Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Jeff Otterson]

Gadzooks!  I don't know what to say.  This is a sea change in the rules and 
the philosophy behind them.

Personally, I don't think that auxiliary operation should be allowed below 
70cm, where there is (still) plenty of spectrum available.  Think about 
this: there is only 4 MHz in the 144-148 segment, and only 3 MHz in the 
222-225 segment, but there is 30 MHz in the 420-450 allocation...

The kind of operation that Kenwood proposes with their Sky Command would 
encourage wide-area, omni-directional auxiliary links on 2 meters.  This is 
not good.  I do not concur that the auxiliary links used for Sky Command 
will be low-power point-to-point.  The section of the band that is proposed 
is already heavily utilized with repeaters and packet.  The Sky Command 
users will be operating fixed channel without coordination.

This is bad, bad.

Kenwood should focus on a solution that is acceptable to U.S. Amateurs, 
like (contrary to my earlier statement) 222 and 440 MHz.  Let them breathe 
some new life into the 222 band with their Sky Command solution.

Jeff

At 05:25 PM 4/15/2004, you wrote:
>For everyone's Info:
>
>
>Yes, this means linking would be possible on 2M legally.
>(above 144.500 MHz except 145.800-146.000)
>
>Joe M.
>_
>
>Excerpts from NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND ORDER
>
>Adopted: March 31, 2004
>Released: April 15, 2004
>Comment Date: June 15, 2004
>Reply Comment Date: June 30, 2004
>
>The major rule changes we propose today are as follows:
>
>. Revise the operating privileges of amateur radio operators in four
>High Frequency bands;
>
>. Permit auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m amateur service band;
>
>. Permit amateur stations to transmit spread spectrum communications on
>the 1.25 m band;
>
>. Permit amateur stations to re-transmit communications from the
>International Space Station;
>
>. Allow amateur service licensees to designate the amateur radio club to
>receive their call sign, in memoriam;
>
>. Prohibit an applicant from filing more than one application for a
>specific vanity call sign;
>
>. Eliminate unnecessary restrictions imposed on certain equipment
>manufacturers;
>
>. Allow amateur radio stations in or near Alaska more flexibility in
>providing emergency communications; and
>
>. Eliminate unnecessary rules in the amateur radio operator license
>examination system.
>
>
>
>17. Auxiliary stations. Background. The amateur service rules define an
>auxiliary
>
>station as an amateur station, other than one in a message forwarding
>system, that is transmitting
>
>point-to-point communications within a system of cooperating amateur
>stations. Section
>
>97.213(a) of the Commission's Rules provides that an amateur station on
>or within 50 km of the
>
>Earth's surface may be under telecommand where there is a radio or
>wireline control link
>
>between the control point and the station sufficient for the control
>operator to perform his or her
>
>duties. If the control link between the control point and the amateur
>station is a radio control
>
>link, then the control link must use an auxiliary station. An amateur
>station that is an auxiliary
>
>station may transmit on the 1.25 meter (m) and shorter wavelength bands,
>with certain
>
>exceptions. The underlying purpose of limiting auxiliary stations to
>these bands is to minimize
>
>the possibility of harmful interference to other amateur service
>stations and operations,
>
>particularly "weak signal" activity in the 2 m (144-148 MHz) band.
>
>
>
>18. On November 4, 1999, Kenwood Communications Corp. (Kenwood), a
>manufacturer
>
>of amateur radio equipment, requested a declaratory ruling confirming
>that its "Sky Command
>
>System" (Sky Command) complies with the amateur service rules.
>Alternatively, Kenwood
>
>requested the Commission to grant blanket rule waivers so that amateur
>service licensees could
>
>utilize Sky Command. In 2000, the Public Safety and Private Wireless
>Division denied
>
>Kenwood's request, concluding that Section 97.201(b) of the Commission's
>Rules does not
>
>authorize auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m band, and that
>Kenwood did not meet the
>
>standards for a waiver request.
>
>
>
>19. Subsequently, on May 1, 2001, Kenwood requested that we amend
>Section 97.201(b)
>
>of our Rules to allow auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m band
>above 144.5 MHz, except
>
>145.8-146.0 MHz, in addition to the frequency segments previously
>authorized. Kenwood
>
>states that this proposed rule change would increase the flexibility of
>amateur radio licensees
>
>without adversely affecting other services or amateur radio stations
>that use the 2 m band, and
>
>would promote the development and use of new technology, including Sky
>Command.
>
>
>
>20. Discussion. The Commission received twenty-four comments supporting
>Kenwood's
>
>request and sixteen comments opposing the request. Those supporting
>Kenwood

