[Repeater-Builder] Re: COS output for Kenwood
Jeff - If you have a TSU6/KQT8 CTCSS decoder installed you can get an active high from the foil side pin 4 marked as SDO in the service manual(assuming you have one).dan n2aym --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, jkstrsn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a TM-431A which I want to use as a half-duplex link. I can easily get audio in and output, but I'm stumped on how to get a voltage change when the squelch opens for COS (Carrier-operated-squelch) Ideally I'd like a voltage that swings only when the CTCSS is detected as well as squelch open, but I'd settle for one that is just the squelch. My controller is an ICS linker. Does anyone know the proper point to connect to, or does anyone have a service manual for this unit? Thanks, Jeff WB0LRX
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Mot. IC cross reference
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, sgreact47 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the other numbers and letters on these IC's? That mite help narrow it down to an age range. Then we can check our older parts books.--- The info on the top is 61L23 RCA 8715 (which I assume 8715 is the date code) and on the bottom are 4ZLRC on one line and below that is P6502 in the standard 8 pin DIP. wa9zzu
Re: [Repeater-Builder] COS output for Kenwood
I have had good luck using an opto isolator to interface a radio that I don't have the internal schematic for. The radio usually has a LED indicator for receive, and is easy to find. Place the diode section of a 4N36 isolator in series with the receive indicator LED and the transistor portion of the 4N36 will allow interface to your controller. It provides an open collector closure to the emitter when the LED on the radio is lit. Applying +5 or +12 volts to the collector will provide a positive going output on the emitter of the 4N36 when the LED is lit. 73 - Jim W5ZIT -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:59 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] COS output for Kenwood I have a TM-431A which I want to use as a half-duplex link. I can easily get audio in and output, but I'm stumped on how to get a voltage change when the squelch opens for COS (Carrier-operated-squelch) Ideally I'd like a voltage that swings only when the CTCSS is detected as well as squelch open, but I'd settle for one that is just the squelch. My controller is an ICS linker. Does anyone know the proper point to connect to, or does anyone have a service manual for this unit? Thanks, Jeff WB0LRX Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
[Repeater-Builder] Spectra time-bomb caps.
Hello everyone, A couple of weeks ago, I sent Bob, WA1MIK a message thanking him for his fine article on recapping the Spectra radios. At work, we have a fleet with several hundred 800 MHz Spectra C5 and C7 mobiles. Over the past year or so, they've been dropping like flies. I've now gone through nearly 50 Spectras with various problems, and in all but four radios, replacing the electrolytic caps and cleaning the circuit boards restored proper operation! There were many different symptoms, but the one thing that I saw repeatedly were radios that would work OK when first powered up, and then develop various problems after running a while. Bob's article gives Digi-Key and Mouser part numbers for the replacement capacitors. I've used the Mouser numbers, and they're right on target. On the last batch of radios that I repaired, I did deviate from Bob's parts list in that I used a 10uF/25V tantalum to replace the 10uF/16V factory electrolytics. The reason for the substitution is that the tantalum cap is physically smaller, making it easier to install, especially in the tight spaces near the audio IC. The Mouser part number for this cap is: 74-595D106X9025B2T. Another thing worth noting is that in the three 900 MHz Spectras that I've recapped, the 47uF cap on the RF board was not present. It was present on all of the 800 MHz and 450 MHz Spectras that I've worked on. Thanks again to Bob for his article, and I hope that this posting might help someone else. 73/GL Steve N8NM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Spectra time-bomb caps.
Is there a link to this article? I had a copy of instructions on re capping once but misplaced it when I upgraded my hard drive. Thanks Steve Murphy wrote: Hello everyone, A couple of weeks ago, I sent Bob, WA1MIK a message thanking him for his fine article on recapping the Spectra radios. At work, we have a fleet with several hundred 800 MHz Spectra C5 and C7 mobiles. Over the past year or so, they've been dropping like flies. I've now gone through nearly 50 Spectras with various problems, and in all but four radios, replacing the electrolytic caps and cleaning the circuit boards restored proper operation! There were many different symptoms, but the one thing that I saw repeatedly were radios that would work OK when first powered up, and then develop various problems after running a while. Bob's article gives Digi-Key and Mouser part numbers for the replacement capacitors. I've used the Mouser numbers, and they're right on target. On the last batch of radios that I repaired, I did deviate from Bob's parts list in that I used a 10uF/25V tantalum to replace the 10uF/16V factory electrolytics. The reason for the substitution is that the tantalum cap is physically smaller, making it easier to install, especially in the tight spaces near the audio IC. The Mouser part number for this cap is: 74-595D106X9025B2T. Another thing worth noting is that in the three 900 MHz Spectras that I've recapped, the 47uF cap on the RF board was not present. It was present on all of the 800 MHz and 450 MHz Spectras that I've worked on. Thanks again to Bob for his article, and I hope that this posting might help someone else. 73/GL Steve N8NM Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Spectra time-bomb caps.
