[Repeater-Builder] Re: Commercial Trunking repeater

[skipp025]

If you're intersted in talking more about Commercial Trunking 
options we might possibly go somewhere else.  This group is 
probably sick of the thread already and I'm not sure how proper 
it is to yak about the subject here. 
cheers, 
skipp 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Commercial Trunking repeater

[skipp025]

> CSI Seems to have some nice controllers however there could 
> be an issue here with radios being cloned and then put onto
> my ltr without my knowledge. 

Sounds like you're more worried about a clone problem that most 
people would need to be. Just pay attention to what's going on 
and you'll prbably be alright. 
The reported  radio clone problem would not be something CSI 
Controller brand specific...  It can and has happened with owners 
of LTR systems just as it has with a number of the other formats.  

The passport (as do some other) format has a unique id process but 
even it can be fooled.  You as the owner of any format repeater 
system should always be looking for problems. 

> Is there a type of controller where I can somehow track this? 

Yes... 
If you go LTR format... I can tell you some methods (over the 
phone only) to prevent, catch & control bootleg radio problems. 

Depends on what you call "track".  You can use the CSI controller 
to manage these type of problems in the LTR format as many of us 
already do. I'm sure many/most of the other brand controllers 
can also be smartly used to manage bootleg radios. 

> 2nd question, I know motorola uses up one repeater for a "Control 
> Channel" which can not be used for voice.  From what I understand, 
> LTR does not do this correct? 

Correct..! give that man a cigar.  A two repeater trunking system 
with a format that requires a control channel only repeater is pretty 
much a popcorn fart.  But to be honest I will say I've seen  at 
least one Motorola System made and used (one usable voice repeater) 
and there can be a good reason for running it if all else fails or 
just doesn't happen right away. 

> I will be putting farmers and bussiness onto this system and I 
> want to make it expandable so that if need be it wont be a huge 
> deal to add 1 or 2 more repeaters when the time comes. 

Most trunking formats lend themselves pretty easy to adding more 
repeaters later. But plan your system programming ahead else you 
would probably later need (really want) to update all the radios 
already "out there" in service. Another plus of the CSI brand 
controllers (and probably some other brands) is how the first 
LTR controller can and does update all the other channel controllers
programming information through one master communications bus 
connection.  Very sweet...  

> Also, does anyone have any suggestions regarding high gain 
> antenna's, multicouplers, etc?  Thanks for all your help.  
> W

Right out of the starting gate I would say buy the biggest multi 
dipole array(s) you can put on the tower/building.  

Coffee time... 
skipp 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Receiver Wanted

[gervais fillion]

ahhh
when you are looking for part with blind eyes,,,
i have the TLD8272B which is good for 132 to 150 mhz,


dont laugh at me al

G


Original Message Follows
From: Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Receiver Wanted
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:34:51 -0500

gervais fillion wrote:
 > hi kevin
 > i may have found one receiver near my qth,,
 > i made an offer i am waiting the responsewhat is the value for a used
 > receiver on the market??now

A Real TLD8272 receiver sells on eBay for $125.00 or more.  They are
very rare here in the US.  You may be able to find one in Canada a lot
easier.

Kevin

_
Windows Live Spaces: partagez vos photos du Nouvel An! 
http://discoverspaces.live.com/?loc=fr-CA

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Receiver Wanted

[gervais fillion]

well
i have check in the Micor i have here,there is the :
TLD5321A ,which is by my big 2.5 inch Red  Motorola book the Exiter
TLD8272B ,
TRN6006A1  Audio and squelch

it may seems that i am missing one control card what would be like in Master 
2,a Repeater card

or Repeater Control Card ??

since it received in UHF and transmit direct on VHF i wonder if there were 
any of these Repeater Control Card installed on It???

Hey,thanks for your support kevin and your competence too

Gervais ve2ckn


Original Message Follows
From: Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Receiver Wanted
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:34:51 -0500

gervais fillion wrote:
 > hi kevin
 > i may have found one receiver near my qth,,
 > i made an offer i am waiting the responsewhat is the value for a used
 > receiver on the market??now

A Real TLD8272 receiver sells on eBay for $125.00 or more.  They are
very rare here in the US.  You may be able to find one in Canada a lot
easier.

Kevin

_
http://magasiner.sympatico.msn.ca

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Commercial Trunking repeater

[wade s]

OK first off Thanks everyone for your help.  Trunking is a fairly new concept 
here so bare with me as I ask a few more questions.  First off, CSI Seems to 
have some nice controllers however there could be an issue here with radios 
being cloned and then put onto my ltr without my knowledge.  Is there a type of 
controller where I can somehow track this?  2nd question, I know motorola uses 
up one repeater for a "Control Channel" which can not be used for voice.  From 
what I understand, LTR does not do this correct?  I will be putting farmers and 
bussiness onto this system and I want to make it expandable so that if need be 
it wont be a huge deal to add 1 or 2 more repeaters when the time comes.  Also, 
does anyone have any suggestions regarding high gain antenna's, multicouplers, 
etc?  Thanks for all your help.  

W

skipp025 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  > > It depends how it was 
programmed. Each unit could have a unique 
> > ID. But, your system would be limited to 250 radios or so.
> > Joe M.
> 
> There were group ID's, but no unit ID's. Maybe if you gave each unit a 
> group ID, and then set the radios to scan for all groups. But everyone 
> would hear everyone basically. It would be hard to have more then one 
> customer or organization.

Depending on the radio and ltr trunking controller, you can can make 
groups and have id numbers within the group and decode only the desired 
group. With Kenwood Radios and CSI trunking controllers it's pretty 
easy and straight forward. 

> And to make a trunked system worthwhile, you need at least three 
> channels (otherwise you're not gaining anything), fwiw.

Nah even a 2 channel LTR system is very practical vs days of 
old when community ctcss/dcs format was king. Both channels are 
working and the customers don't have to hear the co channel or 
co system users. 

If you ever had two mule headed customers fighting on a community 
repeater... moving them to LTR made everything spring day fresh 
(although their vehicles often remained rather stinky). 

More channels is butta' but 2 LTR Channels is a quite usable system.

cheers,
skipp 



 

 
-
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels 
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Receiver Wanted

[Kevin Custer]

gervais fillion wrote:
> hi kevin
> i may have found one receiver near my qth,,
> i made an offer i am waiting the responsewhat is the value for a used 
> receiver on the market??now

A Real TLD8272 receiver sells on eBay for $125.00 or more.  They are 
very rare here in the US.  You may be able to find one in Canada a lot 
easier.

Kevin

[Repeater-Builder] selectone ST-40

[Luc Pernot]

I'm looking for technical info for the Selectone ST-40 . any Ideas  ...Luc
VE3JGL.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Commercial Trunking repeater

[skipp025]

> > It depends how it was programmed. Each unit could have a unique 
> > ID. But, your system would be limited to 250 radios or so.
> > Joe M.
> 
> There were group ID's, but no unit ID's. Maybe if you gave each unit a 
> group ID, and then set the radios to scan for all groups. But everyone 
> would hear everyone basically. It would be hard to have more then one 
> customer or organization.

Depending on the radio and ltr trunking controller, you can can make 
groups and have id numbers within the group and decode only the desired 
group.  With Kenwood Radios and CSI trunking controllers it's pretty 
easy and straight forward. 

> And to make a trunked system worthwhile, you need at least three 
> channels (otherwise you're not gaining anything), fwiw.