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cellular Antenna question

[Mathew Quaife]

There is a company that makes a 1/2 wave antenna from Wilson.  Not the CB antenna company.  I sell several of them, and they work great.  Generally made for fiberglas semi's, but works well on a home unit.  Can get up to 30 feet of coax on them.  If you need more info, let me know.
 
Mathew
"Jim B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Place wrote:> This is a little off topic but may benefit others. I have a week Verizon > signal in my house. Not much better outside either. Can go around the > block and get better signal. Just two miles from the nearest tower. > Would like to put an antenna on my tower and connect it to one in the > house house to use as a passive system.> Any suggestions.> BTW. Have contacted Verizon service about the signal. Doubt if anything > will get done since carriers don't guarantee service inside buildings.> A passive system as you describe might work. Use a yagi outside pointed at the tower, and run it to a gain antenna omni inside. Use GOOD coax, at least 9913.STAY AWAY from those active devices!!! For starters, they are illegal unless you get permission from the carrier (not likely). Poor
 construction and improper installation has caused oscillation, spurs, and interference to other cell carriers, and worse, other radio services, including public safety systems on 800 MHz.-- Jim BarbourWD8CHLYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
		Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th













Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater antenna question-unbalanc ed radiating loops

[bradley glen]

Thanks Roger

Looking at the suggestions it seems to me that if you
do the calculations the antennas could be designed at
100 OHM feed impedance.

Taking into account that you use 75 throughout the
harness-antennas =100 Ohm Z .

If anyone can comment further on the harness as I am
going on assumed givens as I do not have one to
confirm this.

Regards

Brad ZS5WT
--- "Rogers, Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep folks, these are commonly referred to as
> "Phasing Harnesses" just like
> we use in the contest circles to stack multiple
> antennas and phase them so
> the feed point impedance  still "sees" 50 ohms at
> the design frequency.
> 
> Ron Rogers 
> -WB8ERB-
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Grantham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 3:14 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater
> antenna question-unbalanced
> radiating loops
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the feed point is 50-Ohms
> when feeding one of
> these single unbalanced dipole elements.  The
> harness is for making the
> multiple elements on the array look like one element
> to the transmission
> line.  Look at their (DB's) folded unipole antenna
> for low band.  It's a
> ground-plane antenna with a similar radiating
> element that's fed with 50-Ohm
> line.  The difference is that it's got radials on it
> instead of a mirrored
> counterpoise.  There may be other subtle
> differences, but...
>  
> Steve, aa5sg
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: Paul Guello   
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>   
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater
> antenna question-unbalanced
> radiating loops
> 
> There are not any baluns on these antennas.  If I
> remember right, they use
> 75 ohm coax on each bay (odd multiples of quarter
> wave length) and 35 ohm
> coax on the feed (again odd multiples) to match the
> impedance to 50 ohms.
> This info was on the group a while back, somebody
> must still have it.
>  
> Paul, kb9wlc
>  
> 
> 
> Mathew Quaife < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > wrote:
> 
> Would a close up pic of a DB304 work for your needs,
> or I have the DB420
> there as well.
>  
> Mathew
> 
> 
> bradley glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I have been studying the db stacked array and the
> bayed array seems to use unbalanced dipoles as the
> radiators .I have tried to find a close up view of a
> single dipole so I can confirm my ideas.
> 
> If anyone has some good tech info on these antennas
> I
> would appreciate the info.
> 
> It would make sense to " by-pass " the need of
> baluns
> for each dipole -cost and balun loss?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Brad 
> ZS5WT Repeater Owner 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
>  
>   
> 
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

> 
>   
> 
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service
>  . 
> 
> 
> 





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater antenna question-unbalanced radiating loops

[bradley glen]

Hi Guys

Thanks for the notes -all noted and apppreciated.

