RE: [Repeater-Builder] How d'ya Avoid Multiple IDs with Remote Sites and/or Links?
I developed and use "Squelch Faking". I have a tone generator at 6000 Hz that runs down the link TX whenever COS is not present, deviates the transmitter about 1.5 KHz. This fools the squelch circuit in the reciever to close becuase of the high frequency component and has the added advantage of fooling scanners and other radios that your channel is not active unless it is forcefully unsquelched, depending on the radio the S-Meter may rise. The tone circuit is based on a 555 and a 4066, It can be built for approx $5 and no modification is needed at the RX. But for best results the tone needs to interface after any filtering and emphasis circuits in the audio path of the TX. IDs from the controller are still perfectly audible through the cue tone, when the audio mixing is done correctly. --Matt "Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Say you have a central repeater with a voting system and a handful of >satellite receivers, each of which has its own discrete UHF path back >to the receivers feeding the voter. Each remote site has to ID its >transmitter when active and, unless filtered out, this ID will then >be relayed via the repeater transmitter. > >Assuming all transmitters in the system have the same ID, this >wouldn't be a problem (legally, morally, ethically), but could be a >pain in the patoot if, for example, a mobile station travelling >through the area brought up a string of remote sites in succession; >then you might have a whole slew of IDs including that of the >repeater itself! > >Now, I guess you could have each satellite transmit ID without CTCSS, >but inevitably you'll get bits and pieces of it anyway. > >Likewise in a linked repeater system you may well end up >retransmitting a distant repeater's ID, but this can be confusing at >times to someone listening to the hub. > >My question is...well...the subject line says it all! > >Tnx es 73, >Bob > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > __ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp 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] T1507 Duplexer - Bandpass Only Vs. Bp-Br
55 dB should be adequate isolation for a repeater, unless you are running a high gain pre-amp and/or high power. These duplexers are better in most ways than the BP/BR type because they provide better isolation at most frequencies further removed from the TX/RX. A small spur on your TX that is 30 MHz away from the TX frequency will be greatly attenuated. Likewise, a high power commercial UHF paging TX will have lots of attenuation, due to the true BP nature of the device. The additional dB or so of loss should not be noticeable. These duplexers are especially sought on very crowded sites, if yours is not crowded, you might be better off with a BP/BR type. Someone would probably trade you for one of the other types. Joe --- n0pwz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am the proud(?) new owner of what a believe to be > a T1507 > duplexer. I believe it is a bandpass only duplexer. > I use, and am > familiar with, the T1504's which are Bp-Br > duplexers. If the > duplexer in question is actually a T1507 it would > seem to have > inferior receiver isolation of 55 dB vs 80 dB in the > T1504. > > Whether this is actually difference that is > significant, is a > question I've been puzzling over for a bit. Is 55 dB > of isolation > enough for most repeaters? I also noticed a > difference of 1.3 vs. > 2.0 dB insertion loss between the two, but I suspect > I can > compensate for this with a better antenna. > > I note that some folks have been using these > bandpass only duplexers > in their repeaters with some success, so there is no > doubt on my > part that it can be used with a repeater. I would > like to get some > input from the folks on the list as to the benefits > (or disbenefits) > of this type of duplexer compared to a Bp-Br > duplexer such as the > T1504. Also, is one better off with a T1504 or a > T1507 at a location > where there is another 450 mhz repeater? > > Thanks very much in advance! > > Mark > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com 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] How d'ya Avoid Multiple IDs with Remote Sites and/or Links?