Nah  even a 2 channel LTR system is very practical vs days of 
old when community ctcss/dcs format was king. Both channels are 
working and the customers don't have to hear the co channel or 
co system users.  

If you ever had two mule headed customers fighting on a community 
repeater... moving them to LTR made everything spring day fresh 
(although their vehicles often remained rather stinky). 

More channels is butta' but 2 LTR Channels is a quite usable system.

cheers,
skipp 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Receiver Wanted

[gervais fillion]

hi kevin
i may have found one receiver near my qth,,
i made an offer i am waiting the responsewhat is the value for a used 
receiver on the market??now

gervais,ve2ckn


Original Message Follows
From: Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor Receiver Wanted
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:21:00 -0500

gervais fillion wrote:
 > hi all
 > i am looking for a used Micor receiver his parts number is "TLD 8272B "
 > if you have 1 and want to sell it ,let me know your price
 > thanks in advance
 >
 > gervais,ve2ckn

Would you consider a TLD 8273B that has been properly converted to a TLD
8272B?

Kevin Custer

_
Windows Live Spaces: partagez vos photos du Nouvel An! 
http://discoverspaces.live.com/?loc=fr-CA

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Commercial Trunking repeater

[skipp025]

> Mike Morris WA6ILQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember reading an article several years ago about a problem 
> with LTR...

It's a "reported problem"... and it's easily detected, prevented 
and dealt with when found.  The "reporter" was someone doing a 
sales pitch for the Passport Format. 

> Joe's trucking goes out and buys time on a trunked system and 5
> radios, then has one of them cloned into 10 more. Trunked operator 
> now has 15 users and Joe is paying for 5 plus airtime. 

Every trunking format can have trouble even the mighty Motorola 
systems.  There was a guy in the LA Area loading people onto various 
systems until he got caught, sued and ran out of town. Then he 
moved up here to Northern California and tried it again... and got 
caught again.  He's now living outside the US... go figure. 

> The article mentioned an extension to LTR called (if I remember 
> correctly) Passport that would prevent this - the ten extra 
> radios wouldn't work.

Passport is a specialized Trunking format available only from 
Trident. It's intention is pretty good, it's real world application 
is not so easy. It allows roaming as various versions of LTR are 
starting to do.  The hardware costs big, big, big bucks. 

> Just mentioning it so you can include it in your research.

Worth knowing about at least... 
cheers, 
skipp

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Commercial Trunking repeater

[skipp025]

> LTR is good for businesses, contractors, etc, but it does have 
> a slow(er) channel access time then other formats.

In a good system the difference in access time should not really 
even be an issue or even noticed by the user. Plus there is no 
LTR requirement for a non voice control channel repeater, which 
is a pretty big deal when dealing with limited resources (number 
of avaible repeaters/channels). 

A 3 channel trunking system with a control channl repeater has 
(typical) only two available voice repeaters available for user 
traffic.  [Depends on the trunking format]  but in LTR all 
three channels of a 3 channel trunking system would be working 
voice traffic. 

2 channel LTR trunking systems are very practical.  Other formats... 
not so good. 

> If you're looking more towards public safety or 'critical 
> infrastructure' (basically utilites), you'll want something with 
> a faster access time.

I'm doing all the above with LTR and it works very well. You're 
talking real world access time measured (most all trunking formats) 
in hundreds of milliseconds typical. Radios in "most" all trunking 
formats have to first transpond... 

> My first recommendation would MPT-1327, next maybe P-25. P-25 
> will be much more expensive, but is getting to be more 
> wide-spread here in N. America.

Keywords "much more expensive". 

Public Safety going to trunking goes for MPT and P-25 because of 
politics, sales people, some technical items and the fact that 
they're often spending funny money (grants and tax payer sources) 

The business side of LMR running LTR, Passport, Motorola and some 
other consumer LMR products/formats (like Smart-Trunk) has to be 
very practical (best bang for the buck), lean and mean. 

I used to think the queue function of MPT-1327 was a big deal, but 
what some people call the "waste" of a voice repeater / channel doing 
control channel duty seems not so smart/practical.  We found ways to 
make LTR work very well with the available resources so a queue 
function is not required. 

cheers,
skipp 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Trunking repeater

[mch]

You have the basic idea. If someone has 10 radios, they use 10 IDs. The
radios need not scan all groups - only those 10 used in their company. I
maintained such a system with many companies on it. Some all used one
group. Some had unique groups for each radio. Some had several groups.
Some had groups for everyone and others just for the 'higher ups'.

Joe M.

Jim B. wrote:
> 
> mch wrote:
> > It depends how it was programmed. Each unit could have a unique ID. But,
> > your system would be limited to 250 radios or so.
> >
> > Joe M.
> 
> There were group ID's, but no unit ID's. Maybe if you gave each unit a
> group ID, and then set the radios to scan for all groups. But everyone
> would hear everyone basically. It would be hard to have more then one
> customer or organization.
> And to make a trunked system worthwhile, you need at least three
> channels (otherwise you're not gaining anything), fwiw.
> --
> Jim Barbour
> WD8CHL
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Trunking repeater

[Jim B.]

mch wrote:
> It depends how it was programmed. Each unit could have a unique ID. But,
> your system would be limited to 250 radios or so.
> 
> Joe M.

There were group ID's, but no unit ID's. Maybe if you gave each unit a 
group ID, and then set the radios to scan for all groups. But everyone 
would hear everyone basically. It would be hard to have more then one 
customer or organization.
And to make a trunked system worthwhile, you need at least three 
channels (otherwise you're not gaining anything), fwiw.
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Trunking repeater

[mch]

It depends how it was programmed. Each unit could have a unique ID. But,
your system would be limited to 250 radios or so.

Joe M.

Jim B. wrote:
> 
> > I remember reading an article several years ago about a problem with LTR...
> > Joe's trucking goes out and buys time on a trunked system and 5
> > radios, then has one of them cloned into 10 more.  Trunked operator now has
> > 15 users and Joe is paying for 5 plus airtime.  The article mentioned an
> > extension to LTR called (if I remember correctly) Passport that would 
> > prevent
> > this - the ten extra radios wouldn't work.
> >
> > Just mentioning it so you can include it in your research.
> 
> Right-LTR has no unit ID in it, so there is no way to check for that
> (just like conventional community repeaters). So there are several
> expansions to it that add that-Passport is one, from Trident. EFJ has
> LTR-Net as well. I think there are one or two others.
> 
> --
> Jim Barbour
> WD8CHL
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Getting back on topic WAS: A little OT perhaps...

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 01:18 PM 01/30/07, you wrote:
>Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
> > 4freq 220 (2m Motran modified)
> > and 6freq 440.
> >
> > Mike WA6ILQ
>
>I think you mentioned that once before-it'd be interesting if there was
>an article for that...I have a Motran in the garage with a M-70 DTMF
>head and a GLB for it...have to change the offset oscillator-it was the
>smaller one with one row of knobs and offset switches...

If you have the manual for that baby GLB I'd like a copy.

The receiver conversion was basically the same steps as Kevins
one for the Micor.  Trim the helicals to resonance and convert
the 70-140mhz doubler in the multiplier chain to a tripler.
I remember that I was able to use a CAP receive element to
hear my sig gen on a frequency in or near 220.

The transmitter conversion was even easier. The tuned circuits
in the last doubler collector and through the final were three
pieces all in parallel: a coil, a fixed cap and a variable cap.
The simple way but the least vibration stable was to chop
out the fixed cap and retune.  I got about 20 watts out of
a 30w radio.

