:09 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
So he is looking at $1000, as he has 5 channels/aircraft.
Does that include the TX and RX units?
Joe M.
On Sun 11/10/09 8:04 AM , k7...@skybeam.com sent:
A nice system you can pick up for under
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:43 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
Chris,
What is the closest you've operated your
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
So he is looking at $1000, as he has 5 channels/aircraft.
Does that include the TX and RX units?
Joe M.
Yahoo
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Jeff DePolo wrote:
CB is substantially wider :-)
My point exactly. ;-)
Assuming a 100W transmitter, 1dB of cable losses and 5.16dBi (3dB) of
antenna gain, at 20 miles there is -32.442dB of path loss.
Methinks there's some disinformation there, better check your
mailto:Builder%40yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of m...@nb.net mailto:mch%40nb.net
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:09 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
So he is looking at $1000, as he has 5
Don't forget the FCC rules...in this case, I am only to assume (knowing
MCH's identity) that this is taking place in Western Pennsylvania. That
being said, my question is, if the repeater is coordinated by a
governing body (WPRC) why would he/she complain about RC operations?
The FCC rules,
Keep in mind that he believes repeater operation in 52-54 MHz will cause
him interference. I already suggested the 50.800-51.000 MHz RC band.
I have also mentioned that repeaters have been operating on the 52-54
MHz band for decades, coexisting with RC operations. I suggested that he
has
I didn't want to play the coordinated vs uncoordinated card with him at
this time, but that would dictate that he is primarily responsible for
resolving any interference problems - including frequency selection on
his part. There is no way there could be any interference to the
coordinated
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, MCH wrote:
BTW, he also wants to 'compromise' by offering to relocate the
repeater off the 52-54 MHz segment so they will not impact his RC
operations. Some compromise, huh?
Call a radio shop and get a quote for what it will cost to change the
frequency of the repeater
they can all
operate at the same time with the spread spectrum control system.
73 - Jim W5ZIT
--- On Sat, 10/10/09, MCH m...@nb.net wrote:
From: MCH m...@nb.net
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
To: Repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 11:58 PM
The Academy of Model Aeronautics went through a standards change a
while ago. AM radios are no longer certified for exactly this reason.
If he's using radios that don't meet modern performance standards he is
invalidating both the airfield and his insurance.
I'd like to know how he determined
Good info.
BTW, the repeater isn't even on the air yet.
Joe M.
Oz-in-DFW wrote:
The Academy of Model Aeronautics went through a standards change a
while ago. AM radios are no longer certified for exactly this reason.
If he's using radios that don't meet modern performance standards he is
Can you give me a lead as to what I'm looking for?
Joe M.
Oz-in-DFW wrote:
I'd also suggest he reread the regs on model control in the ham band.
Oz
Can you define very cheap?
Joe M.
Jim Brown wrote:
If the complainant is trying to control a model, there are lots of
options now that do not include a six meter frequency, with the new 2.5
gig systems very cheap. No more frequency interference between models,
since they can all
-9695 Home
303-954-9693 Home Office Fax
303-718-8052 Cellular
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 10:58 PM
To: Repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:55 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
Can you define very cheap?
Joe M.
Jim Brown wrote:
If the complainant is trying to control a model, there are lots of
options
Of MCH
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:55 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
Can you define very cheap?
Joe M.
Jim Brown wrote:
If the complainant is trying to control a model, there are lots of
options now that do not include a six
SUBJECT: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
Can you define very cheap?
Joe M.
Jim Brown wrote:
If the complainant is trying to control a model, there are lots of
options now that do not include a six meter frequency, with the
new 2.5
gig systems very cheap. No more frequency
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of m...@nb.net
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:09 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
So he is looking at $1000, as he has 5 channels/aircraft.
Does that include the TX and RX units
No, that price is for a complete replacement - TX, RX and servos.
Unless his system uses mechanical reeds and germanium transistors all he
will need is an RX per plane (~$65) and a new TX, so buy a $200 Kit and
four RX's $500 tomorrow, $350 if you shop.
m...@nb.net wrote:
So he is looking
] On Behalf Of m...@nb.net
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:09 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
So he is looking at $1000, as he has 5 channels/aircraft.
Does that include the TX and RX units?
Joe M.
On Sun 11/10/09 8:04 AM , k7
At 04:54 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote:
Have you ever seen 53.400 or 53.500 MHz used?
Not part of the usual coordinated frequency set
Also keep in mind that changing the frequency is not an option for him, as:
More accurately, it not what he *WANTS* to do. His options, however, may vary.
2. He
Standard broadcast AM is 10KHz, and is wider than most other
forms of AM
(except CB, where they will do anything they want with the signal).
Standard AM *audio*, in the US, is low-pass filtered at about 10 kHz, so the
RF bandwidth is about 20 kHz (double sideband).
CB is substantially
So an AM signal (20 kHz) should only be slightly wider than a NBFM
signal (16 kHz), and the receiver, properly designed, should work fine
with an FM signal 30 kHz away that is 20 miles distant? (even
line-of-sight?)
Joe M.
Jeff DePolo wrote:
Standard broadcast AM is 10KHz, and is wider than
It might be worth while to build a couple pole L/C band pass filter
for the 6m model band.
Still About the only reasons I can see for using 6m:
1W transmitter power could be useful for drones and aircraft with 440
ATV back haul.
Gain somewhat more protection from 72 MHz operators. see again the
/ WQGJ413
- Original Message -
From: m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Repeaters vs RC
So he is looking at $1000, as he has 5 channels/aircraft.
Does that include the TX and RX units?
Joe M.
Does anyone have any experience with repeater operation vs RC operation
(Remote Control)? I have an RC operator who is 'raising a stink' about a
repeater that is 30 kHz away from one of his RC channels.
BTW, he also wants to 'compromise' by offering to relocate the repeater
off the 52-54 MHz
Tell him to buy another set of crystals for his remote. They are
changeable for reasons like this.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 9:58 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with repeater operation vs RC operation
(Remote Control)? I have an RC operator who is 'raising a stink'
28 matches
Mail list logo
