Hi Keith,
Do you have the equipment to check each location
for desense and effective sensitivity?
It would be very hard to make a notch cavity from Hard-line
with enough Q to allow a decent 100KHz split. Even placing a
band-pass cavities will help only so much...
A DCI Filter would not be
Thanks, yes, the split is too close to do much!
I recently had both sites equipment here to check it out, everything
looks good and plays (individualy) here with no problems.
With the transmitter turned off, weak signals can get in and sound
great on the UHF link.
I just learned that there is a
The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater
sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to
use in a 200 kHz wide band?
Jeff W6JK
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "kb1we6r" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? T
So for a realistic solution you need to place some form of
tight pre-selection in front of the receiver. Cavities might
be possible but not practical.
I'm not sure if they're cost effective to buy but for an Amateur
Radio 10 Meter Repeater Project but... piezo (crystal) filters
for 30 MHz are
That sounds like a great way to cause massive, worldwide interference
problems when the sunspots return. But hey, you can petition the FCC
for it and see what happens if you'd like.
'JK
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Johnny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I know it may sound to simple
A lot of that comes from the guys that insist on running carrier
access. Just because it works when the band is dead doesn't make it
OK in my book.
Jeff
> As it is, with only four 10-Meter repeater frequencies available,
> they're all unusable howling messes when the band is open.
> LJ
I would recommend first using a spectrum analyser at the TX site to
make sure the TX is not generating the noise. If you see the noise at
the TX site, determine if internal to the TX or external. If the site
is clean proceed to the RX site.
At the RX site, check with a spectrum analyser to see
I would have to agree with Keith WE6R, the FCC has been on a roll
here lately re-banding several different frequency bands, why not
reband the 10m band to accomodate more repeater pairs?
One thing some people seem to be missing in this thread... at least I
haven't seen anyone else mention it...
I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater
sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the
outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa.
Johnny
Jeff Kincaid wrote:
> The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater
> su
Uhhh... because the FCC only allows repeater operation between 29.5 and
29.7 MHz? [see 97.205(b)]
When you aren't given a choice, the decision is pretty easy.
Joe M.
Jeff Kincaid wrote:
>
> The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater
> sub band is smaller still. Just
Feel free to petition the FCC to allow this. ;->
Joe M.
Johnny wrote:
>
> I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater
> sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the
> outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa.
> Johnny
>
> Jeff Kincaid
At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote:
>It's been tried many times since the 1970's.
>
>LJ
The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for
rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a
worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of
s
: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
> At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote:
>
> >It's been tried many times since the 1970's.
> >
> >LJ
>
> The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for
Y
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for
10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or
urday, December 22, 2007 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote:
>It's been tried many times since the 1970's.
>
>LJ
The Commission has been a lot more flexible l
At 12/23/2007 00:48, you wrote:
>It would be nice if we could also work in to the rulemaking a requirement for
>10 meter repeaters to be CTCSS or digital access for every transmission.
Although this would be very desirable, I doubt the FCC would write it into
Part 97. It typically leaves such d
At 12/23/2007 03:56, you wrote:
>I'm not sure more 10m pairs are really needed. When the band is open, 50
>pairs would all have heterodynes.
I disagree. Thinning out the current density by a factor of 5 would solve
a lot of problems, & given the difficulty in constructing a working 10
meter s
to do 100KHz
offsets.
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:49:45 AM CST
From: "Paul Plack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
> John, I think CTCSS should remain voluntary. I'
:39 PM CST
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
>
>
> Before the standard 100-kHz 10-Meter repeat
Bob- You are probably correct that the FCC would suggest it be left to
coordination. But that has been the plan for the last 25 years, and we see
that it is a failure. I few dim-wits refusing to use CTCSS spoil it for
everyone.
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:40:11 A
roups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
Comm-spec even gives instructions on how to make CTCSS work on AM CB radios!
Really, 10 FM radios are so plentiful, that uncertainty regarding how we
ted by two old
guys
> from Boston talking about a colonoscopy on their local 222 MHz machine.
> >
> > Or trying to monitor 29.6 when its covered in heterodynes from hams who
> don't even own 10m rigs!