I never went any further as I was doing it to prove a point,
but the right way would have been to trim the coils and
swap the caps for smaller values to maintain a proper
LC ratio.  But it worked, and I used it for a while as a
base and as a mobile.

It was fun to be in a conversation with a bunch of folks
that all had 13-509s and say in passing that I was running
a 4-freq Motran... it was a real conversation piece.

I never got around to it but I was going to take a blank
Motrac/Motran serial tag (you could get those for a while as
an orderable spare part, and I have exactly one left) and
have it engraved as a "U43 1/2 MSN-3190AK-SP-WA6ILQ"

For those readers that don't get the joke, a U43 was
high band and a U44 was UHF, so naturally a U43 1/2
would have to be 220... and a trailing SP-something
was a custom factory mod of a radio. Usually the
SP was a number, like SP-103 and a SP-callsign
would be a really unique SP...

Mike WA6ILQ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Trunking repeater

[Jim B.]

> I remember reading an article several years ago about a problem with LTR...
> Joe's trucking goes out and buys time on a trunked system and 5
> radios, then has one of them cloned into 10 more.  Trunked operator now has
> 15 users and Joe is paying for 5 plus airtime.  The article mentioned an
> extension to LTR called (if I remember correctly) Passport that would prevent
> this - the ten extra radios wouldn't work.
> 
> Just mentioning it so you can include it in your research.

Right-LTR has no unit ID in it, so there is no way to check for that 
(just like conventional community repeaters). So there are several 
expansions to it that add that-Passport is one, from Trident. EFJ has 
LTR-Net as well. I think there are one or two others.

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

[Repeater-Builder] Getting back on topic WAS: A little OT perhaps...

[Jim B.]

Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
> 4freq 220 (2m Motran modified)
> and 6freq 440.
> 
> Mike WA6ILQ

I think you mentioned that once before-it'd be interesting if there was 
an article for that...I have a Motran in the garage with a M-70 DTMF 
head and a GLB for it...have to change the offset oscillator-it was the 
smaller one with one row of knobs and offset switches...

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Trunking repeater

[mch]

Then you hear a radio on the air with the same ID as one on your bench
and either shut them off or threaten 'theft of services' charges. Then,
if you're a particularly nasty person, you charge them for the units
that were not paid for as long as they had them.

Joe M.
(no, I have no trucking co)

Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
> 
> I remember reading an article several years ago about a problem with LTR...
> Joe's trucking goes out and buys time on a trunked system and 5
> radios, then has one of them cloned into 10 more.  Trunked operator now has
> 15 users and Joe is paying for 5 plus airtime.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Tony VE6MVP]

At 11:52 AM 2007-01-30 -0500, you wrote:


I cannot believe how incredibly stupid legislators are. The problem is
NOT with using a cell phone, or anything else. The problem is that (1)
these people are CRAPPY drivers, and do not belong on the road in the
first place, and (2) driver's education in the is country is
ridiculously horrible! Testing needs to be made MUCH tougher. How about
doing something about THAT???

It ticks me off when I see these people that insist on talking with
their hands, holding the phone in one hand and waving the other around
while driving, not even looking at the road. And you know darned well
they are just 'rag-chewing'.


I somewhat agree with you.  However, in my opinion, the problem really is 
that folks are concentrating too much on the telephone.  Be it social 
jibber jabber, talking/arguing with the boss, spouse, girl/boy friend, 
etc.   I once had a technically heavy conversation with a client while 
driving on the freeway and thinking later that I had severe tunnel vision 
and reacted poorly to one situation.  So now I ensure my cell phone 
conversations are much "lighter" in content.


However how do you legislate this?

Besides I seldom use the cell phone anyhow.  I don't have any traffic 
tieups on my 12 minute daily commute so I'm quite fortunate in that sense.


Tony 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 08:52 AM 01/30/07, you wrote:
>Ken Arck wrote:
> > but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to
> > mobilize Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)
> >
> > http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0200.dir/sb0293.intro.html
>
>I cannot believe how incredibly stupid legislators are. The problem is
>NOT with using a cell phone, or anything else. The problem is that (1)
>these people are CRAPPY drivers, and do not belong on the road in the
>first place, and (2) driver's education in the is country is
>ridiculously horrible!

It seems to me that when I was in high school we had REAL
drivers ed classes.  The kids today get maybe 1/3 of what I got.
Todays young drivers are getting the rest as on-the-job-training - at
the public's expense...  You reap what you sow...

>Testing needs to be made MUCH tougher. How about
>doing something about THAT???

My dad learned how to drive in Cripple Creek Colorado in the
mid to late 1920s... used to joke that he paid $5 for the privilege
to assemble his first car from a junkyard, and that he had to learn
how to drive on roads that had a bend every 500 yards, no guard
rails and drops of 3,000 feet.  I remember him complaining that you
could lose your license in Colorado for incompetent driving and go
to and adjoining state and get a new one.  He also said that the
country needed a multi-tier driving license - with the license printed
on semi-transparent colored plastic, with cars built with a clip at
the left side of the windshield to hold the license.
Someone in the next lane (a cop?) could look over and see what
color the license was,and if there was one stripe or two contrasting
color stripes across it.
In addition to the learners permit,  there would be a beginners
solo license - daylight and surface streets only.  The next step is
24 hrs on surface streets.  The next step gets you daylight
freeways. The next step gets you 24 hour freeways - but it
would take a year to get there.  His opinion was that if people had
a years experience before they could drive at night on freeways
or interstates you would have a lot more competent drivers that
way.
I'm not in full agreement with my dad's opinion, but I do agree that
the existing system could use some improvement.
I see a LOT of incompetent drivers on the roads today - and not all
of them are teenagers.
There's a local joke: How can you tell when the (insert derogatory
term for a racial group famous for being incompetent drivers) move
into your neighborhood?   The (insert derogatory term for a class of
illegal aliens that have a reputation for no insurance) go out and get
car insurance the next day.

>It ticks me off when I see these people that insist on talking with
>their hands, holding the phone in one hand and waving the other around
>while driving, not even looking at the road. And you know darned well
>they are just 'rag-chewing'.

Or the ones that have a cellphone in one hand and are applying eye
shadow with a brush held in the other - and driving with their knees
on the freeway at 60mph
Those are the ones I'd like to be able to make a 1-800 call and
give someone their license plate number ...

>As is likely the case for most people here, I learned how to drive with
>the steering wheel in one hand and a microphone in the other. If you
>can't do that, you do NOT belong on the road!

I had a old Ma Bell telephone operators carbon button mic headset
(look at a 1960s photo of a switchboard) hooked to a Moto 80 D
control head.  Key down on the PTT  and suck 35 amps at 12v...
watch the headlights dimm  The PTT was a modified foot style
high beam switch - take out the detent and make it momentary.
At one point I had a rotary switch that connected it to any one
of four radios... 4freq 6m, 8freq 2m, 4freq 220 (2m Motran modified)
and 6freq 440.