I noticed the same thing in a Spectra I purchased used late last year. This particular radio looks to have not be cap modified, but I noticed the missing cap easily. Roger W5RD Another thing worth noting is that in the three 900 MHz Spectras that I've recapped, the 47uF cap on the RF board was not present. It was present on all of the 800 MHz and 450 MHz Spectras that I've worked on. Thanks again to Bob for his article, and I hope that this posting might help someone else. 73/GL Steve N8NM Roger White Murphy, Texas
[Repeater-Builder] Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)
Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1) If you add a circuit like the Com Spec RB-1 board to the typical repeater system using a ts-32/ts-54 board... the tx ctcss is not disabled or removed before the RB-1 delayed ptt line drops. So you have the phase inverted ctcss present for at most up to 200 ms typical before the tx drop. If you don't remove the ctcss source the inverted ctcss remains up until the tx off/drop... Any of you actually running the RB-1 board with a true reverse burst type ctcss decoder (built into your radio)? Is a true reverse burst decoder in your commercial radio completely fooled by the phase inverted ctcss before carrier drop function. Or do you actually still hear some minor difference from the rb-1 type operation vs an original true Motorhead (Motorola) encoder - decoder operation? Thinking out-loud about having to possibly mute the ctcss at some time after invert and before the delayed ptt drop as a requirement to get the full/true reverse burst quiet squelch close. Any of you been down that road already? skipp
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)
I haven't used one of those, but I'd ask, what is it doing differently? If you invert the phase of the tone 180 degrees (or 120 for some older motorolas), it should mute correctly. The only issues I've ever run into is either the transmit delay is too short (ie, TK-x05D series), and the rx squelch doesn't have time to close all the way, or it's too long and the rx squelch closes, then opens back up again before the tx goes off the air. Or the decoder just plain old doesn't recognize it (most ham rigs). The worst is the VX-1R that, once it decodes the right CTCSS tone, it stays open until the signal goes away. If you drop tone, it'll stay open indefinitely, until you drop carrier. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL skipp025 wrote: Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1) If you add a circuit like the Com Spec RB-1 board to the typical repeater system using a ts-32/ts-54 board... the tx ctcss is not disabled or removed before the RB-1 delayed ptt line drops. So you have the phase inverted ctcss present for at most up to 200 ms typical before the tx drop. If you don't remove the ctcss source the inverted ctcss remains up until the tx off/drop... Any of you actually running the RB-1 board with a true reverse burst type ctcss decoder (built into your radio)? Is a true reverse burst decoder in your commercial radio completely fooled by the phase inverted ctcss before carrier drop function. Or do you actually still hear some minor difference from the rb-1 type operation vs an original true Motorhead (Motorola) encoder - decoder operation? Thinking out-loud about having to possibly mute the ctcss at some time after invert and before the delayed ptt drop as a requirement to get the full/true reverse burst quiet squelch close. Any of you been down that road already? skipp
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Spectra time-bomb caps.
Start at www.repeater-builder.com; you may recognize that as the name of this Yahoo! Group; it's no co-incidence. Go to the Motorola section, then the Spectra Mobile area. Check out all the nifty articles near the bottom. One of them addresses the capacitors issue. You may even find useful information in other areas of the site. But I don't want to twist your arm... Bob M. == --- Vincent Caruso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a link to this article? I had a copy of instructions on re capping once but misplaced it when I upgraded my hard drive. Thanks Steve Murphy wrote: Hello everyone, A couple of weeks ago, I sent Bob, WA1MIK a message thanking him for his fine article on recapping the Spectra radios. At work, we have a fleet with several hundred 800 MHz Spectra C5 and C7 mobiles. Over the past year or so, they've been dropping like flies. I've now gone through nearly 50 Spectras with various problems, and in all but four radios, replacing the electrolytic caps and cleaning the circuit boards restored proper operation! There were many different symptoms, but the one thing that I saw repeatedly were radios that would work OK when first powered up, and then develop various problems after running a while. Bob's article gives Digi-Key and Mouser part numbers for the replacement capacitors. I've used the Mouser numbers, and they're right on target. On the last batch of radios that I repaired, I did deviate from Bob's parts list in that I used a 10uF/25V tantalum to replace the 10uF/16V factory electrolytics. The