His antenna could be in a null. It happens, as Murphy is a ham.
Joe M.
W3ML wrote:
Thanks to everyone for their comments and answers about my questions.
I did turn it back so I am sure someone will say something. Once when a ham
said he could not hit it, I drove over and sat outside his
values from its previous home.
They need to be reset to FACTORY default for CONVENTIONAL stations.
Non-trunking=no RF sensor = Factory setpoint value of 00,FF.
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote:
How do you set it back to normal?
Joe M.
Richard Arnold wrote
It's not a real Ringo unless it's a very, very early one. The Ringos
used round (whatever that is called at the bottom - the ring part).
They also had the feedpoint come perpendicular to the ring rather than
(what appears to be) parallel gamma matched.
Joe M.
La Rue Communications wrote:
Yes, it can run split tone/code. I tried it to confirm it.
But, it will not run both tone *and* code at the same time. If you
select one, it 'zeroes out' the other.
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
I see from the manual that the TX RX CTCSS frequency settings are
separate. I'm wondering if
GE = BF10A
RCA = CH751
Joe M.
Pointman wrote:
Like most of the commercial stuff of that era, the unit was locked
into a car or truck instead of bolted in. It made for an easier repair
to just unlock it rather than unbolting everything. It sat in a cradle
with the locking
That's the ID mine has on it, and if you look it up on the FCC website,
you will find that it is Part 90 accepted for 136-174 MHz, and 406.1-470
MHz. Granted on 2/16/2010.
For those who are speculating about the legitimacy of the FCC ID, or the
fact that it exists: It does exist, it is printed
Oh, and they are also spec'ed for both 16K0F3E and 11K0F3E bandwidths.
Joe M.
MCH wrote:
That's the ID mine has on it, and if you look it up on the FCC website,
you will find that it is Part 90 accepted for 136-174 MHz, and 406.1-470
MHz. Granted on 2/16/2010.
For those who
Nope. In fact, only the higher end radios came with locks, and today
almost none of them come with locks.
Joe M.
Glenn (Butch) Kanvick wrote:
All commercials radios have locks on them.
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
?
Ah yes...the old BF-10aI have one.. a little beat up, would love to
have a pristine one, just in case.
KM3W
*From:* MCH m...@nb.net
*To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Sun, August 29
I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to
unintelligibility on any significant scale?
Joe M.
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 8/27/2010 8:18 PM, wb6dgn wrote:
If you reduce the modulation without reducing the receiver bandwidth, then,
yes, the range will be reduced.
.
Tom
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wb6dgn wb6...@... wrote:
Also, wouldn't Carson's rule mitigate that characteristic?
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH mch@ wrote:
I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to
unintelligibility on any
behave!
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote:
We were waiting for you to get busy with something else. :-P
Joe M.
wb6dgn wrote:
Hey, guys! I'm trying to rewire my workbench area and I can't keep my mind
on what I'm doing, thinking about this subject! Where were
The same, perhaps not, but wouldn't intelligibility decrease as the
quality degrades?
Joe M.
nj902 wrote:
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote:
I would agree with the quality issues, but does that really equate to
unintelligibility on any significant scale
They are Part 90 accepted and they work fine in the ham bands if you're talking
about the KG-UVD1P
Joe M.
On Sat 28/08/10 11:29 AM , terry dalpoas km...@yahoo.com sent:
This may be a dumb question, but I'll ask anyway. I saw some dual band
portables on eBay, new for about $100, made by
What you say is somewhat true, but last weekend I was with someone who had a
Yaesu, and he was picking up all kinds of overload while I was not.
Joe M.
On Sat 28/08/10 8:06 PM , Larry K wa0...@hughes.net sent:
My family and I have been using them for some time. They are kind of
wide on
How did they handle this back in the 60s/70s when I remember seeing
Adjusted for narrowband +/- 5 kHz stickers on the radios? Were those
factory stickers?
Joe M.