Mike WA6ILQ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Trunking repeater

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 08:51 AM 01/30/07, you wrote:
>wadeds2003 wrote:
> > Hello everyone.  I am a Icom, Vertex, HYT dealer out of Canada.  I am
> > looking at putting up a UHF trunking repeater in the 450-470 MHz
> > range.  I think I am leaning towards a LTR system however I do not
> > have very much expirence with trunking repeaters as they are not all
> > that common out here.  Is LTR a good protcol to use?  I am thinking of
> > using Icom FR4000 series repeaters with etheir csi or zetron
> > controllers, a good high gain antenna, and some good duplexers, multi
> > couplers, and combiners.  What I am thinking is to start I will go
> > with 2 repeaters and add a 3rd if need be.  Has anyone had any kind of
> > expirence with trunking and does this sound like a good approach or
> > should I be looking at something else.  Also, what are other dealers
> > charging for similar services?  Any help is appricated.  Thanks
>
>Who are the intended users? LTR is good for businesses, contractors,
>etc, but it does have a slow(er) channel access time then other formats.
>If you're looking more towards public safety or 'critical
>infrastructure' (basically utilites), you'll want something with a
>faster access time. My first recommendation would MPT-1327, next maybe
>P-25. P-25 will be much more expensive, but is getting to be more
>wide-spread here in N. America.

I remember reading an article several years ago about a problem with LTR...
Joe's trucking goes out and buys time on a trunked system and 5
radios, then has one of them cloned into 10 more.  Trunked operator now has
15 users and Joe is paying for 5 plus airtime.  The article mentioned an
extension to LTR called (if I remember correctly) Passport that would prevent
this - the ten extra radios wouldn't work.

Just mentioning it so you can include it in your research.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT ...

[N8BQN]

There was a joke about the Italian cab-driver who'd brag about waving at the
girls out both windows -- at the same time ...
Ummm..  nevermind. 

Tho there might be some correlation to what lawmakers are using for brains.

> "Jim B." wrote:
> It ticks me off when I see these people that insist on talking with their
hands, holding the phone in one hand and waving the other around while
driving,   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Mike Morris]

At 09:32 AM 01/30/07, you wrote:

> > Didn't China take over Taiwan back in the 80's or something?
>
>Not on your life.
>
>A very tense armed standoff has been in place for many many years.

Mainland china considers Taiwan to be a rebellious province.  Taiwan,
and the rest of the world considers itself to be an independent nation.

Back to repeater building...

Re: [Repeater-Builder] I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Mike Morris]

At 08:04 AM 01/30/07, you wrote:
>Kevin Custer wrote:
> > Their stuff has flooded eBay for several months.
> > I'd say it's made in China
> > No further comment,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
>
>Just wait till we start seeing Chinese cars...you thought the Yugo was
>bad...
>--
>Jim Barbour
>WD8CHL

Oh? You've driven a Kia?  Oops, that's Korean.  Just as bad, despite
the 50Kmiles warranty.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Dave VanHorn]

> You could ask the guys at Sealand (http://www.sealandgov.org) - but
> they wouldn't sell to the Pirate's Bay last week.  LOL.

Hmm.. Would be an interesting site for a repeater.
1000' tower? Hmm, let me check with the zoning board. Hey ME, is it ok?
Might be interesting when the weather gets rough though.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Trunking repeater

[Com/Rad Inc]

30 January 2007

Hello Everyone

After seeing many posts for Commercial Repeaters I am compelled to post this 
Commercial Message.

We import the R F Technology product from Australia.  I started using this to 
satisfy my need for
high power, reliable, servicable, agile repeater systems.  Over the years we 
have been distributing this 
to other dealers and Amateur Radio groups as this product fits a lot of ( not 
all ) applications. This is a fully type accepted
30 thru 900 Mhz including 220, 300 ( Warsaw Pact ) and 700 Mhz ranges!

This could represent the solution to your particular problem/requirement.
We will extend discounts and other considerations to those interested.

Please refer to the following links:

http://www.com-rad.com/RFT11.htm

http;//www.rftechnology.com.au

Thanks for your time in reviewing this message

Ed Folta800.298.2850
President
Com/Rad Inc
Des Plaines, IL 60018




 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Nate Duehr]

On 1/30/07, Dave VanHorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I was thinking Hong Kong voice>nevermind...
>
> Yup.  Britain leased it from the chinese, and the lease ran out.
>
> I wonder what a country goes for these days?  :)

You could ask the guys at Sealand (http://www.sealandgov.org) - but
they wouldn't sell to the Pirate's Bay last week.  LOL.

Nate WY0X

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[w5zit]

New Mexico has a similar bill awaiting passage. Only the hands-free 
verbiage is missing in the New Mexico bill. Hams are not excluded from 
the ticket. The fine is $30 plus court costs.

73 - Jim W5ZIT

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 8:54 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to 
mobilize Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)

http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0200.dir/sb0293.intro.html




74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session

NOTE:  Matter within  { +  braces and plus signs + } in
an
amended section is new. Matter within  { -  braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
 { +  braces and plus signs + } .

LC 1265


Senate Bill 293

Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the
  President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
  rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part
  of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on
  Judiciary)



SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

  Creates offense of operating motor vehicle while using mobile
communication device. Punishes by maximum fine of $720.
Authorizes suspension of driving privileges for repeat offenses.


A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
  SECTION 1. { +  Sections 2 and 3 of this 2007 Act are added
to
and made a part of the Oregon Vehicle Code. + }
  SECTION 2.  { + (1) A person commits the offense of operating
a
motor vehicle while using a mobile communication device if the
person, while operating a motor vehicle on a highway, uses a
mobile communication device but does not use a hands-free
accessory.
  (2) For purposes of this section:
  (a) 'Hands-free accessory' means an attachment or built-in
feature for or an addition to a mobile communication device,
whether or not permanently installed in a motor vehicle, that
when used allows a person to maintain both hands on the steering
wheel. + }
   { +  (b) 'Mobile communication device' means a text
messaging
device or a wireless, two-way communication device designed to
receive and transmit voice communication. + }
   { +  (3) This section does not apply to:
  (a) A person operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle; or
  (b) A person summoning medical or other emergency help if no
other person in the vehicle is capable of summoning help.
  (4) The offense described in this section, operating a motor
vehicle while using a mobile communication device, is a Class A
traffic violation. + }
  SECTION 3.  { + (1) The Department of Transportation shall
suspend the driving privileges of a person who repeatedly commits
the offense of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile
communication device as described in section 2 of this 2007 Act.
  (2) The department shall suspend driving privileges under this
section for 30 days when a person is convicted of a second
offense within a three-year period.
  (3) The department shall suspend driving privileges under this
section for 90 days when a person is convicted of three or more
offenses within a three-year period.
  (4) A person is entitled to administrative review under ORS
809.440 of a suspension under this section. + }

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Dave VanHorn]

> I was thinking Hong Kongnevermind...

Yup.  Britain leased it from the chinese, and the lease ran out. 

I wonder what a country goes for these days?  :)

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Jim B.]

Dave VanHorn wrote:
>> Didn't China take over Taiwan back in the 80's or something?
> 
> Not on your life.
> 
> A very tense armed standoff has been in place for many many years.

I was thinking Hong Kongnevermind...

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

[Repeater-Builder] Re: I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Dave VanHorn]

--
> They promise the moon and almost deliver it. The radios work pretty 
> well except they shoot themselves in the foot with what appears to 
> be a 3-cent mic element.  So the tx audio sounds like the user has 
> a sock/rag (or equiv) in his/her mouth.  If they get the tx audio 
> problem fixed... we're going to see a heck of a lot more of them. 

I know the ones.  There's a guy here with one, very "distinctive" 
audio.  Still, they are pretty inexpensive, and I do like the red case 
option.  I worry about the batteries though.  I have had very bad and 
very exciting experiences with off-brand NIMH cells.  As in "rapid 
heating and explosive venting of boiling electrolyte".  

