Two Alinco 220 mobiles work very well also.
- Original Message -
From: w5rdw
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:18 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 repeater
If you are interested in building it youself, a modified Clegg
Has Alinco come out with a fix for the PL decoder yet?
Mike
At 05:32 AM 01/02/10, you wrote:
Two Alinco 220 mobiles work very well also.
- Original Message -
From: mailto:rwhitete...@verizon.netw5rdw
To: mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent:
At 1/2/2010 17:26, you wrote:
Has Alinco come out with a fix for the PL decoder yet?
Mike
IIRC the CTCSS decode function in the DR-x35 series radios is performed in
the radio's CPU, hence it's not likely it will ever be fixed unless a
revision is done to the CPU for new radios.
Bob NO6B
At 1/2/2010 13:20, you wrote:
G.E. pre-Prog.
'JK
Is that 224.660 W6GAA on PV? Can't key it this evening.
Bob NO6B
I second Skipp's motion, having been burned by Henry twice before, UHF amps
delivered without a low pass filter, second harmonic about -40 dBc in the
cell band...
Also, TPL manufactures 220 amps (I had one, Adam N2ACF has it now),
primarily for overseas markets. They use the same devices as in
I wouldn't waste any time or money on Henry or TE Systems repeater
amplifiers. On my 220 repeater, I had the Henry and it was the biggest
POS I had ever seen. The workmanship with regard to the soldering of
components was terrible. I've used one on my 440 machine and it was worse!
I have been
Mike,
I guess Jack made more than two, he still has two on his 500 foot tower with
split TX and RX.
Paul
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike - W5JR (f/k/a
N5FL)
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:33 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I was just offered the ACSSB equipment, including the combiner, if
I take it all away. I can use the wattmeter units on the Telewave combiner,
but don't know what I'd do with the rest of the stuff.
Were the combiners isolator to mixer types? If so, you
skipp025 wrote:
So we agree... the Sinclair folded dipole antennas would be another
great choice/option. Got any for sale...? :-)
We're not selling ours! (GRIN)
I read Skipp's stories of getting screwed a bit by Sinclair a while back
and sure hoped it was just a temporary thing with the
After spending so much time chasing the DB-224JJ information down
I'd probably buy and use something else, which I have done. I'll
keep the JJ Model in my mind as I pull down a few more of the
Nationwide 220 ACSB Trunking Systems in the spring time.
Knowing full well that Skipp may fight
Has anyone tried using the Austin antennas that were built for the 200Mhz ACSSB
system on the ham band? There are several of them lying around on the ground
here in Connecticut. Actually, I was just offered the ACSSB equipment,
including the combiner, if I take it all away. I can use the
Hello Skipp
As I have suggested before on this subject, it would seem to me that if
someone would measure a DB224JJ very carefully and give us the dimensions of
elements, spacing and harness most of us are capable of modifying a DB224
commercial model for 220Mhz. This would solve a
I have a friend that has made his own 220 MHz version of the DB antenna, the
worst problem he had was getting the harness to seal. I told him about
Scotchkoat and he has not had a problem since. By the way, the Vapor Block
coax does not do much for me. If the coax is sealed correctly you will
At 2/28/2007 08:19 AM, you wrote:
Bob
You seem to want to lump what is characteristically a complex impedance
(R+or-jX) into a single number in order to simplify your argument that a
non conducting RF output transistor is an open circuit because the
transistor is not having any RF drive
At 2/28/2007 08:19 AM, you wrote:
Bob
You seem to want to lump what is characteristically a complex impedance
(R+or-jX) into a single number in order to simplify your argument that a
non conducting RF output transistor is an open circuit because the
transistor is not having any RF drive
Since when is the Xc of the Collector-Base capacitance of an output transistor
or the Drain-Gate capacitance of a FET considered an open circuit at RF?
Allan Crites WA9ZZU
Jeff DePolo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bypassing the relay shouldn't have an effect on the TX output
Z when
At 2/27/2007 13:30, you wrote:
Since when is the Xc of the Collector-Base capacitance of an output
transistor or the Drain-Gate capacitance of a FET considered an open
circuit at RF?
