[Repeater-Builder] Re: Mot. IC cross reference

[sgreact47]

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

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

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.

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Mot. IC cross reference

[Ian Divertie]

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: 
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
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

[W5KGT]

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: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

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] Spectra time-bomb caps.

[Charles Miller]

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: 
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
>
>
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] decibel DB-4032

[Luc Pernot]

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] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[David Struebel]

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.


 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Glenn Little WB4UIV]

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.
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Coy Hilton]

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 spec

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[cruising7388]

 
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

[Dave Schmidt]

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 b

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Need Mastr ExecII mods.

[Eric Vincent]

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 it’s 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 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:
HYPERLINK
"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:
HYPERLINK
"http://www.archive.org/index.php"http://www.archive.-org/index.-php

I typed in :  
HYPERLINK
"http://www.qsl.net/n1gnn/instruct.htm"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

 


--
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
 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)

[skipp025]

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] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

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 frequenc

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Dave Schmidt]

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 )






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 they chec

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)

[w5zit]

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] coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

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
> 
> 
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Jeff Kincaid]

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

[Jay Urish]

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] coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Coy Hilton]

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] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)

[JOHN MACKEY]

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? 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need Mastr ExecII mods.

[Kevin Custer]

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:



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

[Repeater-Builder] 110.9 Micor Vibrasponders needed

[Bob M.]

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

[Repeater-Builder] Need Mastr ExecII mods.

[Eric Vincent]

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] Fw: CM200

[William Fourneau]

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.
<>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)

[Jeff DePolo]

> 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/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)

[Jim B.]

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

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)

[wa9zzu]

--- 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] Spectra time-bomb caps.

[Bob M.]

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 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)

[Jim B.]

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 

[Repeater-Builder] EM200

[William Fourneau]

Día luminoso Greetings to all, somebody can say to me to the 
configuration of the connector rj45 to program the motorola EM200. thanks will.



WILLIAM A. FOURNEAU M.
<>
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;WILLIAM A.;FOURNEAU
FN:WILLIAM A. FOURNEAU
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EMAIL;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EMAIL;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EMAIL;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REV:20070119T192310Z
END:VCARD

[Repeater-Builder] Reverse Burst Comments (Com Spec RB-1)

[skipp025]

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.

[roger.white]

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

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Spectra time-bomb caps.

[Vincent Caruso]

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

[Repeater-Builder] Spectra time-bomb caps.

[Steve Murphy]

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] COS output for Kenwood

[w5zit]

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] Re: Mot. IC cross reference

[wa9zzu]

--- 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

[Repeater-Builder] Re: COS output for Kenwood

[fineshot1]

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
>