Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: the non religious Jesus Nuts
The ultimate act of courage in piloting a helicopter is accepting that the Jesus nut was probably supplied by the lowest bidder. In a message dated 8/20/2010 2:39:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, skipp...@yahoo.com writes: Re: the non religious Jesus Nuts They were also called Jesus nuts by my coworkers, I thought a Jesus Nut was atop a helicopter holding things on or together. If it came off or failed, you normally had an expedited trip to Jesus if you believe in conventional religion. probably named in a spontaneously outburst by some guy who was about to need a tetanus shot. ... if you lost the Jesus Nut on your helicopter, I suspect you will quickly need more than a tetanus shot.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Astron RS50 Power Supply
This forum can well do without this spittle drooling moronic crap. In a message dated 6/20/2010 5:49:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, kevinvalent...@sbcglobal.net writes: I really have kept an eye onLemon$ He is very smart but loves to say on just repeated specs and letting you know where to get a service manual. I think he is a brainwashed head by the big M. do what i said or buy a $250 Switcher, That simple! or make your life miserable tryin to fix the thing. Hey $250 might be a lot of beans, butt beats a(a) 1500 to replace that astron peixe of crap! USU SAMLEXbeats payin a grand or more!! oh yeay, can see this comin, locked and loaded verbally! Bring it Lemmon. you are not ready for my experience!! do what i said or buy a $250 Switcher, That simple! or make your life miserable
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Astron RS50 Power Supply
Grazi ! In a message dated 6/20/2010 6:57:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, n3...@repeater-builder.com writes: I've had enough of this guy. He's gone. You're all welcome. Scott - List Co-Owner
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 220 duplexers
Say what? In a message dated 5/27/2010 12:09:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wa2...@taconic.net writes: Does anyone have a set of 220 duplexers that they want to get rid of? We had one of our 220 antennas go bad and don't want to change it. Thanks Stan
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 220 duplexers
Scott LOL! I'm gonna check my glasses prescription. FWIW, I had a similar issue with a split antenna rptr many years ago and resolved it by swapping antennas. The complaining stick was on the xmtr side. When it was just dealing with signal levels, it was as quiet as a church mouse. It was a temporary fix and I doubted it would last very long but surprisingly it outlasted the repeater itself. Bruce In a message dated 5/27/2010 1:04:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, n3...@repeater-builder.com writes: He was running split antennas and is wanting a duplexer so he can use the remaining one that's good. (I read between the lines.) Scott
[Repeater-Builder] FCC and Sirius XM
Although this particular part of the spectrum isn't operationally relevant for us, the way the FCC is treating spectrum it promised to protect is a real eye opener. If it happens to them, it can happen to us. K7IJ _Will the FCC Interfere With Sirius XM Yet Again?_ (http://seekingalpha.com/article/192329-will-the-fcc-interfere-with-sirius-xm-yet-again?source=from_ friend)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: mouse debate 101
This is no longer a freebie. They are surcharging for this feature. In a message dated 12/24/2009 9:27:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, skipp...@yahoo.com writes: And at American Tower Sites... they often supply the rodent problem as part of their poor maintenance and customer service policy.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Best coax for marine use
Mil-spec RG-213 (not bogus RG 213 type cables) are well suited for this application. The losses are not significant for what is, for practical purposes, a line of sight application. The jacket is well suited for resistance to ocean salts and UV. It's available at reasonable cost. What surprises me is the deafening silence on this thread about an equally important aspect of this project - the connectors. I spent four decades at sea wrestling with this stuff and cable failures were rare compared to connector contamination that ultimately produced cable failure including one incident that actually dribbled water into a radio. The mistake is to attempt to waterproof a non-water proof connector like the PL-259. It's ultimately an exercise in futility in seagoing conditions. The only connector series I would use for this application are Type N connectors. The antenna should also have a Type N termination to avoid the requirement for a inter-series adapter which is not waterproof. If the transceiver is in a weather protected spot, the PL-259 series would suffice for the transceiver connection, but the silver plated version of this connector would be a better choice than the common nickel plated version. K7IJ In a message dated 11/24/2009 8:20:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, m...@highwayusa.com writes: I have been in a big discussion with the guys on my boat list about the right coax for running up the mast for VHF marine radio. Keeping in mind that we are talking about a 70’ or so run going up the center of an aluminum mast, in a salt water environment, and the radio is limited to 25 watts. Also keep in mind that when off shore this is a life line and the best possible send and receive is needed in an emergency situation. So given the criteria what is the best possible coax to use knowing that thickness matters and bend radiuses may be tight? Others on the list are saying “just grab any old 8X type cable and you will be fine”. I say use something with very low loss and suggested small heliax. Any suggestions? Vern s/v Nirvelli KI4ONW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 50-Ohm Pads
I have some. What attenuation values do you need? Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 8/25/2009 5:07:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jtran...@cox.net writes: Can anyone recommend a good source for 50-ohm pads? Also, 50-ohm variable attenuators. John Transue **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=115bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] IFR 1500 Manual
Yes, I can help you. K7IJ In a message dated 6/26/2009 11:14:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jtran...@cox.net writes: _Attachment(s)_ (mip://027f0310/default.html#TopText) from John Transue included below] I just bought an IFR FM/AM 1500 service monitor. Now I need a user's manual. The service manual on RB and the applications booklet on RB are helpful, but the user's manual would be a big help. Please let me know if you have one that could be purchased or could be scanned for the RB manual archive. John Transue AF4PD 703 534 5102 **Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005)
[Repeater-Builder] Cable identity
Anybody know the nominal impedance of a coax cable labeled: Digital Microwave Corp LK 11? It has a copper solid center conductor (looks like 22 gauge), 3/16 foam dialectic that fits into an F connector for RG-6U, an inner aluminum foil shield and an outer braid shield. It looks like video cable but I can't find any specs on it. Thanks Bruce K7IJt **A strong credit score is 700 or above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585033x1201462753/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=115b cd=Maystrongfooter52309NO115)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Value of IC-22A and IC-22U
I have an IC-22U that was used once as a remote base for an RC-850 controller. It shows some wear and tear but I think the innards are functional. If ya want it, ya got it fo free. In a message dated 5/18/2009 5:06:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, mwbese...@cox.net writes: Anybody know what a fair price for either of these beasts would be these days? I'm assuming it's in working condition and doesn't look like it's been assaulted by an 18-wheeler. Mike WM4B **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322941x1201367178/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=115bcd =Mayfooter51809NO115)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
John He does this because it's what he does best Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 3/18/2009 11:41:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jmac...@usa.net writes: 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.wd8_ (mailto:wd8...@gmail.com) To: _repeater-buil...@repeater-buirep_ (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Falcon Communications 220 Power Amplifier
Eric I believe this unit is a Falcon 8252 220 Mhz power amp, 10 watts in, 100 watts out, continuous duty. Production date was around 1989. It uses F1260 devices and a couple of 2N7000 devices on the control board. The rack panel dimension is 8 3/4 x 19. If this is the hardware you have and you need an instruction manual with schematics, I have one for you. Rgds Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 3/14/2009 3:49:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wb6...@verizon.net writes: I inherited a bunch of 220 repeater equipment, among which was a rack-mount Falcon Communications MosFET RF Power Amplifier built in Newport Beach, CA. Handwritten on the label is 220 MHz, 4-112A, and Rebuilt. The amplifier has two Polycore F1260 transistors working in parallel, and the input jack is marked 10 Watts Maximum. I believe that it is rated at 100 watts output. I know that Falcon is out of business, and I suspect that a previous owner may have modified this amplifier from its original 2m band to work on 220. Without any tech data on this unit, I may be wasting my time trying to find out what's wrong with it. I'd like to hear from anyone who has information or suggestions about this amplifier. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY **Need a job? Find employment help in your area. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp0005)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Somewhat OT - How to make HDTV *really* work
How many more times do we have to read the same post? In a message dated 2/23/2009 3:43:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, wd8...@gmail.com writes: 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. **Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filingncid=emlcntusyelp0004)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Celwave Super Station Master UHF
In a message dated 12/27/2008 12:51:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, da...@wilson.org writes: You can always mount it upside down, works quite well generally. Until it fills up with water. K7IJ **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Information on Spectrum Communications SCR-1000