Eric Lemmon wrote:
Tom,
The narrowbanding kit produced by Communications Specialists and others is
for the receiver section,
Can you explain what that means?
Joe M.
n5qs wrote:
(Mototurbo can not operate at 6.25 KHz without infrastructure)
Interesting. A competing dealer is telling everyone they have to be
using digital by 2013. Yes, of course it's a lie, but they no doubt make
more on digital systems than they do analog.
On the larger scope, I can't wait to hear the uproar when/if the FCC
tells everyone who just purchased new
This makes no sense. On the same band, with the same power, and with the
same modulation type (analog) there is no reason there should be any
loss by lowering the deviation and narrowing the receiver.
If there was a change, it is not due to making the bandwidth more
narrow. Maybe the new
radio like an XTL5000, to a simple 4-freq PL Micor. Price tags are
pretty close until you factor in inflation.
*From:* MCH m...@nb.net
*To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Fri, August 27, 2010 2:53:55 PM
That loss is likely due to the switch to digital which is required for
6.25 kHz bandwidth, and not a function of the bandwidth itself.
Joe M.
Andrew Seybold wrote:
The FCC is re-thinking the move to 6.25 KHz based on the fact that
narrow band systems (and I have done a few of them) lose
Microchip has a battery maintenance kit. I saw one a couple weeks ago,
but did not purchase it. That may be what you are looking for - or at
least a good starting point. Sorry, but I don't have any part numbers.
Joe M.
wa1nvc wrote:
There is a product made by West Mountain Radio that will do
No, Scott. You were correct about the original thread - it went on
wy too long. It's just that the subject line was hijacked to a more
on-topic thread in the mean time.
Joe M.
Scott Zimmerman wrote:
Scott Zimmerman wrote:
This Has gone on WAY to long.
Ok, reading the rest of the
else in the mix, and it pretty much
happens for the full length of the page, it's likely a spur on the paging
transmitter, at least that's what I'd be looking at.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 20
.
Joe M.
Tim Sawyer wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at?
--
Tim
:wq
On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote:
Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input?
going to call splatter
that is like 30 Khz.
--
Tim
:wq
On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:14 AM, MCH wrote:
Many times (but not all), there will be a grungy sound with the spur.
Think of a very loud 60 cycle hum.
And 15 kHz is higher than normal. I think the typical shift is 5 kHz
(+/- 2.5 kHz
On Aug 21, 2010, at 12:18 PM, MCH wrote:
Before you said 15 kHz P-P (IOW bandwidth). Now you're saying 15 kHz
deviation. 15 kHz deviation would be way too high.
Joe M.
Tim Sawyer wrote:
I haven't noticed a hum. There's more of a scream on it.
It's POCSAG. Is that analog?
The dev
.
I see about 15 Khz peak to peak. Is that normal?
Also I see much bigger spikes.
--
Tim
:wq
On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote:
Again, just like a spur.
Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input?
Might also be worth putting the Spectrum
Most likely suspects would be 151.140 and 170.940 MHz.
Joe M.
Tim Sawyer wrote:
I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on 144.540 Mhz. I'm
100% sure there is another transmitter involved in the mix because sometimes
the pager is transmitting and I have no interference.
Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever)
Joe M.
Tim Sawyer wrote:
It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is
missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the
same time as the page.
--
Tim
:wq
On Aug 20,
wrote:
I'll watch those. How did you calculate them?
--
Tim
:wq
On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:38 PM, MCH wrote:
Most likely suspects would be 151.140 and 170.940 MHz.
Joe M.
Tim Sawyer wrote:
I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on 144.540
Mhz. I'm 100% sure
It's been a while since we needed these, but I used to make them all the
time for low band fire (33.70 and 46.38). As I recall, the stub is a
short to the opposite frequency - making the antenna appear to not be
there. Hence, all the power goes to the 'on frequency antenna'.
Congrats on the
Hmmm... maybe it was an open that was presented rather than a short...
Whichever make the off-frequency antenna appear to not be there.
Joe M.