But that only happened in about 1% of the cells we got from china.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[skipp025]

> "Jim B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wait till we start seeing Chinese cars...you thought 
> the  Yugo was bad...


I have seen the new Chinese made cars for the US Market...  and if 
the one I've seen becomes available for regular sale here in the 
US... GM and Ford are going to be in much bigger trouble.  It's 
pretty nice...

Onward... 

The JTong style Asian UHF and VHF Radios have been finding their 
way over here to some of my more "creative" ham friends. 

They promise the moon and almost deliver it. The radios work pretty 
well except they shoot themselves in the foot with what appears to 
be a 3-cent mic element.  So the tx audio sounds like the user has 
a sock/rag (or equiv) in his/her mouth.  If they get the tx audio 
problem fixed... we're going to see a heck of a lot more of them. 

(My friend sold his before we had a chance to try a speaker mic 
on it.)

cheers, 
skipp 


>
> Kevin Custer wrote:
> > Their stuff has flooded eBay for several months.
> > I'd say it's made in China
> > No further comment,
> > Kevin
> > 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 820 MHz duplexer problem:urgent !!

[Gary Schafer]

It is not possible to get a notch that is 8 MHz wide. What you probably have
is a pass band filter.

 

It sounds like you have what is called a "duplexer" for an 800 MHz trunking
system. The "duplexer" is usually a set of 4 or 6 cavities set up as a wide
band pass filter for the receive side. The transmit side would be a
transmitter combiner with an isolator and a single band pass cavity for each
transmitter. The output of the transmitter band pass cavities would feed a
star junction to combine them all. The star junction for the transmitters
would then connect to a T connector with one side of the T going to the
antenna and the other side of the T going to the receiver band pass filter.

 

There are other methods of combining also but this was the most popular.

 

Trunk systems often used separate antennas for transmit and receive. The
transmitters were most always combined as above and the output of the star
junction would feed an antenna directly. That package was referred to as a
"transmitter combiner".

 

If the receivers were to be operated on the same antenna then the "duplexer"
was added as described above. The "duplexer" in this system was just the
multi cavity receive band pass filter. The cavities are "stager tuned" (each
cavity tuned to a different frequency) to achieve the desired band pass. 

 

The band pass filter can be tuned with a signal generator and a signal
detector by several settings of the generator to measure the frequency width
and flatness of the band pass while tuning but it is very difficult to do. 

Tuning is best done with a tracking generator with frequency markers in
order to tune the band pass to the proper frequency band and least
attenuation over the pass band.

 

If you have a different type system then maybe you could describe what you
have.

 

Regards

Gary

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vikas gupta
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:33 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 820 MHz duplexer problem:urgent !!

 

the capacitor is ceramic type.

can you please give me the construction detail of this type of duplexer.

please give me.

waiting for you.

skipp025 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What type of material is the capacitor made from? 
skipp

> vikas gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please advise me how i tune the duplexr of Tx (811.1-819.2MHz) Rx 
> (856.1-864.2 MHz) . I am tuning this by desigig band reject notch 
> type duplxer but I have a problem in achieving 1 dB insertin loss 
> and 70 dB iisolation on low and high side.
> I am using 1 PF capacitor on high side .
> 
> please suggest me how I design the duplexer and get 8 MHz broad
notch. saparetion between Tx and Rx is 45 MHz.
> 

 

  

  _  

Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo!
  Answers and get answers
from real people who know.

 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna on the side of a water tower

[Dave VanHorn]

> Normally for side-mounting on a normal tower, one wavelength will 
get 
> you close to an omni pattern, 

I'm not trying to get to an omni pattern, I know that's impossible.
What I want to do is approximate the pattern that I will get, and look 
at that (using RM) against the terrain, and see what distances work 
out best..

> I'd still mount it facing towards the most important area to cover 
from 
> that site, and vote it.

Voting's not an option at this point.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Dave VanHorn]

> Didn't China take over Taiwan back in the 80's or something?

Not on your life.

A very tense armed standoff has been in place for many many years.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: A little OT perhaps...

[Dave VanHorn]

> As is likely the case for most people here, I learned how to drive 
with 
> the steering wheel in one hand and a microphone in the other. If you 
> can't do that, you do NOT belong on the road!


Ah, but you see we are (largely) engineers, and suffer from the 
mindset that the way you fix a problem is to find the source and 
eliminate it.   A lawyer would fix a leaky pipe by making drips 
illegal.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters

[Jim B.]

gregmrfs wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I want to build my first repeater using 2 hand held radios mounted in
> a pelican case with a gel cell for power.
> 
> I have no idea where to start or what is required to build the
> repeater. Can anyone give me some ideas on connecting the radios? So
> far I think I have to get 2 radios, case, battery. Do I need 2
> antennas or should I use a duplexer. I want this setup to be as basic
> as possible.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Greg

First, you don't mention what band, but I would NOT try to do this on 
the 2M ham band, as the in/out spacing is too close. UHF is an excellent 
choice, as there is more likely to be an open pair, the in/out spacing 
is much better, small duplexers are practical, and the whole deal will 
be cheaper.
I would use commercial grade radios, not made-for-ham. A pair of 
Motorola HT-90/440's work very well, but are crystal controlled. If you 
need programmable, P100/HT50, P200/HT600's are good choices, as they 
still have decent front ends. The issue with a frequency agile portable 
repeater will be the duplexer. Re-tuning in the field is not an option. 
You'll have to use separate antennas, which is another selling point for 
UHF, as the separation will be much less, 10-15' of vertical will 
probably work, especially at low power levels.
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Jim B.]

Ken Arck wrote:
> At 08:04 AM 1/30/2007, you wrote:
> 
> 
>> Just wait till we start seeing Chinese cars...you thought the Yugo was
>> bad...
> 
> <---Good point. One hour after you fill them, they're empty
> 
> Ken 

They'll run on fish-heads, though...
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Jim B.]

Ken Arck wrote:
> but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to 
> mobilize Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)
> 
> http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0200.dir/sb0293.intro.html

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid legislators are. The problem is 
NOT with using a cell phone, or anything else. The problem is that (1) 
these people are CRAPPY drivers, and do not belong on the road in the 
first place, and (2) driver's education in the is country is 
ridiculously horrible! Testing needs to be made MUCH tougher. How about 
doing something about THAT???

It ticks me off when I see these people that insist on talking with 
their hands, holding the phone in one hand and waving the other around 
while driving, not even looking at the road. And you know darned well 
they are just 'rag-chewing'.

As is likely the case for most people here, I learned how to drive with 
the steering wheel in one hand and a microphone in the other. If you 
can't do that, you do NOT belong on the road!

sorry

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: MICOR BASE OR REPEATER ON BATTERIES?

[Jim B.]