I've also found some documentation that I'll send along with the hardware. Am pretty busy with pre-XMAS running around so it will be a little while before I can get this stuff to you. Bruce In a message dated 12/2/2008 10:50:13 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would be great. Please let me know what I owe you for the shipping and the like. Keith Foor 6758 Johnstown Utica Rd Johnstown, Oh 43031 **Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=emlcntaolcom0010)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Information on Spectrum Communications SCR-1000
I no longer have any Spectrum documentation but I do have a collection of original boards for the SCR-1000 that I'll be glad to send you if you think you can make use of them in restoring it. Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:13:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have an SCR-1000 that was being used as a local repeater and then was replaced. I am looking for information on the control circuits, how to program the IDer, a service and or users manual and any other info I can find. The unit is VHF (not sure if that matters). There have been a number of modifications done to this unit that need to be removed and the unit put back to it's out of box configuration if possible. I thank you for any help you may be able to provide. Keith KB8VUL **One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom0001)
[Repeater-Builder] Midland 13-509
Anyone needing an original owners guide for the Midland 13-509, email me offline. Bruce K7IJ **Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall0001)
[Repeater-Builder] Sinclair tuning instructions
I have an original copy of tuning instructions (Manual CM-112) that covers tuning instructions for the Q-202G, Q-208G, Q-218G, Q-2B01G, Q-2B02G and q-2B17G. If it's of use to anyone, let me know and I'll put it in the mail to you. Bruce K7IJ **It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv000547)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Registered Sex Offenders
Steve You are of course quite right. Paul overstates the case for the latitude provided for repeater owners to control their repeaters. He fails to distinguish between operator behavior and ascribed operator status. Most certainly, you can exclude from a repeater, an operator who uses the repeater to expound on his or hers political or religious or cultural belief. So you could certainly exclude, for example, an evangelical from raving and ranting on the repeater but you could not exclude that person simply because he/she is an evangelical, absent any rhetoric articulating that persuasion. You could exclude an African American operator who ranted about black power, but absent the rhetoric, you certainly exclude him or her simply because he is black. Nor can you exclude anyone because of their religion, race, gender or their age. In no way can an FCC regulation preempt Federal anti-discrimination legislation. So much for any claim of unbridled discretion in running people off a repeater. The P97 rule that provides wide latitude for repeater control is a valuable tool but it should be applied evenhandedly and in any event, used as a last resort. When push comes to shove, controlling how a repeater is used, is much more defendable than controlling who uses it. Abusing this protective language will ultimately result in losing it. Yes, the repeaters are indeed private property. But the pairs are not private frequencies. Those frequencies were there long before your any repeater was. Arbitrary and capricious exclusion of repeater users who follow the repeater guidelines and are not behaving to the detriment of repeater operation, may well make some fact finder decide that your repeater is no longer operating in the general public interest. For example, it was not and is not the intent of P97 to support turning a repeater into a comm-channel for the exclusive use of the repeater owner and his main squeeze. Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 8/11/2008 1:39:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No Paul, a blanket statement like that is wrong. The owner of a repeater was wide latitude, but not complete. Try banning people of a certain race from a repeater, and see what happens. The owner of the repeater is not going to do well. --STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82 On Monday 11 August 2008 13:04:43 Paul Dumdie wrote: The gentleman who says that you will end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit is just plain wrong. The repeater trustee may limit access by licensed amateurs to a repeater for any reason - any at all AND the is no recourse by the excluded amateur. Since the FRRL Aurora IL has families with children and minors who are amateurs we exclude all sex offenders from our membership. Also -we hold meetings in public places known under Illinois law as safe zones from which sex offenders are excluded; they cannot be full voting members. Again, the gentleman who mentioned lawsuits is completely blowing smoke - the banned amateur excluded from repeater access has no legal standing - period - end of story Paul R. Dumdie Jr. 73 W9DWP/R IRLP-NODE-4455 443.025/2A 145.270/1B/1Z/ 443.02 ARC-Radio-8 KCARES HERD546 EX WB9QWZ WQGG738 AAR5CU/T **Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000517 )
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Registered Sex Offenders
The withholding of licenses by the government for criminal offenses typically involves the description of the offense as one involving moral turpitude. An offense of a sexual nature is indicative of moral turpitude. On the other hand, robbing a bank does not invoke this description. Go figure. In a message dated 8/9/2008 11:38:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paul Plack - Please site the law that forbids felons from having ham radio licenses. You act like you speak with authority - I'd like you to demonstrate it for me please. Bill - W6CBS **Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000517 )
Re: [Repeater-Builder] List Policy - ALL READ!!!!
In a message dated 7/27/2008 10:00:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you wouldn't say this - IN THIS WAY - at grandma's dinner table - then don't say it here - or in this way ... FIND A CIVIL WAY TO SAY IT - or leave it alone. Why, when you can have it both ways? Before flaming someone into cinders, simply preface the demeaning contemptuous diatribe with: With all due respect to my esteemed colleague.. **Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr000520)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] WP 642
I guess they used different suppliers at different times. The cables I got with the 641s 642s I got from Wacom all say: WACOM PRODUCTS MODIFIED RG-214 DOUBLE SHIELDED. As I mentioned previously, Lloyd Alcorn felt that silver plated shields involved a cost increment without any discernible improvement in isolation or intermod products. I agree with him but there are certainly anecdotal reports on this forum to the contrary. In a message dated 4/12/2008 12:21:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an interesting item for the WP 642 duplexers. The existing coax between the cans I was asking about is marked WACOM PRODUCTS RG 213U DOUBLE SHIELD. 213 not a typo. Dail N6DGT **It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp0030002850)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom 642 (duplexer war stories...)
In a message dated 4/11/2008 12:24:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wacom Products Modified RG-214 Double shielded on it, it is an untinned double shielded cable Are the shields the same exact material makeup... or is one copper and the other something else? They are both copper. which will provide the necessary isolation although there is a large segment of the forum participants that feel that untinned double shielded cable is vulnerable to low level noise not the untinned part... the part with dissimilar shield materials is the problem generator. In short vulnerable no, possible PIM generator yes. You're preaching to the choir. I think untinned double shielded copper is very adequate to duplexer connections. But there are contributors aboard who feel that silver plated shields are a better choice. The Type N terminated interconnects on the 642 duplexer supplied by Wacom for 145.29/144.69 were 12.5 inches including the connectors, tip to tip. I've actually seen that duplexer... :-) the receive leg would be longer if you could knats behind it on really good test equipment. I have a near duplicate duplexer on 145.470 and the rx leg is about 1/4 inch longer than the tx cable length. Hey you, get your cottin pickin hands outta that cabinet! I queried Lloyd Alcorn regarding this in the 80s and he indicated that he was hard pressed to improve the tracker curves using different TX and RX cables on a 600KC VHF split. The cables supplied for the sets he supplied me all had identical 12.5 inch length cables. The optimum length for cables terminated with UHF connectors might be slightly different because the UHF connectors and chassis jacks are probably not a true 50 ohms at VHF frequencies. Depends on who spec'd and made the UHF Connectors. I know a group of Certified (looney) RF Engineers who say UHF Connectors are a train wreck and another (also looney) Engineering group who have spec'd them on serious lab test gear for operation well past 500 MHz with no real impedance bumps. Go figure... That's interesting. Perhaps both loony groups are correct. You can't do much about an impedance mismatch between a connector and an associated cable because the cable has a fixed nominal impedance. But the chassis connector impedance mismatch can be accounted for by the network that feeds it. Didn't Motorola use UHF connectors on their equipment for decades and their position was that the impedance mismatch was accounted for. I remember Hank Edwards at Phelps Dodge commenting that when they designed their sticks, they accounted for UHF cable and chassis connector mismatches in the antenna design itself. K7IJ **It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp0030002850)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom 642 (duplexer war stories...)
Hank sent me a couple of barrel connectors made by PD that I've never seen before or since. They are UHF on one end of the barrel and Type N on the other end and Hank insisted that the connector produced no vswr bumps up to 500 Mhz. In a message dated 4/11/2008 4:24:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - I remember Hank Edwards at Phelps Dodge commenting that when they designed their sticks, they accounted for UHF cable and chassis connector mismatches in the antenna design itself. K7IJ Oh yes I remember Hank well, when Phelps Dodge had a warehouse in So. California. Really a great guy. Wonder what ever became of Hank with the company changes? The VHF 'sticks' had UHF connectors, the UHF 'sticks' came with type N connectors. One thing tho, the UHF connectors that PD used had the Teflon insulators and much better plating. **It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp0030002850)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom 642 (duplexer war stories...)