Scott Zimmerman wrote:
skipp025 wrote:
The Catholic Church says only the rhythm method is allowed.
I SOMEHOW don't think that 'method' will help us
Upload the pics to the group PHOTOS section. Always nice to have stuff
like that available for reference.
Joe M.
David Jordan wrote:
I recently opened up a Polyphaser unit we used on one of our remote
sites… it covered both 2m and 70cm. We were experiencing poor receive
at the site.
I was wondering about that myself.
A couple of comments on the other aspects:
1. I see this as falling flat on its face. May as well mandate D-STAR.
2. How are the commercial people fitting SNFM in 7.5 kHz channels as
they have been doing on VHF?
Joe M.
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
How wide is it?
I would disagree with that. It is legal to 'open up' our radios.
What is illegal is actually transmitting on other services (genuine
emergencies exempted for the sake of argument).
Joe M.
Brian Raker wrote:
Please note that we are not allowed (i.e. it's illegal) to modify our
Part 97
Not even close.
Joe M.
Tim - WD6AWP wrote:
Are the CDM's similar to the Radius M1225?
connector.
That's about all that is the same. So, if you want to know how they are
different, well, anything other than the above.
Joe M.
Tim - WD6AWP wrote:
I guess you don't care to elaborate.
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote:
Not even close.
Joe M.
Tim - WD6AWP
About the only way is via a duplexer. (Cheap? Well... used??? ;- )
Joe M.
na4it wrote:
Is there a cheap way to combine two txcvrs into one antenna... 144.39 APRS
and 145.550 packet?
Explain to him that it's not legal, and tell him you would not be
comfortable doing something that is not legal, as you could jeopardize
your FCC license(s) which you have worked very hard to earn.
You can even show him the Part 95 rules where it has the limitations on
what equipment you can
The RANGR was only spec'ed at 5% duty cycle and would not make a very
good repeater transmitter. I don't recall the specs on the Delta offhand.
Joe M.
tomnevue wrote:
Has anyone made a VHF repeater using 2 Delta or Rangr radios? Were the
results OK? Any unexpected problems?
Tom
You could get a Magic Jack and keep the same phone number and
everything. The only thing that would change is the bill.
Of course, this requires an internet connection. But, the cost of that
plus the MJ could be lower than what you are paying now.
Joe M.
Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote:
At our
Does anyone know offhand:
a) when rebanding will be complete in the USA.
b) when it will be complete in PA.
Thanks,
Joe M.
If this happens to be near Saltsburg, look up the tower and I think you
will find the tower is bent from the trees pulling on the guy wires. At
least, it was that way about 10-15 years ago, and I doubt it has gotten
any better. I also doubt you will find anyone willing (read: dumb
enough) to
, the Ballsinger radio tower. I will always er on
the side of safety, if it is jumk I want no part of it. just trying to
determan if in worth the trouble..
Denny
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote:
If this happens to be near Saltsburg, look up the tower and I think
Simple answer: Do you have repeaters that cover the same area yours
would cover?
Joe M.
Lane wrote:
Hi all,
I've been interested in building a repeater for a while now, but before I do,
I guess the first step is in knowing whether or not a repeater is needed for
my area.
I live in
*Product* liability would be the responsibility of the manufacturer. Do
you REALLY want to assume responsibility should something happen due to
a product you sold? (like someone took the antenna off, and got an RF
burn from transmitting while sticking their finger in the antenna plug)
I really
The ones going to the third 'T' should be the same length to avoid
out-of-phase issues.
Joe M.
Larry Horlick wrote:
I have a drawing from Sinclair that shows 4 stacked folded dipoles (it
does not indicate an
antenna model) using all 50 ohm cable. So using the 210C4 harness
picture
I can't speak specifically of Sinclair, most all of the models I've used
will do either omni or cardioid by moving the elements. The spacing from
the mast stays the same.
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
On 5/18/2010 12:29 PM, Larry Horlick wrote:
I suspect that the harness does not affect the
Either that, or it was disinformation (although it's easy enough to
verify - I just didn't want to pick up the TT4 and look at it since it
was connected and operating). One of his products even has PIC in the name.