A close up of any of the db open systems , especially
the close up of a single element would be greatly
appreciated.

I have done many searches on repeater antennas and it
seems like the vhf\uhf standard in the USA is decibel
.

In my past company we did use the ASP series of 2 and
4-stacks-we outshined the competition by far -I always
said it were decent antennas.

I have made some single  antennas years ago with some
success using that very same principle.By reducing the
folded dipole to mast(reflector) one decreases the
feed impedance so by the comments from you ,  the
harness ends with 75 Ohm coax onto the element it now
makes some sense.

I did recover one db-224 from a remote site which was
damaged due to water (black death) right through.

With so many of Db antennas used there should be a
dedicated forum to "Repeater Antennas ".

Kind regards

Bradley GlenZS5WT




--- Steve Grantham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you will find that the feed point is 50-Ohms
> when feeding one of these single unbalanced dipole
> elements.  The harness is for making the multiple
> elements on the array look like one element to the
> transmission line.  Look at their (DB's) folded
> unipole antenna for low band.  It's a ground-plane
> antenna with a similar radiating element that's fed
> with 50-Ohm line.  The difference is that it's got
> radials on it instead of a mirrored counterpoise. 
> There may be other subtle differences, but...
> 
> Steve, aa5sg
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Paul Guello 
>   To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:19 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater
> antenna question-unbalanced radiating loops
> 
> 
>   There are not any baluns on these antennas.  If I
> remember right, they use 75 ohm coax on each bay
> (odd multiples of quarter wave length) and 35 ohm
> coax on the feed (again odd multiples) to match the
> impedance to 50 ohms.  This info was on the group a
> while back, somebody must still have it.
> 
>   Paul, kb9wlc
> 
> 
> 
>   Mathew Quaife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would a close up pic of a DB304 work for your
> needs, or I have the DB420 there as well.
> 
> Mathew
> 
> 
> bradley glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   Hi
> 
>   I have been studying the db stacked array and
> the
>   bayed array seems to use unbalanced dipoles as
> the
>   radiators .I have tried to find a close up
> view of a
>   single dipole so I can confirm my ideas.
> 
>   If anyone has some good tech info on these
> antennas I
>   would appreciate the info.
> 
>   It would make sense to " by-pass " the need of
> baluns
>   for each dipole -cost and balun loss?
> 
>   Regards
> 
>   Brad 
>   ZS5WT Repeater Owner 
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   __
>   Do you Yahoo!?
>   Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
>   http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
--
>   Do you Yahoo!?
>   Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
--
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
>   
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
> 
> 





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[mch]

For everyone's Info:


Yes, this means linking would be possible on 2M legally.
(above 144.500 MHz except 145.800-146.000)

Joe M.
_

Excerpts from NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND ORDER

Adopted: March 31, 2004
Released: April 15, 2004
Comment Date: June 15, 2004
Reply Comment Date: June 30, 2004 

The major rule changes we propose today are as follows:

. Revise the operating privileges of amateur radio operators in four
High Frequency bands;

. Permit auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m amateur service band;

. Permit amateur stations to transmit spread spectrum communications on
the 1.25 m band;

. Permit amateur stations to re-transmit communications from the
International Space Station;

. Allow amateur service licensees to designate the amateur radio club to
receive their call sign, in memoriam;

. Prohibit an applicant from filing more than one application for a
specific vanity call sign;

. Eliminate unnecessary restrictions imposed on certain equipment
manufacturers;

. Allow amateur radio stations in or near Alaska more flexibility in
providing emergency communications; and

. Eliminate unnecessary rules in the amateur radio operator license
examination system.