In a message dated 4/11/2008 8:13:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've actually had plain copper-braided RG-214 coax on the antenna port of a UHF duplexer cause desense; had to replace it with silver-plated RG-214 Can you clarify this? I thought that any RG-214 cable has a spec for silver plated shielding. **It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp0030002850)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SO239 Barrel Nut Size
Is there a 24 pitch tap or die readily available in 5/8? SAE coarse is 11 TPI and SAE fine is 18 TPI. Outside of the connector industry, where is it used? The threading on UHF and type N connectors looks identical. In a message dated 2/9/2008 12:39:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim, Both the UHF and the N connector have 5/8-24 threads. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY **Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025 48)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] SO239 Barrel Nut Size
Thanks. I'm way behind the curve. I didn't even know there was such a thing as as NEF threading. In a message dated 2/9/2008 2:03:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: McMaster-Carr is one of many industrial suppliers of NEF (National Extra Fine) threading taps and dies: 5/8-24 Taper tap #2521A423, $ 16.25 5/8-24 Plug tap #2521A527, $ 16.25 5/8-24 Bottoming tap #2521A495, $ 16.25 5/8-24 Threading die #26005A216, $ 66.89 Go to www.mcmastercarr.Go **Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025 48)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Whether or not using the input of the repeater for control purposes fulfills the requirements of Part 97, , using DTMF commands on the repeater input presents two potential problems: 1. For it to be reliable, you have to be able to pretty much capture the receiver. It doesn't take much on channel interference to make your decoder unable to recognize the DTMF commands. 2. Throwing sufficient suds at the repeater input to fully capture the channel means that your control commands are pretty easily heard on the input and capable of being decoded by the repeater users, both the benign and the miscreants. I MO, for the time and money put into a repeater, the outlay for an out of band control receiver and/or a phone line seems like a pretty reasonable cost for the security it provides. K7IJ In a message dated 11/7/2007 12:50:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control of the repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the DTMF tone control through the normal repeater pair remote control? Vern Recent Activity *18 _New Members_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlczdwaGhvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2Vj A3Z0bARzbGsDdm1icnMEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDQ2ODYwMQ--) *15 _New Photos_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc2QxdWxuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z 0bARzbGsDdnBob3QEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDQ2ODYwMQ--) *1 _New Links_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcmdtODRiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z0 bARzbGsDdmxpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzExOTQ0Njg2MDE-) _Visit Your Group _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder;_ylc=X3oDMTJkanRucTU3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3 Z0bARzbGsDdmdocARzdGltZQMxMTk0NDY4NjAx) Biz Resources _Y! Small Business_ (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jg0ht4e/M=493064.10729657.1148.8674578/D=groups/S=1705063108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1194475801/A=4025321/R=0 /SIG=12a352npd/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44092/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.c om/r-index) Articles, tools, forms, and more. Endurance Zone _on Yahoo! Groups_ (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jo8aco9/M=493064.11135487.11710473.8674578/D=groups/S=1705063108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1194475801/A=4776372/R=0/ SIG=11k023rmb/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/endurancezone/) Communities about higher endurance. Stay in Shape _on Yahoo! Groups_ (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12kcca5m8/M=493064.11675218.12153349.11323196/D=groups/S=1705063108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1194475801/A=4840954/R=0 /SIG=11n59vup4/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/healthandfitness/) Find a fitness Group get motivated. . ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TPL amplifier - aka repeater operation at the 250 ...
There is an additional factor that can cause deterioration of repeater coverage when PA power is significantly increased. It's broadband noise. Increasing PA power increases the intensity and coverage of the induction field which risks stimulating close aboard rusty joints and even dissimilar mental joints into behaving like broadband generators which will end up as noise on your own receiver channel. It doesn't help that it also ends up on every other receiver channel at the site. The potential consequence is to turn the repeater into an alligator. And adding additional cavities to the receiver and/or the transmitter is an exercise in futility because the junk you experience is dead on-channel. Sure, some sites may be well enough maintained to preclude this result, but the maintenance at my site has dropped to just about zero in recent years and cranking up power would produce a cure that's worse than the disease. Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 10/19/2007 12:34:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Skipp, It is not just a cautious road to travel; it may also be an unnecessary one. Since repeater coverage is primarily limited by its ability to receive the low-powered distant stations, 250 watts of transmit power may be far in excess of what is needed for a balanced system. Even at sites where the noise floor is very low, that much power hardly seems necessary. Ironically, an increase to 250 watts from, say, 100 watts may result in reduced receive sensitivity if the duplexer must be improved to handle the higher power without desense. The power increase may allow the repeater to be heard full-quieting at a greater distance, perhaps a 20% increase, but may also reduce the ability of distant stations to be heard full-quieting by the repeater. In other words, an increase in power might result in a reduction in the coverage area. I'm not just making this stuff up- I have seen it happen more than once. At one Ham repeater site, the previous owner of a repeater had a TE Systems power amplifier set for about 150 watts hooked up to a Wacom 4-cavity duplexer. Even though the duplexer was perfectly tuned, it just couldn't handle that power level without some desense, and the coverage area was relatively small. When I took out the TE amplifier and fed the 15 watt driver directly to the duplexer, the coverage area ballooned to at least five times its previous distance. Some of the Hams who now were able to use the repeater from a considerable distance asked, Wow! What did you do- triple the power output? They were floored when I responded, No, I cut it by a factor of ten! I make no claim that my experience is typical, but I do assert that More is not always better. YMMV... 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TPL amplifier - aka repeater operation at the 250 ...
In a message dated 10/19/2007 3:00:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sure, some sites may be well enough maintained to preclude this result, but the maintenance at my site has dropped to just about zero in recent years and cranking up power would produce a cure that's worse than the disease. Probably a good thing no one said American Tower by name eh? :-) Skipp, you'd have to see it to believe it. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[Repeater-Builder] Check out http://www3.hsmv.state.fl.us/Intranet/dmv/Forms/BTR/83043.pdf
Here in Florida we have over 60 vanity plates. To get a vanity plate issued it cost $60,000 up front and then cost the user $20-30 extra. Isn't a vanity plate the same thing as a personal plate? Can you show me on the application where there is any reference to a $60,000 up front fee? I can't find it. _Click here: http://www3.hsmv.state.fl.us/Intranet/dmv/Forms/BTR/83043.pdf_ (http://www3.hsmv.state.fl.us/Intranet/dmv/Forms/BTR/83043.pdf) ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part
The 4 coordinated NARCC repeaters on the 147.945/345 pair in Northern California will be very upset to learn that after decades of operation on this pair, that their operation is illegal and should be shut down. I think I'll pass on telling them that. Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 10/14/2007 11:30:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glen, I think you should read Part 97 on this, hi. There is not one word of language making 147.435 a simplex freq and not a repeater freq. A repeater that has been on this pair for what over 15 years would speak to it being legal and allowed. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Glenn Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 09:00:48 CDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97 147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a repeater freq. See: re:Section 97.101(a) and: _http://www.bloominghttp://wwwhttp:/_ (http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/) and Riley Hollingsworth opinion FCC and: ARRL Band Plan and Simplex National Channels _http://www.arrl.http://www.http://www.arrl.http://www.http://_ (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m) After reading these sites each can come to his own interpretation of them. It looks quite clear. There are many more sites, documents and opinions if one wishes to search for them that pretty much say the same thing. 147.435 is NOT a repeater freq. The simplex frequenciesa are there for a reason and need to be protected, probably even more so than the Satellite frequencies. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC Hi Mike, I certainly did NOT expect a reply like this from you! Since you spent many years serving on a coordination coucil, you should know better. First, the repeater (I am sure you are referring to) has the output on 147.435 MHz and the input on 146.400 MHz. BOTH frequencies are in the repeater sub-band as directed by FCC part 97. They are NOT simplex frequencies and ARE authorized for repeater use. Second, the repeater is NOT mine and operates under someone else's callsign. I only maintain it and link to it with my UHF and 6 meter repeaters. Third, while I appreciate your advice regarding the repeater frequencies you advised me on, it IS active here in this area, and has been for several months. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:26:53 AM CDT From: Mike Mullarkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailto:k7pfj%mailto:k7pmai To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) mailto:Repeater-mailto:Repeater-mailto:Re Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC Hi John, I could expect a reply like this from you. You are the only one in Oregon that has an odd split both working in the simplex band. For a person that is in the broadcast business, that has spent many years on the coordinating council you would know better. Why don't you do like I told you several years ago and send in paperwork on the channel I told you that would work, hell it has not seen ac power for over five years and its free for the taking. Hum, sounds to easy for me. If you do not remember the conversation, I could refresh your memory if you would like. On the other hand, just let the other people in the Portland, Oregon area coordinate it. They will probably put a good repeater up, work by the rules, and maintain the repeater the proper way a repeater should be operated. Mike Mullarkey (K7PFJ) ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to P...