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
At 5/16/2010 02:57 AM, you wrote:
Actually,
Actually, Byonics is using the AT Mega (sp?). I specifically asked. At
least, that's what the TT4 is using.
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
At 5/15/2010 18:20, you wrote:
Sorry for the slightly OT post, but has anyone seen any PIC stuff at the
Hamvention? Looking for PICs, PIC manuals, PIC-based
Oh, and I was just looking for a Hamvention source for chips or other
related items. I've been playing with them, and wanted to find some good
deals. I have a couple development boards, and I've been writing code in
ASM.
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
At 5/15/2010 18:20, you wrote:
Sorry for
Sorry for the slightly OT post, but has anyone seen any PIC stuff at the
Hamvention? Looking for PICs, PIC manuals, PIC-based kits, Etc.
Thanks,
Joe M.
I would submit that the FCC has claimed enforcement over radio
transmissions in the USA, and that's in the radio is not relevant since
it's out of his jurisdiction unless he wants to represent himself as a
federal officer. Of course, this is not the proper attitude to present,
but it is
Somewhere between 2000' and 200 miles depending on the terrain between
the HT and the 5000.
Joe M.
George wrote:
what is the range of a 800mhz handheld 4watts with msf5000 repeater 450watts
on the antena
TLB would be Low Band.
Joe M.
La Rue Communications wrote:
Anyone know what Frequency this handles? I think its a UHF but not sure
what split.
Thanks!
John Hymes
La Rue Communications
10 S. Aurora Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Yep - SP50 was on the side. P50+ was a contact at about
the 1 o'clock position on the board behind the battery.
P50 was also available in Low Band which was the tall case and 6W.
Joe M.
kevin valentino wrote:
Got a friend in a convalescent home, studying for his ticket now. That
would be
But, how many people know that? I think his point was that it doesn't
seem to have been played with by someone who didn't know at least
somewhat what they were doing. I've seen some of those come in.
Joe M.
Bill Smith wrote:
Pry marks? Pop out the two clips in the battery compartment and
Sorta related...
Does anyone have any High Band (VHF) Maratracs with blown PAs? I'm
looking for some cheap ones for an experimental project. The only
requirement is that the RF and logic decks work. The amp and power
interface board need not work. Actually, I don't even need the frame.
Joe M.
There are P25 repeaters on the air. Granted, not as many as D-STAR
(strictly talking about ham systems), but I know of nobody giving away
P25 repeaters. Also, I bet there are more P25 receivers owned by hams
than D-STAR since there are several scanners that decode P25, and only a
few that
Threaded...
John wrote:
Hmmm... I'm sitting here with my NQMHS Node Adapter (GMSK Modem) and watching
the binary stream, in both Hex and Char, off of my IC-91AD, while
transmitting for a few seconds. It seems the callsign information is
repeated on a pretty continuous basis looking at
Likely a typo since he did say mid split.
Joe M.
Richard W. Solomon wrote:
30 - 42 ???
I thought there was a 30 - 36 AND a 36 - 42 split.
73, Dick, W1KSZ
-Original Message-
From: kd8biw kd8...@hotmail.com
Sent: Apr 2, 2010 8:12 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Besides, doesn't that assume they will be adding more user units to it?
In this case, it's likely a one-shot deal, so they won't care about future
sources.
Joe M.
On Sat 03/04/10 7:00 PM , n...@no6b.com sent:
At 4/3/2010 15:35, you wrote:
I would strongly remind them that they are
You mean like the Motorola RF devices and chips used
in many two-way radio products other than Motorola's?
(including directly competing products)
Joe M.
wd8chl wrote:
One good thing, in my book anyway, at least that's all DVSI does is
vocoders. They don't make radios. They don't make
/2010 12:19 PM, MCH wrote:
You mean like the Motorola RF devices and chips used
in many two-way radio products other than Motorola's?