That's how I usually do it. ID without CTCSS and keep the ID as short as possible (IOW, no /A, no DE, no /RPT or /LINK) - just the callsign, and keep it at 20 WPM. Yes, on those who keyup immediately, and capture the IDing site, you may hear part of an ID, but only for a second at most. An easy way to avoid that is to set your CT at 1.5 - 2.0 seconds from carrier drop. It's still no guarantee that someone will not jump both the CT and the ID, but it's 99.9% effective. You could always have the IDer disable the CTCSS encoder if you really don't like hearing an occasional dit or dah. Joe M. Bob wrote: > > Now, I guess you could have each satellite transmit ID without CTCSS, > but inevitably you'll get bits and pieces of it anyway. 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] T1507 Duplexer - Bandpass Only Vs. Bp-Br
I am the proud(?) new owner of what a believe to be a T1507 duplexer. I believe it is a bandpass only duplexer. I use, and am familiar with, the T1504's which are Bp-Br duplexers. If the duplexer in question is actually a T1507 it would seem to have inferior receiver isolation of 55 dB vs 80 dB in the T1504. Whether this is actually difference that is significant, is a question I've been puzzling over for a bit. Is 55 dB of isolation enough for most repeaters? I also noticed a difference of 1.3 vs. 2.0 dB insertion loss between the two, but I suspect I can compensate for this with a better antenna. I note that some folks have been using these bandpass only duplexers in their repeaters with some success, so there is no doubt on my part that it can be used with a repeater. I would like to get some input from the folks on the list as to the benefits (or disbenefits) of this type of duplexer compared to a Bp-Br duplexer such as the T1504. Also, is one better off with a T1504 or a T1507 at a location where there is another 450 mhz repeater? Thanks very much in advance! Mark 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] How d'ya Avoid Multiple IDs with Remote Sites and/or Links?
A few options: 1. Send the ID at, for example, 2600 Hz, and have notch filters to remove 2600 Hz at the link receiver at the main site. You need to notch the ID's before voting lest you confuse the comparator. 2. Use "smart" ID'ers on the aux link transmitters without encoding PL such that they only ID after a period of inactivity (yet still within the 10 minute timeframe), and/or have an interrupt scheme whereby if the remote receiver goes active while it's ID'ing, it quits ID'ing, allows the user transmission to pass across the link and then re-attempts to fully ID after the user unkeys. This way CW tones aren't heard on the user's transmissions, and likewise won't mess up the voting. 3. Send the ID as MCW-AM. This is perfectly legal - MCW is the same as phone for the sake of ID'ing (see 97.305(a) and 97.3(c)(5)). Since you're AMming the carrier, the FM detector in the link receiver shouldn't detect it (unless the receiver has a problem, is off frequency, or has poor AM rejection). This is usually pretty easy to do by modulating the power control line (which usually feeds the collector of the first transistor in the PA through a pass transistor, a la Micor, Mastr II, and many other designs). In some cases you might have to modify the filtering of the power control line to let enough AC through to yield enough AM, but usually that's pretty trivial. We're not looking for high-fi AM here, just something discernable enough to be a legal ID and yet still clean spectrally. 4. Send the ID as "pure" CW by simply keying the FM transmitter on and off, again without encoding PL. Use this in conjunction with a "smart" ID'ing heuristic to avoid ID's from affecting user traffic. 5. There have been discussions whereby the resulting interpretation from the Commission that it may not be necessary to identify each link separately as you can consider the users to be the control operators of those auxiliary stations (i.e. the link transmitters) in which case they don't need a separate ID anyway. Since this isn't the place for interpreting and debating rules, I'll leave it at that. --- Jeff Jeff DePolo WN3A - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Broadcast and Communications Consultant > -Original Message- > From: Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:35 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] How d'ya Avoid Multiple IDs with > Remote Sites and/or Links? > > > > > Say you have a central repeater with a voting system and a handful of > satellite receivers, each of which has its own discrete UHF path back > to the receivers feeding the voter. Each remote site has to ID its > transmitter when active and, unless filtered out, this ID will then > be relayed via the repeater transmitter. > > Assuming all transmitters in the system have the same ID, this > wouldn't be a problem (legally, morally, ethically), but could be a > pain in the patoot if, for example, a mobile station travelling > through the area brought up a string of remote sites in succession; > then you might have a whole slew of IDs including that of the > repeater itself! > > Now, I guess you could have each satellite transmit ID without CTCSS, > but inevitably you'll get bits and pieces of it anyway. > > Likewise in a linked repeater system you may well end up > retransmitting a distant repeater's ID, but this can be confusing at > times to someone listening to the hub. > > My question is...well...the subject line says it all! > > Tnx es 73, > Bob > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > 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] How d'ya Avoid Multiple IDs with Remote Sites and/or Links?