Are you telling me it's time for my medication? In a message dated 10/14/2007 6:51:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OOooops there Bruce-- don't get too dyslexic on us. 147.3-4-5 is a different frequency than 147.4-3-5... Laryn K8TVZ --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) , cruising7388@, crui The 4 coordinated NARCC repeaters on the 147.945/345 pair in Northern California will be very upset to learn that after decades of operation on this pair, that their operation is illegal and should be shut down. I think I'll pass on telling them that. Bruce K7IJ ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Solder
In a message dated 10/4/2007 10:24:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes it was really dumb to put it in our gasoline for sixty years where it was spread along our highways throughout the world but you don’t hear about any problem with this massive lead contamination Perhaps that's because dead men don't talk. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Oxygen Free and stranded audio cables.
In a message dated 9/3/2007 12:03:22 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suppose without the oxygen, the copper wire won't rust or develop that green patina, so the sound quality won't degrade ! Also, due to skin effect at audio frequencies, the more strands, the better. And with some amplifiers that have a really high input impedance, the lower capacitance cable will have less high-frequency roll-off due to the better match between the cable and amp input. Whether or not multi-multi-strand cable reduces skin effect, it certainly will increase the skinned effect. Rusting copper wire? Yep, lower capacitance cable will diminish high frequency roll-off, reproducing an audibly more accurate sound ..to a German Shepherd. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Oxygen Free and stranded audio cables.
In a message dated 9/3/2007 6:30:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Skip, when I lived in England 14 years ago, the audiophile discussions were centred around whether CDs sounded better when they had been stored overnight in the freezer. Now you wouldn't want to contradict that, would you? After all I heard it on the BBC! I think they were probably misunderstood and what they really meant was that a CD sounds better if you listen to them while IN the freezer. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermodulation Interference
Eric Your experience reads like an O.Henry short story and punch line. Right up till the end, I was convinced that you were going to find an external mix producing on-channel junk. Haven't most of those high power pagers moved up to 800 Mhz or higher? Bruce K7IJ ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] non-silver RG-214 was Lloyd is Well was Cable Lengths
Bob That doesn't square with the large body of repeater owners who have used Wacom cavities. Their UHF products used RG-142. However, their VHF products used a proprietary cable which had: MODIFIED RG-214 DOUBLE SHIELDED which was nothing more or less than RG-214 without silver plating. Despite anecdotal experiences like yours, I've never heard a complaint from anyone who used that Wacom modified cable regarding desense. Have you? Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 7/30/2007 2:04:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway. I couldn't find the piece I have that is silver plated at the time and I hate playing the mail order game. Hey, at least I didn't use 9913. Be careful about using non-silver-plated coax in a duplex line, even if it is double-shielded. I've had that stuff cause intermittent desense after being in service for a couple of years, it was indoors. Bob NO6B ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] non-silver RG-214 was Lloyd is Well was Cable Lengths
Be my guest. Lloyd supplied double shielded copper cables. In a message dated 7/30/2007 5:58:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do I need to call Lloyd again?? Steve NU5D Bob Dengler wrote: At 7/30/2007 02:21 PM, you wrote: Bob That doesn't square with the large body of repeater owners who have used Wacom cavities. Their UHF products used RG-142. However, their VHF ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lloyd is Well was Cable Lengths
In a message dated 7/27/2007 11:16:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to Lloyd, the cable length between a duplexer and an inline cavity filter and the receiver makes little or no difference. This simply doesn't square with the advice Lloyd gave me during the eighties. For example, he personally set up three sets of VHF systems for me. Two of them were specials, i.e., the standard WP-642 duplexer plus an additional 8 inch pure pass cavity on each side - a total of six bottles. Lloyd supplied all of the interconnects between the duplexer cans and also supplied the cables between the duplexer and the pass cavities. To minimize possible cable interaction I told Lloyd that I wanted to change the cable length between the duplexer and the pass cavities. He said, no, he wouldn't recommend that and that the cable was selected to provide optimum phasing of the duplexer and pass cavitity curves. And when I tried substituting a different cable length, the tracker indeed did show a different composite curve. I subsequently had Lloyd set up two UHF specials - the standard WP-678 plus WP-478 pure pass cans. Lloyd specified the cable length between the duplexer and the pass cavity as 9 1/2 for the low pass and 9 1/4 for the high pass (not including N connectors. When I told him that there was no way I could physically arrange the cans using this cable length, he said, no problem, he would use a multiple and the cables that came with the pass cavities were 20 1/4 for the low pass and 20 for the high pass (including connectors). Now, if the cable length between the duplexer and the pass cavity was of little or no difference, why would Lloyd would have suggested and provided a half wave multiple length? Why wouldn't he have said use any length that works for you? Bruce K7IJ ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coax length between added cavity and duplexer - test r...
Jeff Just a dynamite presentation. Thanks for the effort. BTW, where are you (The analysis is dated July 29) Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 7/27/2007 10:19:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I performed an experiment per previous discussion. The results are available at: _http://www.broadscihttp://wwhtt_ (http://www.broadsci.com/900.pdf) Apologies in advance for the terse verbage and any typos; I was trying to get it done quickly between real work projects. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. --- Jeff ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coax length between added cavity and duplexer - test r...
Understood. But take comfort. You're not alone. Report is that everybody in Philadelphia is warped. In a message dated 7/27/2007 6:05:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just a dynamite presentation. Thanks for the effort. BTW, where are you (The analysis is dated July 29) I'm caught in a time warp in Philadelphia. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lloyd is Well was Cable Lengths
Jeff No question about that - cable lengths between the duplexer cavities is critical and just as critical are the lengths between the duplexer and the Tee that feeds the antenna. Your test equipment is unquestionably more sophisticated than my tracker but I wonder about the figure you recorded for the BP BR pass attenuation at .0953. That seems awfully low. I would expect to see something in the whereabouts of .5 db. While your pix indicates that the composite pass curve isn't significantly affected by the cable length from duplexer to pass cavity, they sure as hell show how significantly the reject curves are sensitive to cable length - one significantly and the other dramatically. Because of the division scale you used you aren't displaying any changes that take place w-a-y out of band and Murphy's law being what it is, this might be significant in certain situations. It can get even more curious than the reject curves you display. For example, the 9 1/2 cable that Lloyd initially scheduled between the duplexer and the pass cavity produced a slightly asymmetrical curve slightly steeper on the high side with a quasi-pass spike to -40db at 342.4 Mhz with little rise from the noise floor on the high side through 540Mhz. But when he lengthened this cable to 19 1/4, the low side quasi-pass spike shifted to 362.9 Mhz on the low side and a new -40 db quasi-pass high side spike appeared at 508.1 Mhz. Go figure. I don't much care for right angle connecters either although I don't have any solid evidence to support it.. I much prefer in-line stretchers which permit more subtle changes. Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 7/27/2007 6:00:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to Lloyd, the cable length between a duplexer and an inline cavity filter and the receiver makes little or no difference. Steve, Was the question posed (or probably misunderstood as being) whether the cable length between the receiver and the filter being critical, or the cables between filter sections being critical? If the latter, then I would have to humbly disagree with the answer, as theory and personal experience, as well as the results of the test earlier today, has been to the contrary. --- Jeff ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coax length between added cavity and duplexer
What do you think a half wave interconnect at some unwanted frequency is going to to the pass curve at the desired frequency? If your sole concern is rejection of an unwanted frequency, hey, there is even a more effective way to do it - cut the cable in half. n a message dated 7/26/2007 10:32:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So ideally if you want the most rejection a cable that provides a half wave length at the unwanted frequency will reflect that low impedance provided by the cavity skirt to the next port in the system at that frequency. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coax length between added cavity and duplexer
And if the mixing is someone else's PA with some outside RF energy - that's not properly characterized as intermod when it ends up on your input? In a message dated 7/26/2007 11:30:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ---Intermod means there is mixing in YOUR PA with some outside RF energy. Could be, could be not. You need to run all the frequencies used at your site in order to identify any possible 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on products. Or it might be a straight mix. BTW, what do you mean by interferenceby interferenceWBR? Are you hearing other signals o else? (knowing the 'sound' of the interference generally goes a long way at identifying it) ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coax length between added cavity and duplexer