reason for the substitution is that the tantalum cap is physically smaller, making it easier to install, especially in the tight spaces near the audio IC. The Mouser part number for this cap is: 74-595D106X9025B2T. Another thing worth noting is that in the three 900 MHz Spectras that I've recapped, the 47uF cap on the RF board was not present. It was present on all of the 800 MHz and 450 MHz Spectras that I've worked on. Thanks again to Bob for his article, and I hope that this posting might help someone else. 73/GL Steve N8NM Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1) If you add a circuit like the Com Spec RB-1 board to the typical repeater system using a ts-32/ts-54 board... the tx ctcss is not disabled or removed before the RB-1 delayed ptt line drops. So you have the phase inverted ctcss present for at most up to 200 ms typical before the tx drop. If you don't remove the ctcss source the inverted ctcss remains up until the tx off/drop... Any of you actually running the RB-1 board with a true reverse burst type ctcss decoder (built into your radio)? Is a true reverse burst decoder in your commercial radio completely fooled by the phase inverted ctcss before carrier drop function. Or do you actually still hear some minor difference from the rb-1 type operation vs an original true Motorhead (Motorola) encoder - decoder operation? Thinking out-loud about having to possibly mute the ctcss at some time after invert and before the delayed ptt drop as a requirement to get the full/true reverse burst quiet squelch close. Any of you been down that road already? skipp Skipp, I find your comments interesting in that the purpose that Motorola had in using reverse burst of the PL tone was to quickly damp the mechanical reed in the PL decoder to close the squelch and eliminate the user from hearing the noise burst. But of course you knew that. However, in later model radios there is no mechanical vibrating reed to abruptly dampen and stop the vibrating from being detected. So where is the need for a inverted burst if there are no receivers using mechanical reeds as PL tone decoders? Incidently Motorola did not use an inverted reverse burst of 180 degrees. Their designs used 270 degrees since the PL reed then stopped vibrating faster and the amplitude of the burst was also increased to hasten the reed to stop. Don't modern day receivers use electronic circuitry to detect PL tones, and aren't the detectors not using a ringing decoder? If so isn't the purpose of having a reverse burst unnecessary? I can remember many years ago that some hams used a circuit which they refered to as polish PL which turned off the PL tone before the xmtr dropped and had no reverse burst. It seems like I'm hearing more of the same. Where am I going wrong here? Allan Crites
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)
wa9zzu wrote: --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1) If you add a circuit like the Com Spec RB-1 board to the typical repeater system using a ts-32/ts-54 board... the tx ctcss is not disabled or removed before the RB-1 delayed ptt line drops. So you have the phase inverted ctcss present for at most up to 200 ms typical before the tx drop. If you don't remove the ctcss source the inverted ctcss remains up until the tx off/drop... Any of you actually running the RB-1 board with a true reverse burst type ctcss decoder (built into your radio)? Is a true reverse burst decoder in your commercial radio completely fooled by the phase inverted ctcss before carrier drop function. Or do you actually still hear some minor difference from the rb-1 type operation vs an original true Motorhead (Motorola) encoder - decoder operation? Thinking out-loud about having to possibly mute the ctcss at some time after invert and before the delayed ptt drop as a requirement to get the full/true reverse burst quiet squelch close. Any of you been down that road already? skipp Skipp, I find your comments interesting in that the purpose that Motorola had in using reverse burst of the PL tone was to quickly damp the mechanical reed in the PL decoder to close the squelch and eliminate the user from hearing the noise burst. But of course you knew that. However, in later model radios there is no mechanical vibrating reed to abruptly dampen and stop the vibrating from being detected. So where is the need for a inverted burst if there are no receivers using mechanical reeds as PL tone decoders? Incidently Motorola did not use an inverted reverse burst of 180 degrees. Their designs used 270 degrees since the PL reed then stopped vibrating faster and the amplitude of the burst was also increased to hasten the reed to stop. Don't modern day receivers use electronic circuitry to detect PL tones, and aren't the detectors not using a ringing decoder? If so isn't the purpose of having a reverse burst unnecessary? I can remember many years ago that some hams used a circuit which they refered to as polish PL which turned off the PL tone before the xmtr dropped and had no reverse burst. It seems like I'm hearing more of the same. Where am I going wrong here? Allan Crites The problem with just turning the tone off is that most all decoders take a MUCH longer time to just coast to a stop, rather then be told 'I'm about to go off the air, close now'. Digital squelch (CDCSS, or DPL in Motorola terms, DCG for GE folks) sends a short burst of 133hz tone for the same purpose-to let the decoder know that the transmission is over and to close. And everything I saw had Motorola's original R/B at 120 degrees, not 270. But as someone wise once said, I could be wrong. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)
