and another tower with ( who knows ) how many
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Interference or Intermod ( ? ) Help....here goes
That's not right, TV channel 14 is 470-476 Mhz. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:59:28 PM PST From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Interference or Intermod ( ? ) Helphere goes Hi Randy, I did place a notch cavity in the antenna feed line, tuned to the image frequency of the receiver IF. As an example Notch 245.750MHz (TV Channel 14 Audio Carrier Frequency) 245.750MHz minus 21.4 IF = 224.05 Receiver IF Frequencies vary a bit... and both Channel 13 and 14 analog are quite happy to provide a strong image source. Original Icom 3AT portables are/were really problematic to use in my area because of poor TV signal image rejection. cheers, skipp wb8art wb8...@... wrote: Skipp, why would you not filter it on the input? Randy --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 skipp025@ wrote: I remember that Neutec Unit... saw it on Ebay. Mike Do you have any analog television stations on channel(s) 11 through 14 in the area still on the air? If so, I might suspect an IF image might be possible. I had the same type of problem here from channel 13 getting into a number of Icom receivers. I had to notch the image frequency of my IF to get rid of it. s. Michael Ryan mryan001@ wrote: My recent efforts at putting a 220 repeater on the air here in western Florida have been mildly succesful. I am using a Neutec designed repeater. ( I know there are some uhf and vhf models around, this one is on 220, a RANGER brand ). The repeater is open access. And runs quiet all day or night, nothing cracking the squelch at all. But during times when there is a conversation going on after a few minutes a rather nasty signal captures the repeater sometimes in short bursts, sometimes much longer. Sounds like someone talking into a reverb chamber.. I had been using a Mirage brick amp in the rack, but suspected that this amp might be the problem, some oscillation or internal mixing of some sort. This turned out not to be the case, the amp though still in the circuit is OFF but we still get the garbage. When the amp would be ON, and I would sometimes hear this stuff start, and I could turn OFF the amp an it would stop. But shortly later even with the amp OFF, it is back.very odd that it would appear to me. Now, all cables in the rack are RG-400. Every one in the rack. Half inch hardline runs to the antenna, though there is a splice with a double male N connector as I recall. The Neutec unit does about 25 watts output but I have it cut back to about 10 watts thinking it will run cooler. Thus with the small brick amp it was doing about 65 watts output to the Telewave 4 cavity duplexer. While at the site tonight, I could hear something getting into the recvr. The repeater was UP, but no one talking at that moment. Again, nothing on it's own ever appears to break the squelch. The noise was heard through the repeater's on board speaker, meaning it was coming through the antenna / recvr and not something produced in the rack I would assume. There is a cel tower about 1,000ft away and another tower with ( who knows ) how many other users, another 500ft further away. Based on this little bit of info what would the masses suggest in first FINDING the offending source if is indeed intermod?Then, is there much than can be done short of moving my machine? Any ideas or suggestions? n Mike
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
All this virtual channel and RF channel stuff!! What would happen if a DTV receiver were within reception of 2 different digital stations using the same virtual channel? Or what if a DTV receiver were within reception of 2 different stations, 1 analog using and another digital; with the digital claiming the same virtual channel number as the analog? I could picture this happening with someone who has really good reception by using a well designed outdoor antenna on a mountain top. -- Original Message -- Received: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:47:27 PM PST From: ks4ec r...@jfcsonline.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work I am not sure what this thread has to do with repeaters, but here goes. I found a list of my local stations with their digital channel numbers and the actual RF channel s they are transmitting on. You will find from this list that one has nothing to do with the other in most cases. I hope this solves the confusion! Source http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ for Zip 33414 Callsign - Virtual Chan - RF Chan WFLX - 29-1 - 28 WPEC - 12-1 - 13 WPXP - 67-1 - 36 WPTV - 5-1 - 12 WXEL - 42-1 - 27 WFGC - 61-1 - 49 WTCE - 21-1 - 38 WPBF - 25-1 - 16 WFOR - 4-1 - 22 WPBT - 2-1 - 18 WTVJ - 6-1 - 31 As you can see the digital stations are not at the same Freq, some are way off. Most of the VHF low stations moved to UHF so 6 is not really 6 (don't have a 7 here), and yes you read right, 12 went to 13 and 5 went to 12... dont ask!! Just my 2c YMMV - Rob - KS4EC --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Paul Plack pl...@... wrote: Jim, You might want to READ IT AGAIN yourself. Here's where the misunderstanding started. John wrote that if the digital is on a very different frequency, reception may be different. Your response was that if your antenna worked on one, it should work on the other, Period. You appeared to have a misunderstanding. Don't get mad at people who try to help. That's kinda why this place exists. Quoted below for your convenience. Perhaps now we can all move on. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: wd8chl To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work JOHN MACKEY wrote: If the digital is on a very different frequency, then the frequency change is a reason why digital reception may be problematic. For example, if you are using a VHF antenna to try to receive a UHF digital signal, that will be problematic. I should be able to use any normal TV antenna. If it works on analog Ch 7, for instance, it should work on digital ch 7. Period. If it doesn't, there is something inherently wrong with the medium. Again, RF is RF. The antenna doesn't care how it's modulated.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
Digital Channel 7 may NOT be the same as Analog Channel 7. It is the frequency they are using that can be different. -- Original Message -- In a message dated 2/23/2009 5:08:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, wd8...@gmail.com writes: I should be able to use any normal TV antenna. If it works on analog Ch 7, for instance, it should work on digital ch 7. Period. If it doesn't, there is something inherently wrong with the medium. Again, RF is RF. The antenna doesn't care how it's modulated.