 

17. Auxiliary stations. Background. The amateur service rules define an
auxiliary

station as an amateur station, other than one in a message forwarding
system, that is transmitting

point-to-point communications within a system of cooperating amateur
stations. Section

97.213(a) of the Commission’s Rules provides that an amateur station on
or within 50 km of the

Earth’s surface may be under telecommand where there is a radio or
wireline control link

between the control point and the station sufficient for the control
operator to perform his or her

duties. If the control link between the control point and the amateur
station is a radio control

link, then the control link must use an auxiliary station. An amateur
station that is an auxiliary

station may transmit on the 1.25 meter (m) and shorter wavelength bands,
with certain

exceptions. The underlying purpose of limiting auxiliary stations to
these bands is to minimize

the possibility of harmful interference to other amateur service
stations and operations,

particularly “weak signal” activity in the 2 m (144-148 MHz) band.

 

18. On November 4, 1999, Kenwood Communications Corp. (Kenwood), a
manufacturer

of amateur radio equipment, requested a declaratory ruling confirming
that its “Sky Command

System” (Sky Command) complies with the amateur service rules.
Alternatively, Kenwood

requested the Commission to grant blanket rule waivers so that amateur
service licensees could

utilize Sky Command. In 2000, the Public Safety and Private Wireless
Division denied

Kenwood’s request, concluding that Section 97.201(b) of the Commission’s
Rules does not

authorize auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m band, and that
Kenwood did not meet the

standards for a waiver request.

 

19. Subsequently, on May 1, 2001, Kenwood requested that we amend
Section 97.201(b)

of our Rules to allow auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m band
above 144.5 MHz, except

145.8-146.0 MHz, in addition to the frequency segments previously
authorized. Kenwood

states that this proposed rule change would increase the flexibility of
amateur radio licensees

without adversely affecting other services or amateur radio stations
that use the 2 m band, and

would promote the development and use of new technology, including Sky
Command.

 

20. Discussion. The Commission received twenty-four comments supporting
Kenwood’s

request and sixteen comments opposing the request. Those supporting
Kenwood’s request state

that (a) the 2 m band is not heavily used and such use is no different
than other uses already

occurring on the band, (b) auxiliary stations transmit on short distance
simplex channels which

would not cause interference to other stations on the band, (c) it would
allow for the

development of new emergency communication systems and capabilities and
support other 

applications such as controlling an HF station in a vehicle, or from an
antenna-restricted

residence, and (d) it is consistent with flexible service rules.

 

21. On the other hand, some commenters state that it is not necessary
for auxiliary

stations to transmit on the 2 m band because sufficient amateur service
spectrum is available on

and above the 220 MHz band. Others claim that the 2 m band is heavily
used, and argue that

increased interference will occur if the rules are revised as Kenwood
requests. Some

commenters believe that existing rules are sufficient to address this
concern, or that licensees

can either address this issue amongst themselves or through existing
coordination policies.

 

22. Because we have no basis to conclude that auxiliary stations
transmitting on the 2 m

band would cause harmful interference or

Re: [Repeater-Builder] motorola uhf gm300 in 929.6625 mhz?

[Ted Bleiman K9MDM - MDM Radio]

I have not kept up with other opinions but i
would suspect it is NOT practical or possible to
accomplish this. also with the failure of so many
paging companies in the u.s. a 900 mhz
transmitter can be had so cheaply that any
reengineering of other radios is silly.
even tha thams are buying purc 9000 for $500 anmd
making hamband repeaters out of them so why try
to reinvent to the wheel.
a friend of mine has a lot of this stuff around.
contact
Steve Suker at central vermont communications 802
775 6726 in rutland vermont tell him Ted from MDM
Radio sent you and explain your requirements. I
fairly certain he can help you out or at least
point you in thr right direction.
I have a bunch of motorola 900 pagers and
programmer si'd like to sell if you are in the
market. entire lot will go cheap. also have r1801
programmer.
good luck
Ted Bleiman
MDM Radio


=
Ted Bleiman  K9MDM -just tired
MDM Radio Ltd
1629-B N. 31 st Ave
Melrose Park, IL 60160
708.681.0300   fax 708.681.9800
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web http://www.mdmradio.com




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater antenna question-unbalanc ed radiating loops

[Rogers, Ron]