Allan Crites WA9ZZU
OK, maybe not a million ohms but high enough compared to the nominal 1 ohm
or so output Z
Bob Dengler wrote:
At 2/23/2007 12:50 PM, you wrote:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater applications:
1. Can you say categorically that there is sufficient TX/RX shielding
to prevent any desense at any power level the conversion is capable of
operating?
In my
At 2/26/2007 08:27 AM, you wrote:
Bob Dengler wrote:
At 2/23/2007 12:50 PM, you wrote:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater applications:
1. Can you say categorically that there is sufficient TX/RX shielding
to prevent any desense at any power level the conversion
Bypassing the relay shouldn't have an effect on the TX output
Z when not
TXing, as the final RF output transistor is going to look
like an open too.
Bob NO6B
But the open transistors would be at a different electrical distance away
from the duplexer than the open T/R relay was.
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 repeater receiver recommendations?
(Z-Matcher)
At 10:19 PM 02/23/07, you wrote:
In a message dated 2/23/2007 6:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
In regards to the question
Yes, and as the article referenced below points out, switching the UHF
Mastr II to High Side Injection eliminates the problem.
We originally thought that HSI eliminated the problem totally on 220,
but it didn't, there is an overlapping range that one side or the other
doesn't fix; that is what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/23/2007 6:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my most critical applications, I use permanent in-line Bird
samplers. Then, cabling lengths don't change because I don't
remove the samplers; and you know exactly
I never suggested that the cable between the TX and the
duplexer had to be an exact length and if the TX output is a
true 50 ohms then any cable length produces no consequence at
the cavity input. But if the TX impedance is not 50 ohms, I
think any cable length other than half wave will
Ken Harrison wrote:
Thanks for the recommendation, Don. Though I'm sure a MastrII would
be a great conversion for 220, we (in the group sense) want to try to
save some of our money to get a remote base setup going on our
repeater, too. Our small savings would be wiped out to replace the
For Scott:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater applications:
1. Can you say categorically that there is sufficient TX/RX shielding to
prevent any desense at any power level the conversion is capable of operating?
2. When these converted mobiles operate with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For Scott:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater applications:
1. Can you say categorically that there is sufficient TX/RX shielding to
prevent any desense at any power level the conversion is capable of
operating?
At
no experience. I will defer this question to others.
Scott
Scott Zimmerman
Amateur Radio Call N3XCC
612 Barnett Rd
Boswell, PA 15531
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder
In a message dated 2/23/2007 12:00:13 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It probably isn't exactly 50 ohms, but should be close. And the cables
from the duplexer to the radio do NOT *REPEAT* NOT need to be an exact
length. This again indicates an impedance mismatch in
Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 repeater receiver recommendations?
In a message dated 2/23/2007 12:00:13 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes
At 2/23/2007 12:50 PM, you wrote:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater applications:
1. Can you say categorically that there is sufficient TX/RX shielding
to prevent any desense at any power level the conversion is capable of
operating?
In my experience, yes. In
@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:06 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 repeater receiver recommendations?
In a message dated 2/23/2007 12:00:13 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL
I'm not Scott, but maybe I'll do... grin
See Below
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For Scott:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater applications:
1. Can you say categorically that there is sufficient TX/RX shielding
to prevent any desense at any power level the
In a message dated 2/23/2007 4:32:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
as all better repeaters builders know, the equipment might have to be tuned
as a system using custom cabling lengths or Z Matchers for optimal
performance.
Can you comment on a difference of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm particularly interested in any shortcomings of the G.E. that are not easily
overcome.
Repeatability of a band split conversion, out of band (high-band to 222)
conversion, (where sensitivity is concerned) and tuning stability.
It seems that *some* MASTR II
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Custer
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:34 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 repeater receiver recommendations?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Weren't there some 440 frequencies that had issues, too?
Joe M.
Kevin Custer wrote:
I'm not Scott, but maybe I'll do... grin
See Below
Yes, there is sufficient isolation for single box conversion with
absolutely no internal desense from the MASTR II Mobile, with the
exception of
]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 repeater receiver
recommendations?