Doug Dickinson wrote:
> You CAN run a Micor base station on 12VDC, but you
> have to arrange a switchover from the 12V supply to
> the regulator board in the Micor power supply. As was
> said, you need 9.7 or so volts to run much of the
> control and logic functions and the power supply
> derives that from 12V. You need to make that cutover
> at the pre-regulator board in the PS

Mostly it's the channel elements you need the 9.6V for.
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial Trunking repeater

[Jim B.]

wadeds2003 wrote:
> Hello everyone.  I am a Icom, Vertex, HYT dealer out of Canada.  I am 
> looking at putting up a UHF trunking repeater in the 450-470 MHz 
> range.  I think I am leaning towards a LTR system however I do not 
> have very much expirence with trunking repeaters as they are not all 
> that common out here.  Is LTR a good protcol to use?  I am thinking of 
> using Icom FR4000 series repeaters with etheir csi or zetron 
> controllers, a good high gain antenna, and some good duplexers, multi 
> couplers, and combiners.  What I am thinking is to start I will go 
> with 2 repeaters and add a 3rd if need be.  Has anyone had any kind of 
> expirence with trunking and does this sound like a good approach or 
> should I be looking at something else.  Also, what are other dealers 
> charging for similar services?  Any help is appricated.  Thanks

Who are the intended users? LTR is good for businesses, contractors, 
etc, but it does have a slow(er) channel access time then other formats.
If you're looking more towards public safety or 'critical 
infrastructure' (basically utilites), you'll want something with a 
faster access time. My first recommendation would MPT-1327, next maybe 
P-25. P-25 will be much more expensive, but is getting to be more 
wide-spread here in N. America.
-- 
Jim Barbour
Transcore

Re: [Repeater-Builder] I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Jim B.]

Kevin Custer wrote:
> Kevin Custer wrote:
>> I'd say it's made in China
> 
> Scratch that, you are correct,   Taiwan
> http://www.temwell.com.tw/BS%202+2%20size.htm
> 
> Kevin

Didn't China take over Taiwan back in the 80's or something?

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Jim B.]

Ken Arck wrote:

> <---Then you shouldn't use it. It's not up to the Gov't to tell you that 
> you CAN'T use it.
> 
> By the way, my understanding is that after NYC put their cell phone ban 
> in place, it had ZERO effects on accidents. Leave it to politicians to 
> enact crap that doesn't work
> 
> Anyway, perhaps it is time to move this thread offlist
> 
> Ken
> 

Sorta like how red light cameras actually *increase* accidents at an 
intersection...


Tell them I sent you ;c}

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna on the side of a water tower

[Jim B.]

Dave VanHorn wrote:

>> I would suggest 1/2 wave away from the surrounding metal as a 
> minimum, but try and get as far away as you can.
>>  
> 
> Yes, but what's bugging me is that I'm sure there are BAD distances, 
> especially up close within 1-2 wavelengths

Normally for side-mounting on a normal tower, one wavelength will get 
you close to an omni pattern, but something as big as a water tower, I 
don't know. I don't think you'll be able to mount it far enough away, 
practically speaking.
I'd still mount it facing towards the most important area to cover from 
that site, and vote it.
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna on the side of a water tower

[Dave VanHorn]

Ok, the sector thing is interesting, but we've drifted FAR away from 
the question I was trying to answer.

Can anyone direct me to information, or modeling software (preferrably 
free) that can predict the pattern of an omni antenna, at various 
distances from a large cylindrical water tower?  

I'm looking to end up with an .ant file that I can use in radio 
mobile, but whatever the output form might be, I'm sure I can 
translate it one way or another.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Chris Rosing]

Jack, I see your point, done that my self.  But if u set up will in a parking 
lot, and while driving, hit the PTT key, your relativly safe.  Seeing as how 
this is a techinal field, not many "ID10T"s are out there.  Think most of us 
can multi-task holding a mic and driving at the same time.  Like someone else 
said, there are a few people that cant handle multi-tasking with a comms device 
and driving.  Oh well I guess.

Chris


- Original Message 
From: Jack Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:16:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

On the other hand, I need to join in here.  True it seems like everyone has a 
cell phone glued to their
ears these days.  But from the ham radio aspect, cell phones aren't nearly as 
attention consuming as
setting up your mobile whilst driving!  Many times I've swerved dangerously all 
over the road while
trying to set up to QSY to a different channel/frequency!  Dumb me, I know but 
with the miniature
readouts and push buttons the ham rig requires more concentration than does a 
cell.
 
73 de Jack
 
- Original Message - 
From: Chris Rosing 
To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...


You know, There is a lot of states out there and cities, and for me, bases, 
that permit talking on cellphones while driving.  The msg that would get 
reported out of this would be the cell phone part as the masses in this country 
use cellphones all the time.  I am curious as to how many other places that 
have banded cell phones, have it written this way to ban 2 way radios like our 
ham radios, FRS radios that groups such as boy scouts, large families, 
etc...use when convoying to a new location.  And truckers with their ever 
popular CB's.  What about my customers that have a GPS tracking device, with a 
Data Terminal Display on their dash to receive txt msgs, and route info?  This 
is basically blocking out all communications in vehicles that have become ever 
popular over the last decade to save companies money, therefore pushes money 
back into the economy in other ways.  AND why are emergency people so special.  
They drive at a higher rate of speed then the average person,
 swerving out of the way of people that don't pay any attention to what is 
going on.  Any ways, that's just by beef to the stupidity of people in this 
country that run it.  So if you know of any other places that have a ban on all 
communication devices please let me/us know. 
 
Thanks
Chris
KD5ZBE


- Original Message 
From: Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net>
To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:54:40 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...


but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to mobilize 
Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)

http://www.leg. state.or. us/07reg/ measures/ sb0200.dir/ sb0293.intro. html 



74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session NOTE:  Matter within 
 { +  braces and plus signs + } in  an  amended section is new. Matter within  
{ -  braces and minus  signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections 
are within   { +  braces and plus signs + } . LC 1265   
Senate Bill 293 Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by 
order of thePresident of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the partof the 
President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee onJudiciary)  
SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared 
by the sponsors of the  measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject 
to  consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's  brief 
statement of the essential features of the measure as  introduced.   
Creates offense of operating motor vehicle while using mobile  communication 
device. Punishes by maximum fine of $720.  Authorizes suspension of driving 
privileges for repeat offenses.  A BILL FOR AN ACT
  Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving.  Be It Enacted 
by the People of the State of Oregon:SECTION 1. { +  Sections 2 and 3 of 
this 2007 Act are added  to  and made a part of the Oregon Vehicle Code. + }
SECTION 2.  { + (1) A person commits the offense of operating  a  motor vehicle 
while using a mobile communication device if the  person, while operating a 
motor vehicle on a highway, uses a  mobile communication device but does not 
use a hands-free  accessory.(2) For purposes of this section:(a) 
'Hands-free accessory' means an attachment or built-in  feature for or an 
addition to a mobile communication device,  whether or not permanently 
installed in a motor vehicle, that  when used allows a person to maintain both 
hands on t

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Ken Arck]

At 08:16 AM 1/30/2007, you wrote:

On the other hand, I need to join in here.  True it seems like 
everyone has a cell phone glued to their
ears these days.  But from the ham radio aspect, cell phones aren't 
nearly as attention consuming as
setting up your mobile whilst driving!  Many times I've swerved 
dangerously all over the road while
trying to set up to QSY to a different channel/frequency!  Dumb me, 
I know but with the miniature
readouts and push buttons the ham rig requires more concentration 
than does a cell.


<---Then you shouldn't use it. It's not up to the Gov't to tell you 
that you CAN'T use it.


By the way, my understanding is that after NYC put their cell phone 
ban in place, it had ZERO effects on accidents. Leave it to 
politicians to enact crap that doesn't work


Anyway, perhaps it is time to move this thread offlist

Ken

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Jack Taylor]

On the other hand, I need to join in here.  True it seems like everyone has a 
cell phone glued to their
ears these days.  But from the ham radio aspect, cell phones aren't nearly as 
attention consuming as
setting up your mobile whilst driving!  Many times I've swerved dangerously all 
over the road while
trying to set up to QSY to a different channel/frequency!  Dumb me, I know but 
with the miniature
readouts and push buttons the ham rig requires more concentration than does a 
cell.