Bob wrote: > > Say you have a central repeater with a voting system and a handful of > satellite receivers, each of which has its own discrete UHF path back > to the receivers feeding the voter. Each remote site has to ID its > transmitter when active and, unless filtered out, this ID will then > be relayed via the repeater transmitter. > > Assuming all transmitters in the system have the same ID, this > wouldn't be a problem (legally, morally, ethically), but could be a > pain in the patoot if, for example, a mobile station travelling > through the area brought up a string of remote sites in succession; > then you might have a whole slew of IDs including that of the > repeater itself! > > Now, I guess you could have each satellite transmit ID without CTCSS, > but inevitably you'll get bits and pieces of it anyway. > > Likewise in a linked repeater system you may well end up > retransmitting a distant repeater's ID, but this can be confusing at > times to someone listening to the hub. > > My question is...well...the subject line says it all! > > Tnx es 73, > Bob One solution: Set the pitch of the ID's down around 250 hz, and set the deviation to between 800 hz and 1.5 Khz. It'll be inaudible to all except the older radios that have no ctcss filtering, and even then it'll be hard to hear. In fact, if you put a ctcss high-pass after the voter, even they won't hear it. But it's still plainly copyable on the link freq if you actually want to listen to it, which meets regs. -- 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/
[Repeater-Builder] How d'ya Avoid Multiple IDs with Remote Sites and/or Links?
Say you have a central repeater with a voting system and a handful of satellite receivers, each of which has its own discrete UHF path back to the receivers feeding the voter. Each remote site has to ID its transmitter when active and, unless filtered out, this ID will then be relayed via the repeater transmitter. Assuming all transmitters in the system have the same ID, this wouldn't be a problem (legally, morally, ethically), but could be a pain in the patoot if, for example, a mobile station travelling through the area brought up a string of remote sites in succession; then you might have a whole slew of IDs including that of the repeater itself! Now, I guess you could have each satellite transmit ID without CTCSS, but inevitably you'll get bits and pieces of it anyway. Likewise in a linked repeater system you may well end up retransmitting a distant repeater's ID, but this can be confusing at times to someone listening to the hub. My question is...well...the subject line says it all! Tnx es 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: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of power)
Good comments! The point is there are circumstances that would make running higher power appropriate and not necessarily excessive. I guess the gent can speak to this, but with that much tower, considering the stated use of remote receivers, the feedline loss, and the high transmitter power, I wouldn't expect he was duplexing the receiver on the main transmit antenna. It would be easier to just throw up a primary receiver and link antenna (possibly a dual-band omni) at several-hundred feet on a second piece of CATV line, and let the remote receivers handle the fringe areas. Steve Kevin Custer wrote: .750 CATV hardline has about .66 dB of loss per 100 feet at 68 degrees F at 150 mHz. If he was talking about a 2 meter repeater, 1300 feet would result in 8.58 dB of loss at 2 meters. If he was talking about a UHF repeater, 1300 feet would result in 14.56 dB of loss. If he's running 2M duplex, one could assume about 1.5 dB of loss in the duplexer, add this to the 8.58 dB of loss in the cable and add 6 dB of gain for the antenna, his ERP would be somewhere around 120 watts. Kevin Custer Steve Grantham wrote: This sounds wild. However, if he's running 1300' of 0.750 CATV trunk line, his loss could be as much as 2.0 dB per 100-foot. That's 26-dB loss. Take out say 6-db for antenna gain. This leaves him with 3-Watts ERP. If it was 1.0 dB per 100-foot, then the ERP would be about 60-Watts. I just hope he has remote receivers in various and diverse locations around the periphery of the transmitter site for maximum system effectiveness. Steve 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] Figuring out the second harmonic
Jed Barton wrote: > Hey guys, > This may be a dumb question, but what's the formula for figuring out the > second harmonic of a repeater freq? > > Thanks, > Jed frequency times two... -- 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] Figuring out the second harmonic
At 01:37 PM 11/4/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Hey guys, >This may be a dumb question, but what's the formula for figuring out the >second harmonic of a repeater freq?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] Figuring out the second harmonic