(including directly competing products)
Joe M.
wd8chl wrote:
One good thing, in my book anyway, at least that's all DVSI does is
vocoders. They don't make radios
If you don't count the Icom scanning receivers. They CAN decode D-STAR.
Joe M.
Kris Kirby wrote:
There's also a substantial base of users who like D-STAR because there
isn't a scanner that can decode it.
No - I recall when this was mentioned
being at 449 MHz about 10 years ago.
Joe M.
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
I don't think that they've been at 449 MHz. That's the new part. They
were much lower in the band.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
*From:* Nate Duehr
I think the 200 was 16 channels with an option for 32 channels.
While I'm typing, does anyone have a source for a replacement Whelen
microphone element? I can't justify $150 for one from Whelen. Even a
source for a good used Whelen mic would be welcome. And sorry about the
off-topic post
The ones 'in the middle' tend to be used less, so that could be a
factor. People tend to use them from the low or high ends.
There are also some that are less likely to false, but I don't recall
which ones. It has to do with the likelihood of an error in the bits
matching other codes in a
If you're looking at what I think you are, it only means the output/pin
config is custom and the defaults will stick on power cycle (which is
easy enough to test and confirm).
Joe M.
kq7dx wrote:
Dear Group,
I have a 800mhz maxtrac converted to 900mhz with the COR going out to pin 8.
The
From what some are saying, all 'colors' are active on all repeaters.
It's like having a repeater that passes CTCSS. Anyone can use your
repeater and you cannot shut the code (or color) off. Again, this is
what I'm hearing from some people.
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
The color codes are like
, MCH m...@nb.net wrote:
So if there are two TRBO repeaters in the same area, there is no way to
keep them both from being active and interfering with each other? That
doesn't sound right.
Or, if I have a repeater, anyone can just buy TRBO radios and use it?
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
On 3/11
-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of MCH
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:42 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: HAM Mototrbo Systems
Just the frequency, and not which TGs it passes? Do all TRBO repeaters
pass all TRBO format
Great info.
I assume that users are shut off via a 'kill code' to the radio since
the repeater cannot be used to allow selective access.
Also, is there a URL for the system planner?
Joe M.
nj902 wrote:
Answers to most of the Mototrbo questions can be found in the Mototrbo System
Planner.
.
It's surprising this info isn't on any web pages anywhere...
Nate
On Mar 10, 2010, at 6:33 PM, MCH wrote:
Just to clarify, I'm talking about what would be equal to talkgroups.
Although it does make me feel better others cannot find the answer
either. :-)
Joe M
And there is not any special option to order to get multiple TGs?
The base model will support all TGs that are possible?
Joe M.
wd8chl wrote:
On 3/11/2010 11:10 AM, MCH wrote:
And how many of these TGs can be used in a repeater at the same time?
Thanks,
Joe M.
Outside of the ones
be in the portable/mobile rigs, not
the repeater.
Nate WY0X
On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:10 AM, MCH wrote:
And how many of these TGs can be used in a repeater at the same time?
Thanks,
Joe M.
Yahoo! Groups Links
So if there are two TRBO repeaters in the same area, there is no way to
keep them both from being active and interfering with each other? That
doesn't sound right.
Or, if I have a repeater, anyone can just buy TRBO radios and use it?
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
On 3/11/2010 1:54 PM, MCH
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote:
So if there are two TRBO repeaters in the same area, there is no way to
keep them both from being active and interfering with each other? That
doesn't sound right.
Or, if I have a repeater, anyone can just buy TRBO radios and use
Along those lines? How many groups of users will the standard MotoTRBO
repeater support in digital mode? I know it will do 2 simultaneously,
but how many overall?
Also, I know it will support a single NBFM user - can a CTCSS panel be
attached to it?
Thanks,
Joe M.
wb6wui wrote:
Dan,
Just to clarify, I'm talking about what would be equal to talkgroups.