> >
> > 73,
> > Paul, AE4KR
> >
> >
ent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
HF Remote bases have been supported for decades by various repeater
controller manufacturers. They're not just limited to outputs in the 10M FM
Repeater band
I would question that statement. If it's a remotely controlled station
(commonly called a Remote Base), it can operate anywhere. It's only the
CONTROL LINK that must be in an 'appropriate' band segment (or via
phone). SkyCommand is a good example of that. The remotely controled
station operates any
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, JOHN MACKEY wrote:
> So if the transmit offset for a CB radio was overcome, and converting
> from AM to FM for a CB radio was overcome, adding CTCSS is a simple
> issue that will be easily overcome.
Adding CTCSS to a repeater has been an issue as long as I've been a ham.
I
t;
Ho ho ho!
73,
Paul, AE4KR
- Original Message -
From: Kris Kirby
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, JOHN MACKEY wrote:
>
kb1we6r wrote:
> Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no
> activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room
> for a better repeater plan).
> Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA
Nope-FM is only allowed above 29.500, so we only have 29.5-29.7 for ANY
FM act
ld have bitched about buying crystals and
retuning duplexers.
73,
Paul, AE4KR
- Original Message -
From: wd8chl
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise flo
Actually, FM is allowed anywhere on HF. You just have the keep the
modulation index less than or equal to 1.
It's REPEATERS that are only allowed above 29.500 MHz.
Joe M.
wd8chl wrote:
>
> kb1we6r wrote:
>
> > Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no
> > activity (even w
nd retuning
> duplexers.
>
> 73,
> Paul, AE4KR
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: wd8chl
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help,
>
Brian Romine wrote:
Even though according to one ARRL
> official "if a repeater is linked in any manner to 10m; the 10m
> frequency must be within the 10m repeater sub-band."
>
Only if the 10M radio is FM. Running a 10M remote base on SSB is just
fine wherever SSB is allowed, and the trust
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim - you meant to say "Repeaters" are allowed above 29.500, not "FM". FM is
> allowed above 29.000 MHz.
>
> LJ
No, the only thing I should've added was 'wide-band' FM, ie, anything
that occupies more bandwidth then a normal AM signal.
15 MHz as the minimum frequency for operation of
the uplink is obsolete since the rewrite of 97.201, (which now allows much of
2m,) but the reasons for the position are explained.
73,
Paul, AE4KR
- Original Message -
From: wd8chl
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tu
At 10:50 AM 12/25/07, you wrote:
Jim,
I'd be interested to know where in part 97 you find any restriction
on FM below 29.5. (Without debating it, of course.) ARRL bandplan,
yes, but FCC rules?
Keith, we're also stuck with band-planning on other bands which
didn't anticipate the popularity o
Paul Plack wrote:
> I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's point. It's not about what modes
> are authorized on a given frequency, it's about what constitutes an
> "auxiliary station."
>
> The ARRL's position is that the linking of a whole community of users
> from a VHF/UHF repeater input to 10M doe
That's nice, but the ARRL does not make the rules, and I can find
nothing in Part 97 about AUX frequencies being limited to a single user.
There is a saying about opinions and how everyone has one. The ARRL is
no different.
Joe M.
> Paul Plack wrote:
>
> I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's poin
It's not the 10M radio that is in AUX operation - it's the (2M or
higher) frequencies that are dhared by the repeater that are. The
statement was that *those* cannot be AUX frequencies since they have
multiple users. (a stand that is completely ridiculous)
I wonder if this has something to do with
On Dec 25, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Paul Plack wrote:
> Keith, we're also stuck with band-planning on other bands which
> didn't anticipate the popularity of FM repeaters. 2m is even more
> screwed up. Why have only 600 kHz offset, when it could have easily
> been double that? Duplexers would hav
- Original Message -
From: Nate Duehr
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
On Dec 25, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Paul Plack wrote:
> Keith
--
Received: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:49:05 PM CST
From: "Paul Plack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
> Nate,
>
> Where I live, (and every place I have lived,) the 2m band was not crowded
with u
007 03:25:34 AM CST
From: "Paul Plack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high
noise floor.
> I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's point. It's not about what modes are
authorized on a given freque
41 matches
Mail list logo