Hey guys, This may be a dumb question, but what's the formula for figuring out the second harmonic of a repeater freq? Thanks, Jed 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] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of power)
how about lower power , better hard line and a more gain DB antenna. - Original Message - From: "kf0m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:50 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of power) > > Here is the situation with the repeater I maintain that runs 300W on TX. > Repeater antennas are at 1300 ft feed through 3/4 in 75 ohm line. The > majority of the user base is 40 to 60 miles from the site. We have a > remote > input about 60 miles from the repeater to provide HT and mobile coverage > for where the majority of the users are. With all the feedline loss and > the > distance from the users, we need the 300W Tx power to provide good > coverage > where the users are. > > The repeater is also the primary skywarn repeater with wide area coverage > of > the state and users need to be able to hear the repeater well in adverse > weather conditions. > > With 300W, I can hear the repeater from my house which is 50 miles from > the > repeater and I can get into it on the HT with the rubber duck using 200 mw > through the remote receiver. With the repeater running 100W for TX, I can > get into the repeater using the HT but can't hear it on the rubber duck. > > John Lock KF0M > Wichita KS > kf0m at arrl dot net > >> -Original Message- >> From: Kevin Custer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:09 AM >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of >> power) >> >> >> >> RE: Excessive power. >> >> Neil McKie wrote: >> >> >I can only wonder why the need for what seems to me is excessive power? >> > >> >> Most folks will agree that a repeater that is working properly (no >> desense) having a receiver sensitivity of .35 uV (- 116 dBm) for 12 dB >> SINAD, and a transmitter power of 110 watts will likely be fairly well >> matched in receive/transmit coverage considering a modern 50 watt mobile >> rig. >> >> Now, lets add a receiver preamp on the repeater and increase its >> sensitivity by say 6 dB to -122 dBm. Considering the repeater still >> operates properly, without desense, this same repeater would now require >> 480 watts of transmitter power to be matched as above. >> >> That being said, 200 + watts of transmitter power doesn't seem to be >> excessive to me, but it depends on what is there to hear the user. >> >> Kevin Custer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > 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] Motorola Nucleus
zr6anf wrote: > > > Dear Reader > > Our Amateur Radio Club have been donated a Nucleus Repeater in > visibly mint condition. It comprises the following items: > > 1. 19" Cabinet > Motorola Nucleus > Serial Number: 711CUN0474 > FO Number: 5540-0180-90100 > Model Number: T5481A > PD: 07/01/94 > WK: 30 > > 2. Power Supply > ONAN: 3-70554- > Customer Part Number: 0180522S02 > > 3. Receiver > TRE6301A34 > TLE5991A > CAEUL90GM0 > UHF, could be anything from below 400 up to 512 > 4. Exiter > TLD9922C24 > X131AD > > 5.Transmitter > TLD3102D24 > Both VHF, could from 135 or so up to 175 or so... So it looks like you have a cross band box. Nucs are common in the paging arena, so that may explain why it's cross band. -- 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] WA6SVT coaxial collinear results
I know that if a part fails on ANY antenna everything changes, I used to recall the old Squallo antennas, I discovered a broken lead wire to the capacitor was giving a high SWR reading. I also recently bought a used 2M. Ringo antenna, cleaned it up, and retighten everything, works fine now. also I read enough material that a metal object so much distance away or even close will throw throw SWR readings off. Mark Holman, CRO AB8RU - Original Message - From: "Paul Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] WA6SVT coaxial collinear results > > On Monday 01 November 2004 01:07 pm, Bob Dengler wrote: >> Cushcraft 4-pole is far from a dummy load. It may be >> mechanically fragile, but it has about the same gain as >> any other comparable dipole array. > > I probably shouldn't have made the dummy load comment. Mine > acted like one, but I don't dispute that most of them work > well. I just didn't have any luck with it for unknown > reasons. Thinking it might have a problem in the phasing > harness, I built a new one. That made no significant > difference. Maybe the 4-pole didn't like its surroundings. > >> Perhaps you had it adjusted for an omni pattern (each >> dipole rotated 90° from the one beneath it). This will >> NOT work on the UHF 4-pole & will result in a very >> degraded pattern. It ONLY works when the dipoles are all >> lined up. > > No, they were all in line. I was (am) more interested in > coverage to the west than anywhere else so I do what I can > to favor that direction. > > Paul N1BUG > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > 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] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of power)