For Scott:
With respect to using the GE MII mobile frame for repeater
applications:
1. Can you say categorically
In a message dated 2/23/2007 6:15:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you use a cable with the bird that makes it a ½ wavelength total line
length when you insert it in line? That should not change things when the
wattmeter/cable are removed.
I'm not sure I
In a message dated 2/23/2007 6:36:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my most critical applications, I use permanent in-line Bird samplers.
Then, cabling lengths don't change because I don't remove the samplers; and
you
know exactly what you have and where
At 2/22/2007 19:01, you wrote:
Ken,
We not only do complete repeaters, we can custom build just about anything
you want or need. We can simply build a rock-solid high-quality 220
receiver for you. We have done several receivers in the past that are rack
mountable in a 2 unit rack space. I have
At 08:33 PM 1/20/05, you wrote:
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Morris
WA6ILQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They were built as cheap as CBs of the era, and
on the same production lines. But we hams built
repeaters out of them because that's all there was.
This may be all true,
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
While we are on the subject of midland/clegg 13-509 radios/repeaters has
anyone had luck PL'ing the exciter. It wasn't setup originally for PL
encoders. Initial attempt exciter+PL audio wasn't very promising with a
TS-32. Looks like you'd have
:52 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
At 1/17/2005 01:07 PM, you wrote:
I was getting ready to split a Clegg FM-76.
Basically identical to a Midland 13-509. Our club has 2 on the air now
have performed well for over 25 years
]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
Another option on the 13-509 (220mhz) or the 13-500 (2m) is
to use the Link-Comm board that puts a Micor squelch on it.
Look at my Mitrek Interfacing article at www.repeater
-
From: Bob Dengler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 2:52 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
At 1/17/2005 01:07 PM, you wrote:
I was getting ready to split a Clegg FM-76
A mod like this should be posted on to the repeater-builder web site.
-- Original Message --
Received: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:23:44 PM CST
From: no6b1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
--- In
While we are on the subject of midland/clegg 13-509 radios/repeaters has
anyone had luck PL'ing the exciter. It wasn't setup originally for PL
encoders. Initial attempt exciter+PL audio wasn't very promising with a
TS-32. Looks like you'd have to FM the varicap directly. Was going to use
some I
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
While we are on the subject of midland/clegg 13-509 radios/repeaters has
anyone had luck PL'ing the exciter. It wasn't setup originally for PL
encoders. Initial attempt exciter+PL audio wasn't very promising with a
TS-32. Looks like you'd have to FM
I do not remember the value of the resistor... But I put my pl on the
wiper of the deviation Pot
worked for years.. I ran a 13-509 repeater in the 80's then got a
Spectrum around 1989. and its still running... If I had to Build a
machine today I would be running a Maggorie.
as for the
Heard comments about the Maggiorie (probably mispelled) and such. Just
yesterday I was at the KRXT tower in Rockdale Texas and lo and behold, a
VHF Engineering 2M repeater - still ticking on 147.28. AF5C/R for the
last 20 some odd years. Also, at my farm up in Gatesville, N5DDR/R on
146.96
At 1/17/2005 01:07 PM, you wrote:
I was getting ready to split a Clegg FM-76.
Basically identical to a Midland 13-509. Our club has 2 on the air now
have performed well for over 25 years. Recently we did have one problem
with one of the RXs: a cold solder joint on the 2nd LO (10.245 MHz)
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
At 1/17/2005 01:07 PM, you wrote:
I was getting ready to split a Clegg FM-76.
Basically identical to a Midland 13-509. Our club has 2 on the air now
have performed well for over 25 years. Recently we did have
, 2005 2:52 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
At 1/17/2005 01:07 PM, you wrote:
I was getting ready to split a Clegg FM-76.
Basically identical to a Midland 13-509. Our club has 2 on the air now
have performed well for over 25 years
Message -
From: Paul Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 Repeater
I was wondering if anyone was still using one of those beasts, I am about
to
start my 220 project and that radio is probably
55 matches
Mail list logo