Skipp, I find your comments interesting in that the purpose that Motorola had in using reverse burst of the PL tone was to quickly damp the mechanical reed in the PL decoder to close the squelch and eliminate the user from hearing the noise burst. But of course you knew that. However, in later model radios there is no mechanical vibrating reed to abruptly dampen and stop the vibrating from being detected. So where is the need for a inverted burst if there are no receivers using mechanical reeds as PL tone decoders? Because the software-based decoders respond the same way as a mechanical reed to the reverse burst. When the phase shift occurs, the correlation routines lose lock causing the processor to signal the audio gates to close. Eventually the software routine would regain lock at the new phase, but the transmitter drops before that can happen. Hardware-based designs that don't look for change of phase but rather just the presence or absence of tone are another story, but fortunately those aren't very common nowadays. Some of the early non-reed non-software decoders used what were basically very narrow bandpass filters followed by a detector. They could care less what the phase of the incoming tone was as long as the frequency was right - you always heard the squelch crash when the transmitter unkeyed. Chicken burst, or transmitting no PL before transmitter drop, was invented as a means of getting those types of decoders to mute before the transmitter dropped. I can remember many years ago that some hams used a circuit which they refered to as polish PL which turned off the PL tone before the xmtr dropped and had no reverse burst. Yeah, chicken burst, same thing. --- Jeff -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 1/18/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 1/18/2007 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * 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] Fw: CM200
Día luminoso WILLIAM A. FOURNEAU M. Greetings to all, somebody can say to me to the configuration of the connector rj45 to program the motorola CM200. thanks will. WILLIAM A. FOURNEAU M. attachment: Fondo_de_D__a_luminoso.jpg
[Repeater-Builder] Need Mastr ExecII mods.
Hello group, I need radio modification for GE Mastr ExecII Low Band. The link on the web site Repeater-Builder doesn’t work. Anybody have other link to convert Low Band to 52Mhz. Thanks and good week end. Eric VE2VXT -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 2007-01-18
[Repeater-Builder] 110.9 Micor Vibrasponders needed
These are the small TLN8381A reeds with the larger case that go into SpectraTAC receivers and Micor mobile PL decoders. Let me know via direct mail. Thanks. Bob M. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need Mastr ExecII mods.
Eric Vincent wrote: Hello group, I need radio modification for GE Mastr ExecII Low Band. The link on the web site Repeater-Builder doesn’t work. Anybody have other link to convert Low Band to 52Mhz. Thanks and good week end. Eric VE2VXT My RB site pointed to an off-site link that no longer works. (and folks wonder why I want to have a local copy...) Anyway, follow the link below to the Internet Archive (thank God we have one) and you'll find what you need here: http://web.archive.org/web/20050404055333/http://www.qsl.net/n1gnn/instruct.htm Watch for word wrap. The Internet Archive is a nice source for things that get away from us in time: http://www.archive.org/index.php I typed in : www.qsl.net/n1gnn/instruct.htm I used the latest result... Maybe one of my web masters could grab a copy of this if they have time, and make a local copy. Kevin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)
I played around with using the RB-1 board on my repeater transmitters using motorola and several other receivers in tone squelch. Eventually I found it was better to remove the capacitor which causes the RB-1 to send NO tone for the last 100ms (or what ever the timing is). --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP Any of you actually running the RB-1 board with a true reverse burst type ctcss decoder (built into your radio)? Is a true reverse burst decoder in your commercial radio completely fooled by the phase inverted ctcss before carrier drop function. Or do you actually still hear some minor difference from the rb-1 type operation vs an original true Motorhead (Motorola) encoder - decoder operation? Thinking out-loud about having to possibly mute the ctcss at some time after invert and before the delayed ptt drop as a requirement to get the full/true reverse burst quiet squelch close. Any of you been down that road already?