Steve Grantham wrote: >This sounds wild. However, if he's running 1300' of 0.750 CATV trunk line, >his loss could be as much as 2.0 dB per 100-foot. That's 26-dB loss. Take >out say 6-db for antenna gain. This leaves him with 3-Watts ERP. If it was >1.0 dB per 100-foot, then the ERP would be about 60-Watts. I just hope he >has remote receivers in various and diverse locations around the periphery >of the transmitter site for maximum system effectiveness. > >Steve > .750 CATV hardline has about .66 dB of loss per 100 feet at 68 degrees F at 150 mHz. If he was talking about a 2 meter repeater, 1300 feet would result in 8.58 dB of loss at 2 meters. If he was talking about a UHF repeater, 1300 feet would result in 14.56 dB of loss. If he's running 2M duplex, one could assume about 1.5 dB of loss in the duplexer, add this to the 8.58 dB of loss in the cable and add 6 dB of gain for the antenna, his ERP would be somewhere around 120 watts. Kevin Custer 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] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of power)
This sounds wild. However, if he's running 1300' of 0.750 CATV trunk line, his loss could be as much as 2.0 dB per 100-foot. That's 26-dB loss. Take out say 6-db for antenna gain. This leaves him with 3-Watts ERP. If it was 1.0 dB per 100-foot, then the ERP would be about 60-Watts. I just hope he has remote receivers in various and diverse locations around the periphery of the transmitter site for maximum system effectiveness. Steve - Original Message - From: "kf0m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 10:50 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of power) > > Here is the situation with the repeater I maintain that runs 300W on TX. > Repeater antennas are at 1300 ft feed through 3/4 in 75 ohm line. The > majority of the user base is 40 to 60 miles from the site. We have a remote > input about 60 miles from the repeater to provide HT and mobile coverage > for where the majority of the users are. With all the feedline loss and the > distance from the users, we need the 300W Tx power to provide good coverage > where the users are. > > The repeater is also the primary skywarn repeater with wide area coverage of > the state and users need to be able to hear the repeater well in adverse > weather conditions. > > With 300W, I can hear the repeater from my house which is 50 miles from the > repeater and I can get into it on the HT with the rubber duck using 200 mw > through the remote receiver. With the repeater running 100W for TX, I can > get into the repeater using the HT but can't hear it on the rubber duck. > > John Lock KF0M > Wichita KS > kf0m at arrl dot net > > > -Original Message- > > From: Kevin Custer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:09 AM > > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of > > power) > > > > > > > > RE: Excessive power. > > > > Neil McKie wrote: > > > > >I can only wonder why the need for what seems to me is excessive power? > > > > > > > Most folks will agree that a repeater that is working properly (no > > desense) having a receiver sensitivity of .35 uV (- 116 dBm) for 12 dB > > SINAD, and a transmitter power of 110 watts will likely be fairly well > > matched in receive/transmit coverage considering a modern 50 watt mobile > > rig. > > > > Now, lets add a receiver preamp on the repeater and increase its > > sensitivity by say 6 dB to -122 dBm. Considering the repeater still > > operates properly, without desense, this same repeater would now require > > 480 watts of transmitter power to be matched as above. > > > > That being said, 200 + watts of transmitter power doesn't seem to be > > excessive to me, but it depends on what is there to hear the user. > > > > Kevin Custer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > 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] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of power)
Here is the situation with the repeater I maintain that runs 300W on TX. Repeater antennas are at 1300 ft feed through 3/4 in 75 ohm line. The majority of the user base is 40 to 60 miles from the site. We have a remote input about 60 miles from the repeater to provide HT and mobile coverage for where the majority of the users are. With all the feedline loss and the distance from the users, we need the 300W Tx power to provide good coverage where the users are. The repeater is also the primary skywarn repeater with wide area coverage of the state and users need to be able to hear the repeater well in adverse weather conditions. With 300W, I can hear the repeater from my house which is 50 miles from the repeater and I can get into it on the HT with the rubber duck using 200 mw through the remote receiver. With the repeater running 