73 de Jack

  - Original Message - 
  From: Chris Rosing 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...



  You know, There is a lot of states out there and cities, and for me, bases, 
that permit talking on cellphones while driving.  The msg that would get 
reported out of this would be the cell phone part as the masses in this country 
use cellphones all the time.  I am curious as to how many other places that 
have banded cell phones, have it written this way to ban 2 way radios like our 
ham radios, FRS radios that groups such as boy scouts, large families, 
etc...use when convoying to a new location.  And truckers with their ever 
popular CB's.  What about my customers that have a GPS tracking device, with a 
Data Terminal Display on their dash to receive txt msgs, and route info?  This 
is basically blocking out all communications in vehicles that have become ever 
popular over the last decade to save companies money, therefore pushes money 
back into the economy in other ways.  AND why are emergency people so special.  
They drive at a higher rate of speed then the average person, swerving out of 
the way of people that don't pay any attention to what is going on.  Any ways, 
that's just by beef to the stupidity of people in this country that run it.  So 
if you know of any other places that have a ban on all communication devices 
please let me/us know. 

  Thanks
  Chris
  KD5ZBE


  - Original Message 
  From: Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:54:40 AM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...


  but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to mobilize 
Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)

  http://www.leg. state.or. us/07reg/ measures/ sb0200.dir/ sb0293.intro. html 




74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session NOTE:  Matter within 
 { +  braces and plus signs + } in  an  amended section is new. Matter within  
{ -  braces and minus  signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections 
are within   { +  braces and plus signs + } . LC 1265   
Senate Bill 293 Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by 
order of thePresident of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the partof the 
President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee onJudiciary)  
SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared 
by the sponsors of the  measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject 
to  consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's  brief 
statement of the essential features of the measure as  introduced.   
Creates offense of operating motor vehicle while using mobile  communication 
device. Punishes by maximum fine of $720.  Authorizes suspension of driving 
privileges for repeat offenses.  A BILL FOR AN ACT
  Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving.  Be It Enacted 
by the People of the State of Oregon:SECTION 1. { +  Sections 2 and 3 of 
this 2007 Act are added  to  and made a part of the Oregon Vehicle Code. + }
SECTION 2.  { + (1) A person commits the offense of operating  a  motor vehicle 
while using a mobile communication device if the  person, while operating a 
motor vehicle on a highway, uses a  mobile communication device but does not 
use a hands-free  accessory.(2) For purposes of this section:(a) 
'Hands-free accessory' means an attachment or built-in  feature for or an 
addition to a mobile communication device,  whether or not permanently 
installed in a motor vehicle, that  when used allows a person to maintain both 
hands on the steering  wheel. + } { +  (b) 'Mobile communication device' 
means a text  messaging  device or a wireless, two-way communication device 
designed to  receive and
 transmit voice communication. + } { +  (3) This section does not apply to: 
   (a) A person operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle; or(b) A person 
summoning medical or other emergency help if no  other person in the vehicle is 
capable of summoning help.(4) The offense described in this section, 
operating a motor  vehicle while using a mobile communication device, is a 
Class A  traffic violation. + }SECTION 3.  { + (

Re: [Repeater-Builder] I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Ken Arck]

At 08:04 AM 1/30/2007, you wrote:


>Just wait till we start seeing Chinese cars...you thought the Yugo was
>bad...

<---Good point. One hour after you fill them, they're empty

Ken 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Chris Rosing]

You know, There is a lot of states out there and cities, and for me, bases, 
that permit talking on cellphones while driving.  The msg that would get 
reported out of this would be the cell phone part as the masses in this country 
use cellphones all the time.  I am curious as to how many other places that 
have banded cell phones, have it written this way to ban 2 way radios like our 
ham radios, FRS radios that groups such as boy scouts, large families, 
etc...use when convoying to a new location.  And truckers with their ever 
popular CB's.  What about my customers that have a GPS tracking device, with a 
Data Terminal Display on their dash to receive txt msgs, and route info?  This 
is basically blocking out all communications in vehicles that have become ever 
popular over the last decade to save companies money, therefore pushes money 
back into the economy in other ways.  AND why are emergency people so special.  
They drive at a higher rate of speed then the average person,
 swerving out of the way of people that don't pay any attention to what is 
going on.  Any ways, that's just by beef to the stupidity of people in this 
country that run it.  So if you know of any other places that have a ban on all 
communication devices please let me/us know. 
 
Thanks
Chris
KD5ZBE


- Original Message 
From: Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:54:40 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to mobilize 
Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)

http://www.leg. state.or. us/07reg/ measures/ sb0200.dir/ sb0293.intro. html 



74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session NOTE:  Matter within 
 { +  braces and plus signs + } in  an  amended section is new. Matter within  
{ -  braces and minus  signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections 
are within   { +  braces and plus signs + } . LC 1265   
Senate Bill 293 Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by 
order of thePresident of the Senate in conformance with presession filing   
 rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the partof the 
President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee onJudiciary)  
SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared 
by the sponsors of the  measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject 
to  consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's  brief 
statement of the essential features of the measure as  introduced.   
Creates offense of operating motor vehicle while using
 mobile  communication device. Punishes by maximum fine of $720.  Authorizes 
suspension of driving privileges for repeat offenses.   
   A BILL FOR AN ACT  Relating to use of mobile communication device while 
driving.  Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:SECTION 1. { + 
 Sections 2 and 3 of this 2007 Act are added  to  and made a part of the Oregon 
Vehicle Code. + }SECTION 2.  { + (1) A person commits the offense of 
operating  a  motor vehicle while using a mobile communication device if the  
person, while operating a motor vehicle on a highway, uses a  mobile 
communication device but does not use a hands-free  accessory.(2) For 
purposes of this section:(a) 'Hands-free accessory' means an attachment or 
built-in  feature for or an addition to a mobile communication device,  whether 
or not permanently installed in a motor vehicle, that  when used allows a 
person to maintain both hands on the steering  wheel. + } { + 
 (b) 'Mobile communication device' means a text  messaging  device or a 
wireless, two-way communication device designed to  receive and transmit voice 
communication. + } { +  (3) This section does not apply to:(a) A person 
operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle; or(b) A person summoning 
medical or other emergency help if no  other person in the vehicle is capable 
of summoning help.(4) The offense described in this section, operating a 
motor  vehicle while using a mobile communication device, is a Class A  traffic 
violation. + }SECTION 3.  { + (1) The Department of Transportation shall  
suspend the driving privileges of a person who repeatedly commits  the offense 
of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile  communication device as 
described in section 2 of this 2007 Act.(2) The department shall suspend 
driving privileges under this  section for 30 days when a person is convicted 
of a second  offense within a three-year period.(3) The
 department shall suspend driving privileges under this  section for 90 days 
when a person is convicted of three or more  offenses within a three-year 
period.(4) A person is entitled to administrative review under ORS  809.440 
of a suspension under this section. + } - ---

Re: [Repeater-Builder] I'm not that bold - new manufacturer?

[Jim B.]

Kevin Custer wrote:
> Their stuff has flooded eBay for several months.
> I'd say it's made in China
> No further comment,
> 
> Kevin
> 

Just wait till we start seeing Chinese cars...you thought the Yugo was 
bad...
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[N8BQN]

Wonder if they'll be amending this to reclassify tow-trucks as
'emergency' .. or the highway dept ..  or ...

Time for a photo of the legislator pulling away from the drive-thru with
a fresh coffee in-hand...