Yep 
folks, these are commonly referred to as "Phasing Harnesses" just like we 
use in the contest circles to stack multiple antennas and phase them so the feed 
point impedance  still "sees" 50 ohms at the design 
frequency.
Ron Rogers -WB8ERB-

  -Original Message-From: Steve Grantham 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 3:14 
  PMTo: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: 
  [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater antenna question-unbalanced radiating 
  loops
  I think you will find that the feed point is 
  50-Ohms when feeding one of these single unbalanced dipole 
  elements.  The harness is for making the multiple elements on 
  the array look like one element to the transmission line.  Look 
  at their (DB's) folded unipole antenna for low band.  It's 
  a ground-plane antenna with a similar radiating element that's fed with 
  50-Ohm line.  The difference is that it's got radials on it instead of a 
  mirrored counterpoise.  There may be other subtle differences, 
  but...
   
  Steve, aa5sg
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Paul Guello 

To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:19 
PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel 
repeater antenna question-unbalanced radiating loops

There are not any baluns on these antennas.  If I remember right, 
they use 75 ohm coax on each bay (odd multiples of quarter wave length) and 
35 ohm coax on the feed (again odd multiples) to match the impedance to 50 
ohms.  This info was on the group a while back, somebody must still 
have it.
 
Paul, kb9wlc
 
Mathew Quaife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  Would a close up pic of a DB304 work for your needs, or I have the 
  DB420 there as well.
   
  Mathew
  bradley glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  HiI 
have been studying the db stacked array and thebayed array seems to 
use unbalanced dipoles as theradiators .I have tried to find a close 
up view of asingle dipole so I can confirm my ideas.If 
anyone has some good tech info on these antennas Iwould appreciate 
the info.It would make sense to " by-pass " the need of 
balunsfor each dipole -cost and balun 
loss?RegardsBrad ZS5WT Repeater Owner 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]__Do 
you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 
15thhttp://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.htmlYahoo! 
Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go 
to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/<*> 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email 
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject 
to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th 
  


Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th 














Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater antenna question-unbalanced radiating loops

[Steve Grantham]

I think you will find that the feed point is 
50-Ohms when feeding one of these single unbalanced dipole 
elements.  The harness is for making the multiple elements on the 
array look like one element to the transmission line.  Look at 
their (DB's) folded unipole antenna for low band.  It's a ground-plane 
antenna with a similar radiating element that's fed with 50-Ohm line.  The 
difference is that it's got radials on it instead of a mirrored 
counterpoise.  There may be other subtle differences, but...
 
Steve, aa5sg

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Paul Guello 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:19 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel 
  repeater antenna question-unbalanced radiating loops
  
  There are not any baluns on these antennas.  If I remember right, 
  they use 75 ohm coax on each bay (odd multiples of quarter wave length) and 35 
  ohm coax on the feed (again odd multiples) to match the impedance to 50 
  ohms.  This info was on the group a while back, somebody must still have 
  it.
   
  Paul, kb9wlc
   
  Mathew Quaife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
Would a close up pic of a DB304 work for your needs, or I have the 
DB420 there as well.
 
Mathew
bradley glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
HiI 
  have been studying the db stacked array and thebayed array seems to 
  use unbalanced dipoles as theradiators .I have tried to find a close 
  up view of asingle dipole so I can confirm my ideas.If anyone 
  has some good tech info on these antennas Iwould appreciate the 
  info.It would make sense to " by-pass " the need of balunsfor 
  each dipole -cost and balun loss?RegardsBrad ZS5WT 
  Repeater Owner 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]__Do 
  you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 
  15thhttp://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.htmlYahoo! 
  Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go 
  to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/<*> To 
  unsubscribe from this group, send an email 
  to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your 
  use of Yahoo! Groups is subject 
  to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th 

  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th 
  













Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater antenna question-unbalanced radiating loops

[Paul Guello]

There are not any baluns on these antennas.  If I remember right, they use 75 ohm coax on each bay (odd multiples of quarter wave length) and 35 ohm coax on the feed (again odd multiples) to match the impedance to 50 ohms.  This info was on the group a while back, somebody must still have it.
 