100W for TX, I can get into the repeater using the HT but can't hear it on the rubber duck. John Lock KF0M Wichita KS kf0m at arrl dot net > -Original Message- > From: Kevin Custer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:09 AM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Solid State VHF PAs (200+ watts of > power) > > > > RE: Excessive power. > > Neil McKie wrote: > > >I can only wonder why the need for what seems to me is excessive power? > > > > Most folks will agree that a repeater that is working properly (no > desense) having a receiver sensitivity of .35 uV (- 116 dBm) for 12 dB > SINAD, and a transmitter power of 110 watts will likely be fairly well > matched in receive/transmit coverage considering a modern 50 watt mobile > rig. > > Now, lets add a receiver preamp on the repeater and increase its > sensitivity by say 6 dB to -122 dBm. Considering the repeater still > operates properly, without desense, this same repeater would now require > 480 watts of transmitter power to be matched as above. > > That being said, 200 + watts of transmitter power doesn't seem to be > excessive to me, but it depends on what is there to hear the user. > > Kevin Custer > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > 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] need crystals
Hi Gang, I'm looking for a 146.1 Rx crystal for a MASTRII. Also if you have or need to sell a pair 146.700 TX/ 146.100 Rx let me know. I have a source for the 146.7 Tx but will take a pair at a fair price. Thanks! 73 AC0Y 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] Motorola RICK
No But I have one for sale. Mike Oregon Repeater Linking Group Mike Mullarkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.orlg.org -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:01 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola RICK HAS ANYONE RUN A CW IDer & TIMER THROUGH A RICK BEFORE ?? Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores. Yahoo! Groups Links 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] Motorola RICK
HAS ANYONE RUN A CW IDer & TIMER THROUGH A RICK BEFORE ?? Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores. 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] Help needed
I just took the door off of the Sinclair Duplexer cabinet and measured the cavities length - they're 24" long. LJ Original Message: - From: Q [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:39:34 -0500 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Help needed What is the length of the cavities??? - Original Message - From: Cecil Ferguson To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Help needed No, the rods are full length, in fact they will bottom out. With the caps or inductors removed they simply will not tune down to the ham frequency. With the caps in place, we can get to the upper ham band. No soap for the others. It is uncertain where they came from, have been stored in one of our member's storage facility for years. We haven't put a price on these at this time. 73 Gene ** Q wrote: How much for the duplexer? Have the tuning rods been cut short? - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Help needed I have a Sinclair Q202G 4-cavity Pass/Reject VHF Duplexer which is currently ttuned up on a 600 KHz split (on 166.350/166.950 MHz). It came came with a Motorola MSR-2000 Repeater on the same frequency - I just picked these up from the BLM with a bunch of other gear and they're surplus to my needs. Contact me off the list if you're interested. Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Original Message: - From: Q [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:17:56 -0400 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Help needed Also,the words"2meter duplexer" and "cheap" do not go together at all. No such thing as a cheap 2 meter duplexer that works well.Prepare to pay if you want one. - Original Message - From: Cecil Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Repeater-Builders Group Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:16 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Help needed I am a new member of the group with a question. We have the opportunity to replace our present "pieced together" repeater with a Micron, which is offered at a better than believable price. We will need crystals, however. Can anyone give us the approzimate cost of a set of crystal units for this endeavor. Sorry, I can't provide more info at this time, as I haven't seen the units, which are operational at this time. Too, any good leads on a set of duplexers for 2 meters? Must be operationad and cheap! Any and all assistance will be greatly appreciated. Gene Ferguson, W4FWG Fairfield, KY Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links -- 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. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . 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/