Yes, indeed it is a critical length if if is your desire to superimpose the bandpass curve properly on the pass curve of the duplexer. It should be an electrical 1/4 wave that accounts for the velocity propagation of the cable plus the electrical length of the coupling element in the Celwave cavity. If your end user doesn't have a tracking generator, IMO, attempting this is an exercise in futility. If all the bottles were built by the same OEM you could probably get a figure from their tech support group but with different OEMs you are going to have to cut/add and try. First tune the duplexer for the desired pass and reject frequencies. Then tune the pass cavity for the desired pass frequency. Then glue it all together with an interconnect that guestimates a 1/4 wave including the coupling length in the pass cavity and look at on the tracking generator to see whether the pass curve gets steeper but remains essentially the same. It most likely will not. Add a couple of right angle adaptors to the interconnect and see if the pass curve distortion gets better or worse. If it's worse, shorten the interconnect cable and try again. If it gets better, lengthen the interconnect. Having said that, I think Skipp's point is well taken - if the junk is on channel, an additional pass cavity isn't going to eliminate it. BTW, are you using an isolator on the TX? K7IJ In a message dated 7/26/2007 5:11:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My question is whether the coax length is critical between the RX port of the Wacom duplexer and the input port of the Celwave cavity? I plan to send along a length of RG-393 (double shielded teflon coax) with the cavity. As far as I know, it is a random length. Should I cut it to something closer to 1/2 wavelength? 3/4 WL? ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[Repeater-Builder] Coax length between added cavities
Can we wind our way back to addressing the original query which asked if there is a critical length for the interconnect between a BP BR duplexer and added pure pass cavities? I can't speak for all bottle manufacturers, but I own 8 Wacom BP BR duplexer + pass cavity arrays some of which go back to the early eighties. Lloyd Alcorn was kind enough and patient enough to give me a pretty good nuts and bolts education on cavity characteristics. He said in no uncertain terms that there were optimum cable lengths for both the interconnects between the duplexer cavities and also an optimum length for any pure pass cavities added to the chain. For the added pure pass cavity, the optimum interconnect length would ensure that the pure pass curve would superimpose over the duplexer curve. When I did some experimenting with the pure pass cable length, it validated his point. If I significantly lengthened or shortened this cable, the tracking generator would indicate that the pass curve was no longer superimposed on the duplexer curve. It would either lead or lag the duplexer curve producing two results: 1) the composite curve began to show some distortion and 2) the total attenuation at the desired frequency was higher than when the optimum cable length (supplied by Lloyd) was used. So my take is that there are critical cable lengths involved for adding a pure pass cavity to a BP BR duplexer, but I would be interested to hear from anyone aboard who has the necessary hardware kicking around to repeat that experiment and either replicate or refute the results I got. As I said, my sole cavity experience has been with Wacoms, but I find it difficult to believe that this parameter is OEM specific. K7IJ ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Acronyms-a little OT
In the original pristine FUBAR, did R stand for Repair or Recognition? In a message dated 7/7/2007 9:18:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And don't forget FUBAR - way worse than SNAFU. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Acronyms-a little OT
Where did the expression No Joy originate to indicate an unsuccessful repair effort? In a message dated 7/8/2007 7:19:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) , Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Readers who have a military background may also remember: My favorite military acronym is NRTS, not for what it means (not repairable this station), but how it was used. NRTS the damn thing and lets go surfing. Which translates to take this piece of equipment that we're suppose to fix out back and shoot it, put a NRTS/battle damage tag on it and ship it back to the states. Made for an easy work load. No I wasn't in the military, but I worked with an ex-military Vietnam era radio tech who had many colorful stories. 73's Skip WB6YMH ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Acronyms-a little OT
Well, let's not forget the grand daddy of them all: WTF! ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula
Doesn't the isolator typically installed at the transmitter output spin off any anything reflected from the duplexer (or the feedline) into it's load? In a message dated 7/1/2007 5:33:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But at some off frequency that is not 50+j0 that impedance is going to get transformed into something yet again by the time the cable reaches the transmitter. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula
Sure, a UHF isolator will not protect the transmitter from VHF transmitter junk. But isn't the flip side that out of band VHF junk is less likely to produce UHF transmitter intermod than in band transmitter junk? And also, while a VHF band pass cavity might do its job resisting unwanted in band stuff, doesn't this cavity still easily pass undesired junk at frequency multiples? In a message dated 7/1/2007 8:49:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As an example of the limitations of an isolator, a UHF isolator on a UHF repeater isn't going to isolate your PA very well from highband signals coming down the line. A bandpass cavity between the isolator and the duplexer will. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Line Stretcher
Line stretchers/shrinkers were also built by Kings Connectors (I have five of them) but I don't see them in their catalog any longer. They modified a female N barrel to mate with the shoulder of a male UG-21 that permits the barrel to thread in and out of the UG-21, effectively varying the length of the device. There is a total range of about 1/2 inch, so if you center the stretcher before inserting it in the line, all you get is about 1/4 inch of range either way. That range applied to an interconnect at 1.2 gig is useful to correct an impedance mismatch. AT 440, there is not sufficient range to make a correction but will tell you which way you want to alter the cable length to effect a correction when viewed on a Bird 43 at the duplexer output. At VHF, a 1/4 correction is not sufficient to nudge a Bird 43, but you can see it on a Bird 4381 digital meter. In any event, the stretchers are not an exact way to measure the optimum cable length because the stretchers are air line devices and have a different velocity propagation constant from coaxial cable. The same matching issue prevails on the receiver side, but in most cases, the noise floor at the site would mask any improvement that cable matching would produce at the receiver. I don't think as a discrete measure that optimizing transmitter to duplexer cables results in any improvement for the listener, but in concert with the myriad of other measures you take to optimize system performance, it's worth doing. A little bit here, a little bit there - it adds up. In a message dated 6/30/2007 3:11:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ian, I owe you an apology for my comment about striped tower paint in response to your 'Line Stretcher' post. I never thought of using such a tool on a short line between a transmitter and duplexer. I was thinking such was used in AM broadcast delay lines with phased towers, and never though of using such to correct such minuscule variations as might be found in a VHF or UHF duplexer and it's connection to a radio transmitter. I wonder how many dB of improvement might be achieved optimizing such minor differences and what kind of a jump in S Meter readings folks on the receiving end might realize? 73, Steve NU5D ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula
Do you recall if the leakage you observed was on channel or whether it was broadband noise? In a message dated 6/30/2007 3:53:42 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The cable leakage stopped when the z matcher was removed and the cable length was altered for optimum. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula
I don't think I ever suggested otherwise. I never said that using a half wave cable would improve anything. What I did say was that a half wave cable would repeat the prevailing condition neither making it better or worse and I further said that using any variation from a half wave cable could either mitigate the mismatch or aggravate it. Having said that, I still think that whatever measures you want to undertake to improve matching, utilizing a half-wave cable is the most coherent way to start. In a message dated 6/30/2007 8:54:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Point being, if there is a mismatch, using a half wave cable does nothing to improve your chances of making your PA happy any more than would a quarter wave cable or any other random length. Without knowing the actual impedences involved, your odds of making an improvement using an X-length cable (pick your favorite value for X) are 50/50, nothing more, nothing less. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula
Jeff You make some excellent points. Thanks! Bruce K7IJ ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula
Can't argue with your analysis. My only point is that if you are intent on dealing with a TX to duplexer mismatch, a half wave cable replicates what ever mismatch exists. A random length cable can mask the real world condition by making the apparent mismatch better or worse than it really is. Do you have any thoughts on why or how a well designed Z match could produce cable radiation? In a message dated 6/30/2007 1:03:51 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I was getting at was that the rule-of-thumb you recommended, i.e. sticking with a half-wave cable, doesn't give you any better or any worse of a chance in getting the right match. The rule could just as well be whatever cable is long enough to get from the transmitter to the duplexer and it would have just as good of a chance in making the PA happy. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Repeater-Builder] Cable formula
Why would the presence or absence of +/- J affect the determination of whether or not the feedline is functioning as an impedance transformer? When the source and load impedances are different, even though purely resistive, won't the connecting cable still act as a line transformer? In a message dated 6/29/2007 11:39:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the output of the PA and the input of the duplexer were purely resistive, the cable length would be irrelevant. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ---BeginMessage--- Why would the presence or absence of +/- J affect the determination of whether or not the feedline is functioning as an impedance transformer? When the source and load impedances are different, even though purely resistive, won't the connecting cable still act as a line transformer? In a message dated 6/29/2007 11:39:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the output of the PA and the input of the duplexer were purely resistive, the cable length would be irrelevant. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ---End Message---
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula
A good quality Z-Matcher has isolation caps on the trimmer ports so I don't think the matcher itself is producing any RF radiation. I don't understand your description of the z Matcher as introducing any mismatch. The mismatch is already there as a result of some disparity between the source, load and cable impedances. All the matcher does is permit you to match the source and cable impedances. In a message dated 6/29/2007 4:40:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The z matcher is another option but in my practical experience it makes the jumper radiate RF you spend all that money on RG214/RG400 double silver plated shielding and then deliberatley mismatch it? Ian Ashford G8PWE ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Att'n: Mike Morris