Although it does make me feel better others cannot find the answer
either. :-)
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
On 3/10/2010 1:47 PM, MCH wrote:
Along those lines? How many groups of users will the standard MotoTRBO
That's just it. Everyone likes to throw names out such as 'alligator' or
'elephant', but few people realize it's all relative to the station
*using* the repeater, too. What repeater may be an alligator for one
person is an elephant to another depending on *their* equipment.
The repeater itself
What are you missing? The fact that it should be in bands where TV is
authorized, and not in a band where it will be subject to random
instances of interference from a service that has transmitters at any
place at any time.
I wonder how well a waiver would be received that would permit hams to
The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government.
Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands?
Joe M.
David Jordan wrote:
I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be
in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant.
- Live from Dayton... the Hamvention Robot.
Joe M.
DCFluX wrote:
2.4 GHz, there are numorous TV transmitters already designed that
operate here, 2 of the 4 channels common channels fall on the ham band
and are often converted for ATV use.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote
Or even unused traditional UHF TV channels which are only 30 MHz higher.
The bad part of this is if something goes to court, the jury will likely
side with those protecting lives over ham chat no matter what the laws
say and the hams will lose.
Joe M.
Richard wrote:
Since they'd be
It's wideband so it's not going to key up your repeater and CTCSS does
not solve interference - it just masks it.
Joe M.
WA3GIN wrote:
What? Just go and turn on your PL... come on! Lets use the technology
that we claim we know so well...
- Original Message -
Except for the fact these users will be SECONDARY to US.
Still, try telling your local PD they have to shut their robot down
because they are causing interference...
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
Amateur Radio is NOT PRIMARY on 70cm in the U.S.. Never have been.
Never will be.
We are
would be of
no value
as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: MCH m...@nb.net mailto:mch%40nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 01
Interesting. I wonder if there is some tech info on this that is
available. Any idea how much the cost was and what mods were required?
Or, perhaps some tech data on the synthesizer as far as what pins
control the frequency, as well as any binary-to-frequency info.
Joe M.
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
And put an external CTCSS/CDCSS encoder on it?
There are more tone/code combinations to fill 128 channels on a single
frequency.
Joe M.
rahwayflynn wrote:
K3JLS - The wayback machine has a bit of information:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050907131941/http://www.k3jls.com/
Although with
several posts to this list and became
discouraged at the lack of interest. The documentation would be of no value
as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent
, but am pretty sure you'd
need the source code in order to make changes. Joe programmed the chips and
wouldn't release the code - he didn't want someone to steal his idea.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday
of interest. The documentation would be of no value
as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater
be of no value
as you need the programmed microprocessor chip to make it work.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 900 meg Spectra radio
True, but where is the hack for the front panel programmable Spectra?
It's nice to not be limited to preprogrammed channels.
Joe M.
James Adkins wrote:
Yeah, same as 220.
There's not really a need for an amateur rig anyway. There are so many
commercial rigs that go there easily, and
Sorry - replied to the wrong message.
Joe M.
MCH wrote:
I should have realized that since I think there are base frequencies
below the UHF coverage that work.
Regardless, it's a problem with the calculation and won't work.
Thanks for the correction.
Joe M.
Greg Beat wrote
Did you try using the keys on the front of the radio as the TTP? I think
they still did that on that model and they don't have to be in a memory.
Joe M.
ka9qjg1 wrote:
I have an Old Kenwood TM-3530A 220 Radio I need to be able to send TT To work
on My Repeater Controller
The radio works
And all of them could add P25 so you would have a common digital format.
Joe M.
Mark wrote:
I think it will be interesting to see whether Motorola expands/offers
MotoTrbo to the Vertex/Standard/Yaesu radios, now that they have
ownership in Vertex/Standard.
IMHO, adding MotoTrbo
and turbo or NXDN in the
same box. Big M did remove the XTL1500 from the above price book and
put it in the dealer's price sheet last month.
my 2 cents
MCH wrote:
And all of them could add P25 so you would have a common digital format.
Joe M.
Mark wrote:
I think
1 - 100 of 1021 matches
Mail list logo