[Repeater-Builder] coordination question for the seasoned owners
HI Gang I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I answered yes each time. I had even had a on going discussion about having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never asked to prove the repeater existed or even to prove it in any other way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years. My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further replies or suggestions as how to handle this. The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination question for the seasoned owners
In congested areas this is going to be a fact of life. All your coordinator wants probably is a quick on air demo. Is the guy local? He should already know the PL tones etc. Coy Hilton wrote: HI Gang I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I answered yes each time. I had even had a on going discussion about having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never asked to prove the repeater existed or even to prove it in any other way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years. My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further replies or suggestions as how to handle this. The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this. -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the air when in fact it is not. So, they want to be able to kerchunk the thing for themselves. Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in their files and they should be able to key it up. If they can't, they're going to doubt your veracity. Now, maybe you just had the box functioned off when they checked it (every time), but how are they going to know that? If that's the case, you need to take the bull by the horns and arrange to demonstrate the repeater's existance at a mutually convenient time. If you can't they're going to believe that you have a paper repeater, and they're going to give the channel to someone else. They clearly have doubts about your operation, and you're going to have to meet them half way to straighten it out. Regards, Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Coy Hilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI Gang I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I answered yes each time. I had even had a on going discussion about having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never asked to prove the repeater existed or even to prove it in any other way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years. My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further replies or suggestions as how to handle this. The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination question for the seasoned owners
Does your coordinator have the access info to try it for themselves? What are they basing the decoordination on? Not on the air? Joe M. Coy Hilton wrote: HI Gang I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I answered yes each time. I had even had a on going discussion about having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never asked to prove the repeater existed or even to prove it in any other way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years. My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further replies or suggestions as how to handle this. The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)
Actually, the electronic CTCSS decoders react about the same as the old reeds. The physics of the matter causes the filters that can discern for instance - 100 Hz from 97 Hz or 103 Hz to be very narrow, and they ring - even when the driving tone is removed. By reversing the tone phase for a short period of time, the energy in the filter is driven to zero very quickly, and if the tone is removed from the decoder input at the right time, the tone decoder closes very quickly, and you get very short squelch bursts at the end of a transmission. There is no 'reverse burst decoder' per se in a tone decoder - it is just driven with the out of phase energy long enough to cause it to close very quickly. All tone decoders react to the reverse burst, not just one that is specially configured to react to a reverse burst. I don't know of any special circuitry in a tone decoder that makes it more susceptible to a reverse burst than a normal tone decoder. 73 - Jim W5ZIT -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 2:27 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1) --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1) If you add a circuit like the Com Spec RB-1 board to the typical repeater system using a ts-32/ts-54 board... the tx ctcss is not disabled or removed before the RB-1 delayed ptt line drops. So you have the phase inverted ctcss present for at most up to 200 ms typical before the tx drop. If you don't remove the ctcss source the inverted ctcss remains up until the tx off/drop... Any of you actually running the RB-1 board with a true reverse burst type ctcss decoder (built into your radio)? Is a true reverse burst decoder in your commercial radio completely fooled by the phase inverted ctcss before carrier drop function. Or do you actually still hear some minor difference from the rb-1 type operation vs an original true Motorhead (Motorola) encoder - decoder operation? Thinking out-loud about having to possibly mute the ctcss at some time after invert and before the delayed ptt drop as a requirement to get the full/true reverse burst quiet squelch close. Any of you been down that road already? skipp Skipp, I find your comments interesting in that the purpose that Motorola had in using reverse burst of the PL tone was to quickly damp the mechanical reed in the PL decoder to close the squelch and eliminate the user from hearing the noise burst. But of course you knew that. However, in later model radios there is no mechanical vibrating reed to abruptly dampen and stop the vibrating from being detected. So where is the need for a inverted burst if there are no receivers using mechanical reeds as PL tone decoders? Incidently Motorola did not use an inverted reverse burst of 180 degrees. Their designs used 270 degrees since the PL reed then stopped vibrating faster and the amplitude of the burst was also increased to hasten the reed to stop. Don't modern day receivers use electronic circuitry to detect PL tones, and aren't the detectors not using a ringing decoder? If so isn't the purpose of having a reverse burst unnecessary? I can remember many years ago that some hams used a circuit which they refered to as polish PL which turned off the PL tone before the xmtr dropped and had no reverse burst. It seems like I'm hearing more of the same. Where am I going wrong here? Allan Crites Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place, they just deleted the file. Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a cover their a*s letter which stated that no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my coordination because it has been de-coordinated and deleted, There is nothing to update. I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope. I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole state of Wisconsin. It would have been more like an experimental system to see if it work or not. The system was already setup for 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the impression that they were saving the 900mhz specturm for something, their own agenda... like keeping it empty fo the FCC can 'take it away'. I can understand such a stiffness if the band was popular... but with only one other repeater in WI at that time... jeeze. They made me feel like I was trying to coordinated a super-wideband repeater that would use 5mhz of specturm... the 'are you freaking crazy' .. mentality. Coordination needs some oversite, some seperate organization that watches what the coordination entities are doing. Since coordination is volentary, it is not a requirement, the FCC will not do anything. Coordinatation entities know this and can bend things around, make things up, then say, you didn't do this or that and you lost your coordination all relying on 'ther word' no proof, no one watching them. Its starting to seem like coordination entities are taking it way too extreme, playing favortism, playing games with repeater owners trying to free up frequencies for their friends... etc etc. By the way, 444.275 is on the air, and will remain that way. Let them coordinate another repeater on that frequency pair, I'll just turn up the wattage and wait for the citations... then haul WAR into the court/fcc procedings to answer for their game playing... and make them use up the money they have stashed aside by making them use it up on attorney fees. Good luck with your plight with your coordinator they probably have a friend who wants a VHF repeater and are using an excuse to give their friend a freq pair. Dave Schmidt N9NLU ( yes, I'm not afraid to shout the truth and sign my name - not like others who hide behind excuses and lack of communications... heck, ignores communications - like the Wisconsin Assocation of Repeaters ) flame suit on On 1/19/07, Jeff Kincaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the air when in fact it is not. So, they want to be able to kerchunk the thing for themselves. Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in their files and they should be able to key it up. If they can't, they're going to doubt your veracity. Now, maybe you just had the box functioned off when
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not receiving it, I sure would have. But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says This is my forth reply in two yeas, yet the complaint was the first letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC (which was changed years ago) when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues. As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight? (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair') You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place, they just deleted the file. Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a cover their a*s letter which stated that no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my coordination because it has been de-coordinated and deleted, There is nothing to update. I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope. I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole state of Wisconsin. It would have been more like an experimental system to see if it work or not. The system was already setup for 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the impression that they were saving the 900mhz specturm for something, their own agenda... like keeping it empty fo the FCC can 'take it away'. I can understand such a stiffness if the band was popular... but with only one other repeater in WI at that time... jeeze. They made me feel like I was trying to coordinated a super-wideband repeater that would use 5mhz of specturm... the 'are you freaking crazy' .. mentality. Coordination needs some oversite, some seperate organization that watches what the coordination entities are doing. Since coordination is volentary, it is not a requirement, the FCC will not do anything. Coordinatation entities know this and can bend things around, make things up, then say, you didn't do this or that and you lost your coordination all relying on 'ther word' no proof, no one watching them. Its starting to seem like coordination entities are taking it way too extreme, playing favortism, playing games with repeater owners trying to free up frequencies for their friends... etc etc. By the way, 444.275 is on the air, and will remain that way. Let them coordinate another repeater on that frequency pair, I'll just turn up the wattage and wait for the citations...
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)
I believe the cap you speak of is to delay the transmitter on/keyed for an additional time, which the mfgr specs at 200mS (milli seconds). Removing or lowering the cap value would reduce the delayed ptt time. The focus of my post is to ask people how their true reverse burst decoders respond to the time from the reverse burst phase inverter until the delayed ptt drops the transmitter. For some x-value of time the ctcss decoder receives the phase shifted ctcss, which remains on constant until the tx drops. I'm interested to know how the various decoders handle short reverse burst inverted tone. I'm heading toward the question of is it better to reduce or remove (mute) the ctcss after the phase shift or just not worry about it?. As mentioned in one reply... there might be enough time for some fast decoders to re-lock on the inverted ctcss before the tx drops. 200 mS might not be much time but... is/does it possibly confuse some of the reverse burst ctcss decoders? thanks so far for your replies... keep them coming. cheers, skipp I played around with using the RB-1 board on my repeater transmitters using motorola and several other receivers in tone squelch. Eventually I found it was better to remove the capacitor which causes the RB-1 to send NO tone for the last 100ms (or what ever the timing is).
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Need Mastr ExecII mods.
Hello and thanks to all for reply, I will put that into my binder I have one unit with range (36-42Mhz.) and somebody tell me put new Xtal and retune only, maybe its true??? I never change any caps. into VHF or UHF and radio operate very well, maybe its the same for low band, I never use it before. The question is, what do you think about replacing a lot of capacitors? It is really necessary? 73 Eric _ De : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Kevin Custer Envoyé : 19 janvier, 2007 18:45 À : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Objet : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need Mastr ExecII mods. Eric Vincent wrote: Hello group, I need radio modification for GE Mastr ExecII Low Band. The link on the web site Repeater-Builder doesnt work. Anybody have other link to convert Low Band to 52Mhz. Thanks and good week end. Eric VE2VXT My RB site pointed to an off-site link that no longer works. (and folks wonder why I want to have a local copy...) Anyway, follow the link below to the Internet Archive (thank God we have one) and you'll find what you need here: HYPERLINK http://web.archive.org/web/20050404055333/http:/www.qsl.net/n1gnn/instruct. htmhttp://web.archive.-org/web/20050404-055333/http:-//www.qsl.-net/n1gnn/ -instruct.-htm Watch for word wrap. The Internet Archive is a nice source for things that get away from us in time: HYPERLINK http://www.archive.org/index.phphttp://www.archive.-org/index.-php I typed in : HYPERLINK http://www.qsl.net/n1gnn/instruct.htmwww.qsl.net/-n1gnn/instruct.-htm I used the latest result... Maybe one of my web masters could grab a copy of this if they have time, and make a local copy. Kevin -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 2007-01-18 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 2007-01-18