Mike Morriss is a little flaky. I sent him some old Motorola stuff at no charge, even paid for the shipping myself and despite repeated subsequent inquiries, he never even acknowledged receiving it much less any appreciation for the effort. Good luck. Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 6/28/2007 7:27:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Were you still interested in those Johnson PPL6060's? I've sent you a couple of messages that they were boxed up ready to go, but haven't heard back George ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
I think you're off the mark. The paragraph you cite indicates his confidence in operating the site but his predominant questions went to the wisdom of and the potential pitfalls involved in acquiring the site in the first place. To me, looking for second opinions regarding this from an amateur community as broadly constituted as this forum provides, is a sign of intelligence. I don't think he is looking for a confirmation of everything he already knows but rather a confirmation of what he has concluded so far. When did that become a sin? Sory he's wasted your time. He sure didn't waste mine. In a message dated 6/19/2007 1:53:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christopher Hodgdon wrote: Please understand that our ARES groups parent organization is an international non-profit emergency response organization made up of volunteers from all walks of life and all areas. AS such, we have a highly qualified pool of resources to maintain and operate such a facility along with everything else we deal with. All the budgeting was actually determined before the facility was ever placed up for sale. Your tone makes it sound like you've already been through all of the issues people took the time to point out, so why did you ask? LOL! Waste of all our time, unless you were just looking for confirmation of everything you already know. Perhaps you didn't mean to sound that way, but that's the way your replies are coming across. Go purchase the site and do whatever you're going to do then, since you already have everything covered. Get 'er done. Nate WY0X ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coax
Man, that's some beefy conventional coax. It's a 50 ohm cable.The center conductor is .195, with two silver plated shields.Attenuation is 2.5 db per 100', compared to 5.0 db 100' for RG-214 and 1.42db per 100' for 1/2 Heliax hardline. It's a high power cable designed for RF voltages up to 11,000 and I'll hazard the guess that a typical application would be high power radar systems. Nothing wrong with this stuff but where you might run into difficulty is scrounging connectors for it without paying an arm and a leg. The male connector is a UG204/CU or UG204/DU. Long runs of this stuff used in an environment subject to wide temperature variations should use a captive contact connector which is available from Kings Connector, part no. KN59-177. It may end up being more cost effective to sell the stuff for scrap and buy 1/2 hardline and connectors with the proceeds. In a message dated 6/18/2007 8:46:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi- Kind of off subject- our group was given a bunch of RG177U,Looks to be heavy duty coax. Would anyone know impedance ,and if it can be used for repeater usage? Tks,Jerry ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
In a message dated 6/17/2007 12:29:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tell that to the hams who have been fined for non-compliant towers they don't own. Talking the talk is easy. Walking the walk is harder. Sweeping generalities don't cut it. Urban myths don't cut it. I prefer to put my money where my mouth is. Identify one ham who is a contract paying permittee (not a co-owner or partner in the tower enterprise) who has actually coughed up a monetary forfeiture under FCC Part 17.6 and you're a hundred bucks richer. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tennants Fined???
Steve Thanks for the citation. That was then, but this is now. Read FCC Part 17, section 17.6 which is the current regulation involving tower deficiencies. It comes down to this: the tower owner has the primary responsibility for both making himself aware of any tower deficiency(s) and correcting them. The site manager, if there is one, has secondary responsibility. The site users, aka permittees, are not charged with actively examining the tower for compliance. Indeed in most current contexts, most permittees are not allowed anywhere near the tower. However, if one or more permittees in fact becomes aware of some non-compliance, such as the failure of lights etc, under 17.6, they have tertiary responsibility, not for clearing the deficiency, but fonly or notifying the site owner, the site manager and the FCC of the deficient condition. Only if the FCC so instructs the permittees, are they required to correct the condition and the permittees have the alternative of pulling out their equipment and vacating the premises. However, if the permittees elect to remain, and the site owner and/or manager is unable or unwilling to make the corrections, the permittees could be subject to monetary forfeitures for their failure to collectively correct the condition. Interestingly, nothing in Part 17 indicates who has to pay for the corrections effected by the permittees if so instructed by the FCC. If it did come to such an impasse, that would probably have to be resolved with litigation by the permittees. So the answer is yes, ultimately, site users could be subjected to fines for owner malfeasance, but only after a long and convoluted process in which they are duly notified by the FCC they have been given the burden of correcting the problem themselves. Bottom line: it may have counted historically, but 17.6 was drafted specifically to prevent a site owner from casually shifting the responsibility for correcting tower deficiencies on the site users who presumably are paying site fees. If the site users have any business connection involving the site other than as renters of vault and tower space, then it becomes an entirely different story. Rgds Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 6/17/2007 12:37:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't know if this counts or not. _http://findarticleshttp://findartichttp://fihttp://findhttp://find_ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3457/is_n21_v10/ai_12712168) Personally, I do not know. Steve NU5D ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You..... tower height question
It's worse than you think. Since you are now aware that the ground is 75 feet too high, you are legally required to bulldoze the mountaintop down even if you don't construct the tower. It all has to go to an EPA site where it is examined for cosmic contamination and evidence of any endangered species. Then it has to be loaded in containers and dumped at sea no less than 200 miles from any U.S. coast. The only way you can avoid this grim chain of events is to shut down your computer, destroy the hard drive, sell your house and move to Zimbabwe which has no extradition treaty. In a message dated 6/17/2007 1:04:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am being funny, just a bit but it did come back saying the ground was 75 feet higher than allowed by the FAA. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This?
It's a perfect Catch-22. You're not qualified unless you have climbed the tower, but you can't climb the tower unless you're qualified. In a message dated 6/17/2007 11:50:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Silly question #1: just how does one become a qualified climer? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] IFr Service
Shorty Considering how many IFR units there are on the west coast, it's really remarkable that nobody has filled a regional niche for dealing with IFR and Cushman service monitors. To the best of my knowledge, the closest repair facility is Cardinal Electronics in the midwest. The freight and insurance costs become a significant portion of the entire repair bill. BTW, there are different levels of calibration standards with different associated calibration charges. Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 6/17/2007 2:19:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Group, I need calibration and service repair for my IFR 1200S, and was hoping there is a good service guy located out here on the West Coast. It seems to me I remember someone mentioning a good service shop located out here on the West Coast. Can someone refresh my memory? Thanks... Jeff (Shorty) Stouffer, K6JSI Home: 760/ 724-4020 Cell: 760/ 716-7033 The WIN System The American Red Cross winsystem.org flataudio.com ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Repeater-Builder] Monetary Forfeitures
The only reason I've even addressed the dire warnings is that I would hate to see someone elect not to take advantage of a great site out of concern about paying humongous fines for problems that neither have been caused by the tenant nor practically capable of being eliminated or mitigated by the tenant. Having said that, if you are actually taking over a site, that is something to be cautious about because at the moment you take over effective control of the site, you have inherited the obligation to correct its regulatory deficiencies. It's analogous to buying a house. If the seller sells you a house without proper permits, you may have a beef with the seller, but local code enforcement considers the problem and the solution to be yours. As a practical matter, there is more than one government involved in this sort of issue. The FCC is a regulatory agency with considerable discretion, but their regulations can't be inconsistent with the enabling legislation. Historically, it was Goliaths like Motorola who would hide behind their corporate shield and pushed for holding the site tenants accountable for the condition of the site. But they pushed it a bridge too far and in the face of a Congressional proposal to totally immunize site tenants, Part 17.6 was a compromise resolution that clearly defined who was responsible and what they were responsible for. Last thing - the news you generally hear and remember is an announcement that the FCC has levied a monetary forfeiture on some party. What you don't hear is that the forfeiture amount often is reduced if not entirely remitted if the infraction is unintended with eventual compliance. And you also don't hear about people who take their case before an Administrative Law Judge who may have no qualms about telling the FCC that their proposed action is either too harsh or even entirely out of line. The FCC wins some - and they lose some. The point is that, if push comes to shove, it is ultimately the ALJ, not the FCC that sustains or kicks any monetary fine proposal. K7IJ In a message dated 6/17/2007 12:36:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, X writes: I like your attitude. Far too many people repeat what they've heard as if it's the hard truth when in reality they don't have all the facts. Not saying he doesn't know of one (because I don't have all the facts!) but it seems either very doubtful he'll come up with a victim or our government is way out of line on this issue (too!). ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This?