Paul, kb9wlc
 
Mathew Quaife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Would a close up pic of a DB304 work for your needs, or I have the DB420 there as well.
 
Mathew
bradley glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HiI have been studying the db stacked array and thebayed array seems to use unbalanced dipoles as theradiators .I have tried to find a close up view of asingle dipole so I can confirm my ideas.If anyone has some good tech info on these antennas Iwould appreciate the info.It would make sense to " by-pass " the need of balunsfor each dipole -cost and balun loss?RegardsBrad ZS5WT Repeater Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]__Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15thhttp://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.htmlYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
 to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th 
		Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th













Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Reproduction

[scomind]

Hi Joe,
 
At some point in DSP, audio processing, synthesis, etc-all thrown into a bag and each manipulated withnumbers or programming, we sort of lose base with whatwe are doing. We could create AM, FM, PM, SSB, PSK,FSK, what have you.
 
And as amateurs and technical people, it'd be good if we understood both the theory and the practice. Else, we become removed from the knowledge base and are prevented from participating.
 
 
AFAIK, there haven't been any commercial two-wayradios built in the last 15 to 20 years that use PM. Icould be wrong, but I can't think of any.
 
The PLL is an excellent platform for a frequency modulator and exciter, assuming such things as phase noise are controlled. It's not surprising the world has gone that way.
 
Jeff's comments about DSP are also well taken.
 
These are new ways to get better results from old theory. The theory hasn't changed and we should be familiar with it.
 
73,
Bob













Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater antenna question-unbalanced radiating loops

[Mathew Quaife]

Would a close up pic of a DB304 work for your needs, or I have the DB420 there as well.
 
Mathew
bradley glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HiI have been studying the db stacked array and thebayed array seems to use unbalanced dipoles as theradiators .I have tried to find a close up view of asingle dipole so I can confirm my ideas.If anyone has some good tech info on these antennas Iwould appreciate the info.It would make sense to " by-pass " the need of balunsfor each dipole -cost and balun loss?RegardsBrad ZS5WT Repeater Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED]__Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15thhttp://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.htmlYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
 to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
		Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th













Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cellular Antenna question

[Jim B.]

John Place wrote:
> This is a little off topic but may benefit others. I have a week Verizon 
> signal in my house. Not much better outside either. Can go around the 
> block and get better signal.  Just two miles from the nearest tower. 
> Would like to put an antenna on my tower and connect it to one in the 
> house house to use as a passive system.
>  Any suggestions.
>  BTW. Have contacted Verizon service about the signal. Doubt if anything 
> will get done since carriers don't guarantee service inside buildings.
> 

A passive system as you describe might work. Use a yagi outside pointed 
at the tower, and run it to a gain antenna omni inside. Use GOOD coax, 
at least 9913.
STAY AWAY from those active devices!!! For starters, they are illegal 
unless you get permission from the carrier (not likely). Poor 
construction and improper installation has caused oscillation, spurs, 
and interference to other cell carriers, and worse, other radio 
services, including public safety systems on 800 MHz.


-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Reproduction

[Joe Montierth]

--- Jeff DePolo WN3A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> I guess this begs the question - at that point,
> where you're doing
> preemphasis and modulation via math versus analog
> circuitry and synthesizing
> the modulated carrier, do you call it PM or
> preemphasized FM?  I would argue
> the latter since you could have response that
> includes DC.
> 
>   --- Jeff
> 
> Jeff DePolo WN3A - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Broadcast and Communications Consultant 

Well thats kind of the point I'm trying to make. At
some point in DSP, audio processing, synthesis, etc-
all thrown into a bag and each manipulated with
numbers or programming, we sort of lose base with what
we are doing. We could create AM, FM, PM, SSB, PSK,
FSK, what have you. This has become a problem with the
FCC, and they now are proposing "software defined
radio" as a catchphrase. That makes sense, since
basically you have a mike and an ant jack, and the
programming or software inside make it digital,
analog, or some combination of both.

Nowadays, its probably not "fair" to include such
items, even though they are the future. Most of us in
the real world can't afford them yet, and have to rely
on Micors, MII, etc.