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
After the excuses from these people, of course certified mail. Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail. Since they want to play games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper trail, not just their excuses and stories. Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the coordination battle. I'll make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats basically the point. Bring to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others have been screwed over as well and are just waiting for someone to start things cookin. Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was such a thing, however the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained well ... a bit unprofessional as well looks like it was created on Anglefire. How effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee and doughnuts club is it? Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their site, it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next meeting Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a couple days before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are eating their doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the next one will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in one spot. Regards Dave Schmidt N9NLU On 1/19/07, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not receiving it, I sure would have. But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says This is my forth reply in two yeas, yet the complaint was the first letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC (which was changed years ago) when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues. As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight? (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair') You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place, they just deleted the file. Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a cover their a*s letter which stated that no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my coordination because it has been de-coordinated and deleted, There is nothing to update. I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope. I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole state of
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater with a coordinating group. Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the repeater is operational, any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
I'll respond to all replys through 68209. If they wanted a aural or off the air check, and if they were so savvy why didn't they ask for just that? All the requests for info about the repeater being on the air was by email and I responded to each and every one and stating that the repeater is closed as coordinated. And by the way, using CTCSS on a repeater does not make it a closed machine. My machine is closed by vertu of disabeling the Tx function by DTMF. All of the permitted users have the access code. The coordinating agency NEVER asked for the access code nor did they ask for a live demo, if they had, they would have gotten it. Oh, the FCC is already involved, the other guy drug Riley into it just before Christmas, and after Christmas, HE got a Dear DIP letter from Riley reminding him that if he reactivated a repeater on the pair he would be in vialation. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not receiving it, I sure would have. But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says This is my forth reply in two yeas, yet the complaint was the first letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC (which was changed years ago) when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues. As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight? (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair') You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place, they just deleted the file. Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a cover their a*s letter which stated that no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my coordination because it has been de- coordinated and deleted, There is nothing to update. I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope. I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole state of Wisconsin. It would have been more like an experimental system to see if it work or not. The system was already setup for 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the impression that they were saving the 900mhz specturm for something, their own agenda... like keeping it empty fo the FCC can 'take it away'. I can understand such a
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Per §97.205 Repeater station. (c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless the operation of one station is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the operation of the other station is not. In that case, the licensee of the noncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. As you can see, there is no mention of a repeater operating prior to the existence of the coordinator. At the inception of the coordination body, existing repeater owners were requested to coordinate their repeater. If they elected not to coordinate the repeater, all was well, until, the coordinator coordinated that frequency to a new owner. Then the noncoordinated repeater had to leave the air or explain to the FCC as to why they were causing interference to a coordinated repeater. 73 Glenn WB4UIV (At 10:57 PM 01/19/07, you wrote: In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater with a coordinating group. Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the repeater is operational, any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Yes, No obligation to co-ordinate your repeater. However, and this I have seen this personally,(fortunately in my favor) in an interference issue or complaint the first question the FCC asks is this repeater coordinated? Even if you have been on that pair for centuries and the coordinators have issued coordination of that pair to someone else, the FCC will hold the non coordinated system responsible to eliminate the repeater interference [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater with a coordinating group. Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the repeater is operational, any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary.
[Repeater-Builder] decibel DB-4032
Hi,anybody has the calculated length of coaxes needed for going from the T jonctions to the helical Resonnator of a DB-4032 6 resonnator Unit...for high and low notch displacement for 1 mhz separation ... Original has 500khz ... Thank's Luc VE3JGL.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Spectra time-bomb caps.
