Scott,

I did check the PAR Electronics site, and I am impressed with their designs
and user kudos.  However, it is not easy to notch out the pager at 152.480
MHz and not attenuate my commercial channel at 152.345 MHz.  The point is
now moot, because the Motorola CDM1550-LS can operate at 152.345 MHz and on
all 2m frequencies without a hint of interference from either the 152.480 or
157.740 MHz pagers.  I have not needed, nor have I installed, any filters
once I switched radios.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Overstreet
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:52 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermodulation Interference

Eric
 
Look up the pager intermod filters that PAR Electronics sells----I have had
good luck using them to fix a similar situation here-----I think that one
would have fixed your problem.
 
Scott
 
 

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Eric Lemmon <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
        To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com>  
        Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:17 PM
        Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermodulation Interference


        That last comment about the spectrum analyzer is an excellent
suggestion.
        Trying to solve such interference problems with cavities or
isolators may
        involve far more effort and expense than necessary. Here's a case in
point:
        
        I was getting some severe interference to my reception of an Amateur
        repeater on 147.210 MHz, but not on other Ham repeaters. My base
radio at
        the time was a Kenwood TK-760K2, which is a low-tier commercial
product.
        The interference was sometimes voice, and sometimes data. I could
almost
        eliminate the interference by putting a DCI bandpass filter in the
feedline,
        but then I couldn't receive or transmit on the commercial
frequencies used
        by other VHF repeaters I control.
        
        So, I pulled out my trusty Hameg digital spectrum analyzer, and set
it to
        sweep the 140-160 MHz band. As soon as the interference began, I had
the
        answer: 3rd order intermodulation with two local paging systems. Two
        paging transmitters on a hilltop a few miles from my house were each
running
        about 3.5kW ERP- one on 152.480 MHz and the other on 157.740 MHz.
The
        interference only occurred when the two paging transmitters were on
the air
        at the same time as the 147.210 MHz repeater. This was third-order
IM
        because two times 152.480 MHz minus one times 157.740 MHz (three
"times"
        involved) equals 147.220 MHz, close enough to 147.210 MHz to
obliterate the
        latter. The mixing was occurring in the front end of my base radio,
AKA
        receiver IM. One of the simple solutions to receiver IM is the
        "local-distant" function that is frequently available in the
programming
        software. The local position adds a small amount of attenuation in
the
        front end, which can make a huge difference in IM rejection. In my
case,
        however, the 147.210 MHz repeater is a distant station that I must
use the
        "distant" setting to receive.
        
        The interference went away after I upgraded my base radio to a
Motorola
        CDM1550-LS. Sometimes, an interference issue affects only certain
designs,
        models, or brands. I readily acknowledge that my situation might be
        exceptional, with two very powerful paging transmitters at a nearby
site.
        What if I had a repeater at the same site as the paging
transmitters? That
        would definitely be a problem faced by repeater owners, over and
over again!
        
        Back to the original premise, that of seeing what other signals are
on the
        air at the same time the interference occurs, is of major benefit to
an
        interference investigation. A spectrum analyzer is the instrument of
choice
        for that task.
        
        73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> 
        [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
        Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:54 PM
        To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> 
        Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Coax length between added cavity
and
        duplexer
        
        Nate wrote:
        
        > For the record, the interference appears as an on frequency signal

        > (leading me to initially suspect intermod of some type) with clear

        > audio of the dispatcher and officers. At first I thought I heard a

        > second level of audio as well that I haven't been able to identify
it 
        > whether it is background or another transmitter--partly due to 
        > catching it at the right time, and partly because my QTH doesn't 
        > allow me to hear it very well. KC0MLS thought receiver overload
may 
        > be the issue so that's why we're trying the Celwave cavity.
        
        Hi Nate...
        
        Just to be clear (because it helps figure it out), do you hear every

        transmission, or only parts of transmissions?
        
        (Mixing with something else that goes on and off air, would come and
go 
        during a longer transmission on the system you're hearing in your 
        repeater. Often you can find the thing you're mixing with if it's 
        on-site by watching TX LED's and taking along a few receivers...
"Okay 
        the dispatcher is on-air, and hey there's the interference, and the
red 
        TX LED just came on over here on this panel... and then... there
it's 
        gone and the TX LED went out..."
        
        You get the idea...
        
        Also seeing what's really coming down the RX side of things with a 
        Spectrum Analyzer may be enlightening.
        
        Nate WY0X
        
        

 


Reply via email to