AFAIK, there haven't been any commercial two-way
radios built in the last 15 to 20 years that use PM. I
could be wrong, but I can't think of any.

Joe




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] Cellular Antenna question

[John Place]

This is a little off topic but may benefit others. I have a week Verizon 
signal in my house. Not much better outside either. Can go around the 
block and get better signal.  Just two miles from the nearest tower. 
Would like to put an antenna on my tower and connect it to one in the 
house house to use as a passive system.
 Any suggestions.
 BTW. Have contacted Verizon service about the signal. Doubt if anything 
will get done since carriers don't guarantee service inside buildings.

-- 
Amateur Radio
W4HNK  EM92vx






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] Decibel repeater antenna question-unbalanced radiating loops

[bradley glen]

Hi

I have been studying the db stacked array and the
bayed array seems to use unbalanced dipoles as the
radiators .I have tried to find a close up view of a
single dipole so I can confirm my ideas.

If anyone has some good tech info on these antennas I
would appreciate the info.

It would make sense to " by-pass " the need of baluns
for each dipole -cost and balun loss?

Regards

Brad 
 ZS5WT Repeater Owner 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]






__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Reproduction

[Jeff DePolo WN3A]

> I think we're on two different wavelengths here. What
> I am talking about is practical application, not
> theoretical mumbo-jumbo. 

OK, yes, I'm talking about the theoretical limitations.  Your earlier post
said that "even theoretical PM falls apart at low frequencies", and that's
where I disagree.

> But compared to a volt P to P that is a small signal.
> We wouldn't run volts of audio down the same system,
> with no changes. You wouldn't put speaker level audio
> on a line designed for 10 uV, and expect everything to
> play fine. 100 dB of dynamic range is about the best
> we can expect out of a good CD changer. 

That limit is imposed by quantization noise due to the 16 bit word length
for the samples; it's not an analog limitation.  The theoretical limit for
16 bits is 98.08 dB.  For 24 bits (common nowadays in audio work), it's
146.24 dB.

> Anyway, what I am talking about is real world
> limitations on the theoretical PM. Sure theoretically
> you could build a modulator that would do .01 to 3
> KHz. Would it be expensive? duh. Would it be complex?
> duh. 

Considering that a PM Mastr II station originally cost more than what you
can get a digital broadcast exciter for nowadays, I don't consider the cost
to be the limiting factor.  As far as complexity, it depends on how you
define the term.  To some, digital logic and DSP is less "complex" than
analog circuit design.  Let's face it, in either case you put audio and DC
into the box and you get modulated RF out of it.  The "complexity" of the
circuitry that does that conversion is subjective.  

Think about it - in a digital implementation you don't need analog circuitry
to high-pass filter, preemphasize, limit, deemphasize, low-pass filter,
gain-adjust, buffer, generate PL/DPL and sum it in, modulate, multiply, key
on and off, etc. - one DSP chip and maybe a few thousand lines of code would
replace most of the analog circuitry in a traditional PM (or FM) exciter,
and once written, it could be re-used for multiple bands in many models and
generations of radios.  Cost effective to manufacture?  Hell yeah!

I guess this begs the question - at that point, where you're doing
preemphasis and modulation via math versus analog circuitry and synthesizing
the modulated carrier, do you call it PM or preemphasized FM?  I would argue
the latter since you could have response that includes DC.

--- Jeff

Jeff DePolo WN3A - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Broadcast and Communications Consultant 







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Audio Reproduction

[Joe Montierth]