Steve, I would recommend that you NOT use the Tantalum caps. They have a very nasty habit of shorting when they overheat in the summer. When this happens depending on where the cap is, you may cause a fire in the radio. Not a pretty when this happens. Charles Miller - Original Message - From: Steve Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:01 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Spectra time-bomb caps. Hello everyone, A couple of weeks ago, I sent Bob, WA1MIK a message thanking him for his fine article on recapping the Spectra radios. At work, we have a fleet with several hundred 800 MHz Spectra C5 and C7 mobiles. Over the past year or so, they've been dropping like flies. I've now gone through nearly 50 Spectras with various problems, and in all but four radios, replacing the electrolytic caps and cleaning the circuit boards restored proper operation! There were many different symptoms, but the one thing that I saw repeatedly were radios that would work OK when first powered up, and then develop various problems after running a while. Bob's article gives Digi-Key and Mouser part numbers for the replacement capacitors. I've used the Mouser numbers, and they're right on target. On the last batch of radios that I repaired, I did deviate from Bob's parts list in that I used a 10uF/25V tantalum to replace the 10uF/16V factory electrolytics. The reason for the substitution is that the tantalum cap is physically smaller, making it easier to install, especially in the tight spaces near the audio IC. The Mouser part number for this cap is: 74-595D106X9025B2T. Another thing worth noting is that in the three 900 MHz Spectras that I've recapped, the 47uF cap on the RF board was not present. It was present on all of the 800 MHz and 450 MHz Spectras that I've worked on. Thanks again to Bob for his article, and I hope that this posting might help someone else. 73/GL Steve N8NM Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
You know, that's a common complaint I hear. The repeater council meeting is not always in my back yard. Many organizations are required by their bylaws to make it convenient for the membership. When you are dealing with a state, that means it has to be moved around and may well be several hundred miles away. If dealing with a national organization, that may be thoudands of miles away. If you don't want to make the trip, by all means don't. But don't complain about the distance. As sure as you do, there are people 300 miles away who complained when it was in your area. It sounds like they are trying to satisfy their membership to me. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their site, it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next meeting Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a couple days before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are eating their doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the next one will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in one spot.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
I agree with Jeff. I am the Coordinator for Louisiana. I have all the information in my data base for each repeater. So I should be able to check it. I also have Hams in different parts of the state that check on repeaters for me. We give a year before de-coordination. In that time someone should be able to here the repeater on the air. If not, I will personally contact the owner and find out what's happening. I own a handful of repeaters myself. And I can tell you that sometimes after a severe lighting strike, it may take a while to get things going again. Show them that it is working. Or have a well known Ham verify it and send a e-mail. And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL tone in his data base. W5KGT Kevin Thomas Calhoun, La. LCARC Coordinator www.w5kgt.com - Original Message From: Jeff Kincaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 7:34:55 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the air when in fact it is not. So, they want to be able to kerchunk the thing for themselves. Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in their files and they should be able to key it up. If they can't, they're going to doubt your veracity. Now, maybe you just had the box functioned off when they checked it (every time), but how are they going to know that? If that's the case, you need to take the bull by the horns and arrange to demonstrate the repeater's existance at a mutually convenient time. If you can't they're going to believe that you have a paper repeater, and they're going to give the channel to someone else. They clearly have doubts about your operation, and you're going to have to meet them half way to straighten it out. Regards, Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com, Coy Hilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI Gang I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I answered yes each time. I had even had a on going discussion about having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never asked to prove the repeater existed or even to prove it in any other way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years. My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further replies or suggestions as how to handle this. The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this. TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Mot. IC cross reference
I've had good luck finding old ic's, not just Moto but all different types through [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott is very helpful, so is his boss. Anyway, I've also used [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Good Luck Ian Original Message Follows From: wa9zzu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Mot. IC cross reference Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:01:12 - MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: 66.94.237.47 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from n28b.bullet.scd.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.30]) by bay0-mc7-f8.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:06:44 -0800 Received: from [66.218.69.6] by n28.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jan 2007 15:03:13 - Received: from [66.218.66.28] by t6.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jan 2007 15:03:13 - Received: (qmail 46167 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2007 15:01:55 - Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Jan 2007 15:01:55 - Received: from unknown (HELO n18a.bullet.scd.yahoo.com) (66.94.237.47) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2007 15:01:53 - Received: from [66.218.69.3] by n18.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jan 2007 15:01:12 - Received: from [66.218.66.86] by t3.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jan 2007 15:01:12 - X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt0854FeDbY7mkkdlvyrzXGBB9jP7P1Ej2s= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com;b=c5QnTUMnR5WKU2jsreXveb5boalpCI36rabsP9MkRpyPVpVHFHdgel+jGHmSmDW82oG6FWYWSsnzmzEnBdFyp7QxBFd8LUnWtBfQfGpSmM+m785KOKXas5ECxDJ/ZshQ; X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 104168-m68231 X-Apparently-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 70.142.202.50 X-Yahoo-Profile: wa9zzu Mailing-List: list Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: mailing list Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com List-Id: Repeater-Builder.yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email-ff Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2007 15:06:44.0230 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E923260:01C73BDB] --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, sgreact47 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the other numbers and letters on these IC's? That mite help narrow it down to an age range. Then we can check our older parts books.--- The info on the top is 61L23 RCA 8715 (which I assume 8715 is the date code) and on the bottom are 4ZLRC on one line and below that is P6502 in the standard 8 pin DIP. wa9zzu _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Says the FCC via 97.205(c): (c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless the operation of one station is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the operation of the other station is not. In that case, the licensee of the noncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. So, it is not the last repeater on the air who solves it (aas you implied) - it's the uncoordinated one. I never said it was mandatory to coordinate - only that if you don't, you have to resolve the interference to a coordinated repeater. You said show you - I did. Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater with a coordinating group. Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the repeater is operational, any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Mot. IC cross reference
Good, that info should narrow the search down a bit. The info on the top is 61L23 RCA 8715 (which I assume 8715 is the date code) and on the bottom are 4ZLRC on one line and below that is P6502 in the standard 8 pin DIP. wa9zzu