Paul Does Comtrain train you on the tower you want to be climbing or do you train on their own tower? Bruce In a message dated 6/17/2007 4:31:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello, Actually there are companies out there that train tower hands, one is Comtrain. They are pretty good about it. Anyone going up my tall tower is supposed to be Comtrained or have some kind of certification. Paul ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
This must really be an event to look forward to because typically, the thing over which a system owner has the least control is the condition of the site itself. You will be able to control the pairs that are used on the site to ensure that there is no on channel, adjacent channel or off channel interference. Also you will be able to define what represents adequate filtering etc. But you have to be aware of some realities. Make sure you know who is responsible for maintenance and repair of all portion of the road or right-of-ways used to access and operate the site. Make sure that any pre-existing right-of-ways, road easements etc are not erased by the transfer. The site as it exists is undoubtedly grand fathered by the agency that controls development in the area of the site. In the 50s there was little, if any, environmental assessments required for such construction and use. To build this site anew would probably require the necessary finds from a dozen or more agencies and if your site is typical, the hoops you have to jump through for permits to augment or even change the footprint of the site, are insufferable. To be conservative, assume that not only is what you see, what you got - assume that it's all you'll ever get. Hopefully, the remaining tank is above ground. Underground tanks are a disaster waiting to happen. Diesel fuel is not particularly stable over the long term and If I had the bucks to do it, I'd convert the emergency generator to propane. If you will actually own the property, check to ensure that the site is not located in an area that is being considered by a state or federal agency for eminent domain proceedings to include in a recreation area. Check with the assessor's office to determine if the sale will change the property taxes. If there is more than one parcel involved, it is a good idea to title the parcels differently so that some agency can't merge the parcels at their whim. All considered, I think it's a terrific chance to do what you like to do and to do it right. In a message dated 6/17/2007 5:57:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By George I have not seen this much talk about one topic for a while. This as really been an interesting topic. I will go in a little more on this. This former ATT facility was built in the early in 1950's. It is one of the totally self-contained facilities with no windows or access to the outside world, expect through air-tight doors. It 2 stories 1 above and 1 below ground. It had 3 fuel tanks for its, generator, but here in Texas like most places 2 of them were removed, as they were underground tanks and ATT did not want to pay to have them updated. The building plans and the radio license for the station place the top of the tower at 189'. No lighting or painting required. What is amazing is that the paint is in very good shape for a station that has not been in operation since the early 1970's. Yep ATT has held on to this site for 30+ years without using it. According to records that I have seen, any enviromental issue has been taken care of, former tower paint, abatement, etc. Plus no information regarding this not having been done, has been enclosed in any of the paperwork for the sale of the facility, which I know in Texas is required to be disclosed, plus in that case, with any facility that I have dealt with on a business point, the seller is responsible for all proper repairs, or services to get the facility up to par. Tower climber certification, that is not an issue. If the ownership of the facility does fall into our hands, it will be actually owned by our parent group, which is an international emergency response organization and most members are required to be certified. I really have enjoyed all the input from those out there, and if our dream does come around, I will be sure to come back and update everyone and include photos of the facility. Maybe one day ya'll might come down and visit. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
This is deeply weird. I've never heard of (at least around here) of any taxing entity that could assign a value to any real property in excess of fair market value which is essentially the purchase price for the property in what is commonly termed an arms length transaction. I believe that most states have language in their Constitutions to preclude valuations in excess of FMV, that, but of course, we're talking about Texas now, where most anything can and does go. In this case because it is going to be owned by a non-profit, there are no taxes with some insignificant exceptions like local lighting and sanitary districts. I'll bet the money grubbers in the assessor's office will be wailing in their beer if and when you take title as a non-profit. And, of course, as a non-profit, it's perfectly OK to accept charitable donations from site users. There must be electrician blood in your heritage because you sure seem to have this wired! In a message dated 6/17/2007 7:42:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking to the new owner about the site. We might be able to work a deal with him to get it. He is somewhat unhappy with it, as it does not suit his needs and he is paying more taxes on it, than he thought. He thought he would only pay taxes on what he paid for the site, and no releases that he say to pay the determined value from the county which is nearly 400,000 or 500, dollar more than he paid for it. Oops, maybe he should have checked first. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RF RCA Plugs and/or cables
Do these things have anything that even resembles a 50 ohm impedance or do they typically look at a network that accounts for a different impedance? In a message dated 6/17/2007 7:19:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The RF Connection. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Bob M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com) Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:09 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] RF RCA Plugs and/or cables Did anybody ever come up with a source for the short RCA plugs that fit older Motorola and GE radios? Even some with RG58 molded on would be useful. Or is the solution to buy a particular hollow audio RCA plug, snip the end off, and round it over? Bob M. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
In a message dated 6/16/2007 5:38:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While this is true, ANYONE at the site can be fined for non-compliance - even a ham radio group who is prohibited from climbing the tower or making repairs. It doesn't matter who owns the tower anymore. It used to be that only the tower owner was responsible. Now, everyone at the site is. What FCC or CFR regulatory language holds a site tenant responsible any site owner's deficiency that doesn't involve the tenant's equipment? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Which coax cables to use with repeaters?
Other than Heliax hardline, RG-214 is undoubtedly the best choice for cable, but having said that, while Wacom used RG-142 on their uhf duplexer, they used cable labeled: Modified RG-214 DOUBLE SHIELDED which did not have silver plating on the shields. I talked with Lloyd Alcorn at Wacom regarding this some 25 years ago and he felt that for interior use for duplexer connections, double shielded copper conductors with a low migration outer cover would not oxidize sufficiently to produce any noise. I recently opened up one of their VHF duplexer interconnect cables and it looked like it was made up that day. Has anyone aboard experienced any problems with their cables? In a message dated 6/15/2007 9:44:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Plus, a lot is said about dissimilar metals here, but same-metal braids, if not silver plated, create the same problems very often. RG213 should be avoided for this reason, and, the non-silver plated braids of some RG214, for example. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Repeater-Builder] SSI 202 DTMF chips
I thought I sent these chips to everyone that asked for them but I still have three left. Who did I miss? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Would You Do This?
In a message dated 6/15/2007 8:19:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh come on! Do you have something against ATT. If you do – don’t do it! What a stupid question! Is it going to “sting you?” Do you think it has some “high voltage” on it that might “tickle you?” Why would you ask such a stupid question? A moron is born every day. W6CBS He may or may not be a moron, but at least he's not an obnoxious loud mouth. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Would You Do This?