--- Jeff DePolo WN3A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I guess I'm not following your logic. If you could
> get
> > a PM exciter to produce a .01 Hz tone at 5 KHz
> > deviation, the amount of audio required at 1 Hz
> would
> > be 40 dB below that. The amount of audio required
> to
> > modulate 5Khz deviation at 1KHz tone would be 60
> dB
> > below the 1 Hz level, or 100 dB below the .01 Hz
> > level.
> > 
> > This means that a modulator that could produce a
> .01
> > Hz tone at 5 KHz of modulation for 1 volt P to P
> would
> > only require 10 micro volts P to P at a 1 KHz
> tone.
> > Thats a very small level in anyone's book, and the
> SNR
> > would be garbage, since most audio type amps only
> have
> > 120 to 130 dB of maximum dynamic range.
> > 
> > I'm not limiting the PM designs to varactor. Any
> > "true" PM modulator has a 6 dB/octave curve, and
> > therefore falls under this calculation. If the
> audio
> > deviation doesn't increase by 6 dB/octave, you
> don't
> > have a "true" PM.
> 
> 1.  It seems that you keep reverting to logic that
> is bound by limitations
> in audio dynamic range and S/N rather than sticking
> to what we were
> originally discussing - the theoretical capabilities
> of PM (which, again,
> has an LF cutoff of DC).
> 
> 2.  You can create PM via digital techniques that
> wouldn't be constricted by
> analog world limitations like dynamic range and S/N.
>  This isn't "black
> magic"; modern FM broadcast exciters have been doing
> this for years.
> 
> 3.  Even in an analog design, there's nothing to say
> that you have to have
> one audio path/stage that the audio passes through. 
> You can have a
> low-level amplifier that is used for high
> frequencies (those requiring less
> amplitude), and a high-level amplifier for lower
> frequencies, the output of
> which two would be summed prior to the modulator. 
> Again, this is a moot
> point since we're debating the theoretical
> capabilities of PM, not the
> real-world implementations.
> 
> 4.  Regarding your comment that 10 microvolts P-P is
> a very small level and
> the SNR would be garbage, a typical dynamic mic has
> an output around -100
> dBV (10 microvolts) at an SPL of 50.  It's not a
> ridiculously-low audio
> level to deal with in the AF domain...
> 
> One more time for the folks in the cheap seats -
> THERE IS NO THEORETICAL LF
> LIMIT FOR PHASE MODULATION!
> 
>   --- Jeff
> 
> Jeff DePolo WN3A - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Broadcast and Communications Consultant 
> 


I think we're on two different wavelengths here. What
I am talking about is practical application, not
theoretical mumbo-jumbo. Going back to the first post,
Bob was talking about generating a .01 Hz PM signal
with a function generator- thats all well and good,
but we don't use function generators for transmitters.
And what a function generator can do with a single
tone is different that what a "real" modulator can do
over 8 decades of frequency change.

I'm not arguing the point about "theoretical" PM. It
is as you say, good down to approaching DC, but not
DC. What I am trying to say is that I haven't seen a
PM modulator with that kind of range,(.01 to 3000Hz)
but I see FM modulators that can do that and fit in
your hand and cost $100. There may be some broadcast
PM TX out there, I haven't seen it, and I don't know
what it might cost. (probably more than $100).  

Reference your points:

> 1.  It seems that you keep reverting to logic that
> is bound by limitations
> in audio dynamic range and S/N rather than sticking
> to what we were
> originally discussing - the theoretical capabilities
> of PM (which, again,
> has an LF cutoff of DC).

What I am talking about is a single input modulator
(just like FM), where you put your audio in at a
certain point, and it works. There are too many
decades of audio for a single simple PM modulator (ala
FM) at a 20 dB per decade increasing rate, which
requires 20 dB less of audio per decade. There is over
100 dB of change from .01Hz to 3KHz. If you start at
the top of the dynamic range of the amplifier feeding
the modulator, at .01Hz, you'd be down a 100 dB by the
time you get to 3Khz. And for good sounding NBFM you
need at least 50 dB SNR at that point. That means the
amp and the modulator have to have a dynamic range of
at least 150 dB. Can this be done? Sure, but in a
"real" world environment it becomes difficult to
impossible, at a price people will pay.


 2.  You can create PM via digital techniques that
> wouldn't be constricted by
> analog world limitations like dynamic range and S/N.
>  This isn't "black
> magic"; modern FM broadcast exciters have been doing
> this for years.
 
Maybe so, I haven't seen them. You probably have
access to more of that stuff than I do.

> 3.  Even in an analog design, there's nothing to say
> that you have to have
> one audio path/stage that the audio passes through. 
> You can have a
> low-level amplif