In a message dated 6/15/2007 8:58:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All right, please lets be nice about this. Some people would say that I am a moron, but that is until you get to know me better. You're lucky. I've got the opposite problem - people don't know I'm a moron until they get to know me better. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Repeater-Builder] RC-810
In a message dated 5/15/2007 1:01:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He'll have all sorts of great info about our line of products, including our new RC810! I looked for details regarding the RC-810 on the website you provided but I can't find any reference to to this controller there. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need a UHF module for Icom 901/900
In a message dated 5/13/2007 2:43:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyone got a UHF module (UX-49A) for the Icom 900/901 ? I've seen these things around once in a while. What's the going price for these module relics? Bruce K7IJ ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need a UHF module for Icom 901/900
jI'll keep an eye open for you. Because they were scheduled for two repeaters, I ended up with a UX-39, a UX-29 and two interfaces, but no 440 module. I'm not interested in one but I'll kieep an eye open for you and if I spot one I'll send up a flare. a message dated 5/13/2007 3:00:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I saw one sell for $114 on ebay about 2 months ago. I sure wish I had bid on it. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 13 May 2007 04:58:01 PM CDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need a UHF module for Icom 901/900 In a message dated 5/13/2007 2:43:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes: Anyone got a UHF module (UX-49A) for the Icom 900/901 ? I've seen these things around once in a while. What's the going price for these module relics? Bruce K7IJ ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Repeater-Builder] SSI 202/203
For those of you who asked for some of these chips, I have had my hands ful with a bunch of other stuff this week and will get them in the mail next week. Bruce K7IJ ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Repeater-Builder] Rex Bassett antenna
Does anybody have an old Rex Bassett antenna catalog that can identify a VAC-2 helium collinear? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Repeater-Builder] SSI DTMF receivers
I have about 18 new in package Silicon Systems SSI 202/203 Low-Power DTMF receiver chips with data sheet that I'd be glad to give to anyone aboard that can use them. Bruce K7IJ ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 3 minute timeout. FCC regulation or myth
In a message dated 5/2/2007 7:21:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 5/2/2007 05:34, you wrote: The 3 minutes comes from the FCC requirement that should your control device fail the repeater shut duwn within 3 minutes. That's in Part 97. Joe M. Correct, but it does not mean that a repeater must have a 3 minute activity timer. Not only isn't there a time out limitation - didn't the FCC also eliminate the permissible length of the repeater hangtail which would permit for all (im)practical puroses, a constant carrier? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] TS-32 story
In a message dated 5/2/2007 9:51:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just off the phone with Comm Spec about the TS-32 ctcss enc/dec unit/board. Seems the reason they discontinued the unit was the chip supplier Hughes gave them short notice about no longer making the main IC. Seems hard to believe. Discontinuing the TS-32 is akin to discontinuing vanilla ice cream. I'm looking for the TS-32 wire end pin connectors. I believe they are an Amp Terminal Pin of some type? Anyone know of a part number and/or source for these connectors? Comm Spec no longer carries/has them available in any serious qty. I've got about 100 of them on a ribbon and can let you have some if you end up short handed. I believe I found them at Mike Quinns when they were on Airport Blvd in Oak. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Preamp
In a message dated 5/2/2007 7:40:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can anyone who uses a Advanced Research Preamp on Your Repeater Answer this question ,If the Preamp goes Bad dos that just put the Receive back to where it would be without the Pre Amp in Line or will it actually because it went bad Attenuate the Receive. I don't know what db loss you would experience if there is a component failure within the preamp, but if you simply power it down, the db loss across the preamp is approximately 35db. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Preamp
In a message dated 5/2/2007 8:23:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It’s on a 220 Micor Repeater custom built By Kevin, Preamp is Not necessary anyway. Don't they use the Ramsey preamp on those conversions? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Repeater-Builder] Motorola Belt Clips
If anybody aboard can use a couple of Motorola swivel belt clips 42C82421J06, I'll throw them in the mail to you. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Cell Phone Yagi
In a message dated 4/20/2007 6:17:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Beware!!! It is a violation of FCC rules to install and operate a BDA without the permission of the licensee, and this includes cellular! Many illegally and improperly installed BDA's have been shut down by the FCC and authorities in the last few years, primarily due to interference they were creating. Go to: _http://www.rfsolutihttp://_ (http://www.rfsolutions.com/) for information. Rubbish. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT: Cell Phone Yagi - More Info.
In a message dated 4/20/2007 8:44:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The longest run of coax would be under 30 feet so I should be able to use LMR-400 for the feed line. The one thing I'm not sure about is how to connect the coax to the phone. Is there an adaptor that would go between the little jack on the phone and then to one of the more common coax connectors like a TNC or SMA or some such thing? For starters, you need a cell phone that has an external antenna port. Some of them don't. For 30 feet I would put the money into a high gain yagi and first see the results with RG-213 which of course has higher losses than LMR or Heliax, but for 30 feet it may not make a serious difference. A short pigtail of RG-58 to make the phone less cumbersome to use won't hurt much either. The adaptors for the cell phone antenna port are available from Cellantenna. They offer an adaptor for virtually every cell phone there is. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A tale of two monitors: IFR COM120B vs HP8920A
In a message dated 4/20/2007 9:14:56 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have one of each. Bought the 120B new from Hutton, the 8921 Used from RF Imaging. Both have nice features. I prefer the 8921. Steve NU5D Steve Do you know what is a reasonable price for a used Com-120B with the tracker and filter options? And what functions are available on the 120B that are not on the 1500? Bruce K7IJ ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Cell Phone Yagi
In a message dated 4/20/2007 10:18:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WRONG!!!WRONG!!!WBR!!! GO TO THE WEB PAGE READ THE RULES!!! IDIOT -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL More rubbish. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A tale of two monitors: IFR COM120B vs HP8920A
In a message dated 4/20/2007 10:17:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A good starting place for pricing would be _www.rfimaging.www_ (http://www.rfimaging.com/) - this is where I bought my HP8921. Happy Camper. Steve Thanks Steve, I forgot that source. I know Paul. He used to be a regular here around the SF Bay area until he upped and relocated to Vegas. He has some very nice stuff. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Price On A Station Master VHF Repeater Antenna
In a message dated 4/19/2007 10:37:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tessco is discounting them for as low as $687.28 I think freight for these puppies is well over $100. Will Tessco offer their gold cost schedule to individuals? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Cell Phone Yagi
I am using a Cellantenna CAY15 15db yagi which costs about eighty bucks which seemed more cost effective to me than spending a lot of time finding the stock to build one. Works well and pattern is pretty narrow. They use a female TNC termination on the antenna. _www.cellantenna.com_ (http://www.cellantenna.com) _Click here: Yagi Directional Antennas_ (http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/yagi.htm) ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Cell Phone Yagi
In a message dated 4/19/2007 5:42:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Doug, my opinions and experimentations about Yagi cellular antenna are: 1- Very difficult to tune with spectrum analyser or bird, affected by hand effect. 2- Need a good heliax between radio and antenna. 3- Sometimes an omni 3dB is better than a Yagi. 4- Sometimes Yagi 7el. and more are really sharp in radiation pattern and difficult to align. I utilize a cellular repeater with a 15db gain yagi: 2. For runs up to 50 feet, LMR-400 will do fine. For runs less than 25 feet, Rg-213 works OK. 3. Why would you ever want a low gain omni antenna when you're struggling to snag enough signal to operate a cell phone? The site you are looking for is, by and large, going to be low level, not up on a mountain top. 4. Yes, high gain yagis are indeed sharp in radiation pattern but that's a plus, not a minus. It helps the cell phone capture and stick with one cell site rather than running searches. What is the difficulty in aligning the antenna? Assuming you have a cell phone with an external antenna port, you glue the yagi to it and make incremental azimuth changes until you peak the signal. Although they don't advertise it, many cell phones have a maintenance and service screen that will show you the actual -db level of the signal and the channel you are acquiring. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Replacement of an older Repeater
In a message dated 4/15/2007 9:10:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought manufacturers were required by some obscure law (federal?) to be able to supply parts for any item marketed for 7 years after it's sale... or maybe I was dreaming. There are such laws, but as a practical matter they are worthless because there is no cap on what they can charge for replacement parts. The most prolific abuser of these laws with astronomical replacement parts cost for older models is the automobile industry. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Mastr II mobile in repeater service Noise in recei...
In a message dated 4/13/2007 10:26:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2 problems: one is the LMR400. If it's brand new the connectors are correct (made especially for LMR400 properly installed), it should be OK for now but expect problems later. The other, probably more severe problem is the Cushcraft antenna. Unless I'm mistaken, that model hasn't been produced in several years, so the phasing harness is automatically several years old. The braided shield of the phasing harness is not made with silver-plated coax, so it will generate duplex noise. Replacing the antenna is the only good solution. If that simply can't be done, you might be able to cure the problem by stacking several pass cavity filters on the TX to strip off as much noise off of your TX as possible. When there's no TX phase noise, there's no noise to convert back to the input to cause the scratchy noise you hear. However, IMD from other sources may still be a problem. Bob NO6B Bob I'm a little confused by this analysis. If the copper phasing harness oxidizes and starts generating noise, I was under the impression that the noise point is for all practical purposes a low level broadband noise generator. If it is broadbanded, how can additional filtering on on the TX side dissipate what is essentially low level on-channel receiver noise. What am I mising here? Thanks Bruce K7IJ ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