Ken Arck wrote:
but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to
mobilize Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)
  { +  (3) This section does not apply to:
  (a) A person operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle; or
  (b) A person summoning medical or other emergency help if no other
person in the vehicle is capable of summoning help.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna on the side of a water tower

[Jim B.]

skipp025 wrote:
> Which reminds me that I should have mentioned the available scan 
> of club using a series of yagi antennas around a wide tower to 
> obtain a quasi omni pattern.   You can probably find the info 
> on the repeater builder antenna page along with the mounting offset 
> paper I mentioned earlier.  
> 
> skipp 
> 

An agency we work with uses VHF corner reflectors pointed opposite 
directions, with a power splitter, to cover a freeway...
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters

[KD5SFA]

I did something of the sort using FRS radios on a hunting lease
where terrain did not allow everyone to communicate with
each other.  I tied the audio out put of one to the mic input 
of the other and vice versa. 

They were set in VOX mode and each radio was set to a different 
channel.  One group set their radios on one channel and the other 
used the other channel.  

The "repeater" was seperated by about 
3' vertically.  It was simple and cheesy but it worked.  



-Original Message-
>From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jan 30, 2007 7:26 AM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters
>
>Thanks Eric,
>It will be for experimental purposes mainly with a fairly low duty cycle. I 
>was looking at the UHF 470Mhz band because I can get radios cheap for those 
>freqs. I am not sure about the seperation I am not interested in large 
>power outputs, I am looking at 5w max.
>
>Thanks
>Greg
>
>- Original Message 
>From: Eric Lemmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:17:28 PM
>Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>Greg,
>
>
>
>Is this going to be used for commercial or Amateur purposes?  What frequency
>
>band?  What separation between TX and RX?  Is the repeater intended for
>
>casual, low-duty-cycle purposes such as a family reunion or for
>
>high-duty-cycle purposes such as emergency support?  The answers to these
>
>question will be helpful in guiding you to a solution.
>
>
>
>73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
>
>  
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>
>From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com
>
>[mailto:Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of gregmrfs
>
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:04 AM
>
>To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com
>
>Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters
>
>
>
>Hi!
>
>
>
>I want to build my first repeater using 2 hand held radios mounted in
>
>a Pelican case with a gel cell for power.
>
>
>
>I have no idea where to start or what is required to build the
>
>repeater. Can anyone give me some ideas on connecting the radios? So
>
>far I think I have to get 2 radios, case, battery. Do I need 2
>
>antennas or should I use a duplexer. I want this setup to be as basic
>
>as possible.
>
>
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>
>
>Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Too fast squelch on GE Master

[Jim B.]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Really!  I noticed some decay problems with an RLC-MOT we have on an SCom 
> 7k.  I've always attributed it to COS line propagation delay in the 
> controller, but perhaps the 2.2 µF cap is the major culprit.  We solved the 
> problem by using the onboard audio gating, which I see uses pins 6 & 7 of 
> the Micor squelch IC.
> 
> Bob NO6B

And there is some. I experienced the same with my 6K, and did use gated 
audio to drive the 6K. Basically the controller is taking the place of 
the original squelch gate board, audio-wise.
If you have a really good signal from the repeater, ie, sitting at the 
site, and a good radio/speaker, and you turn the volume up high enough, 
you can hear the gate close slightly after the squelch closes, maybe 
another 2-5mS. (Actually, I remember the gating time was measured by Bob 
and crew, but I don't remember the time frame.)

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

RE: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Paul Finch]

Ken,
 
The problem/s is/are; there is a lot of people that should not be allowed to
drive much less while using a hand held communications device!  Those people
are the ones they are basing this law on, not those of us that have driven
and used all sorts of communications equipment (repeaters included) without
any problems.  Of course the "Law Enforcement" community is not included in
this law, cause they are smarter and can drive a lot better than the rest of
is!
 
It is slightly off topic but if these laws are passed (only a matter of
time) repeaters won't be needed.  By the way, the studies have shown it's
not the cell phone.  The same problems occur when there is someone in the
front seat talking to the driver, thereby distracting him/her.
 
Paul
 

   _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Arck
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:55 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...


but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to mobilize
Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)

HYPERLINK
"http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0200.dir/sb0293.intro.html"http
://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0200.dir/sb0293.intro.html 



74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session

 

NOTE:  Matter within  { +  braces and plus signs + } in

an

amended section is new. Matter within  { -  braces and minus

signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within

 { +  braces and plus signs + } .

 

LC 1265

 



Senate Bill 293

 

Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the

  President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing

  rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part

  of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on

  Judiciary)

 

 



SUMMARY

 

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the

measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to

consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's

brief statement of the essential features of the measure as

introduced.

 

  Creates offense of operating motor vehicle while using mobile

communication device. Punishes by maximum fine of $720.

Authorizes suspension of driving privileges for repeat offenses.

 

   

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

  SECTION 1. { +  Sections 2 and 3 of this 2007 Act are added

to

and made a part of the Oregon Vehicle Code. + }

  SECTION 2.  { + (1) A person commits the offense of operating

a

motor vehicle while using a mobile communication device if the

person, while operating a motor vehicle on a highway, uses a

mobile communication device but does not use a hands-free

accessory.

  (2) For purposes of this section:

  (a) 'Hands-free accessory' means an attachment or built-in

feature for or an addition to a mobile communication device,

whether or not permanently installed in a motor vehicle, that

when used allows a person to maintain both hands on the steering

wheel. + }

   { +  (b) 'Mobile communication device' means a text

messaging

device or a wireless, two-way communication device designed to

receive and transmit voice communication. + }

   { +  (3) This section does not apply to:

  (a) A person operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle; or

  (b) A person summoning medical or other emergency help if no

other person in the vehicle is capable of summoning help.

  (4) The offense described in this section, operating a motor

vehicle while using a mobile communication device, is a Class A

traffic violation. + }

  SECTION 3.  { + (1) The Department of Transportation shall

suspend the driving privileges of a person who repeatedly commits

the offense of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile

communication device as described in section 2 of this 2007 Act.

  (2) The department shall suspend driving privileges under this

section for 30 days when a person is convicted of a second

offense within a three-year period.

  (3) The department shall suspend driving privileges under this

section for 90 days when a person is convicted of three or more

offenses within a three-year period.

  (4) A person is entitled to administrative review under ORS

809.440 of a suspension under this section. + }









Visit HYPERLINK "http://www.ourphonelist.com"OurPhonelist.com
It's free and you'll never lose track of a phone number again! 







--

President and CTO - Arcom Communications

Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and

accessories.


HYPERLINK "http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/arcom/index.html";

http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/arcom/index.html

Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and

we 

[Repeater-Builder] fs-ge meter panel

[Ted Bleiman K9MDM - MDM Radio]

someone was looking for a meter panel for a ge
base. wel i found one with 2 meters on it whilst
stumbling thru the 'garach'...thats how its
pronounced here in chicago
i have pix that i can email. it has no wiring
harness. I believe its from a mastrpro base but,
meters is meters. lemme know.
mdm ted
new information below.

  Ted Bleiman K9MDM
  MDM  Radio 
P O Box 31353
Chicago, IL 60631-0353 
773.631.5130  fax 773.775.8096  
   
  web http://www.mdmradio.com - 
  alt email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  or [EMAIL PROTECTED]












 

Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

[Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...

[Ken Arck]

but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to 
mobilize Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)


http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0200.dir/sb0293.intro.html


74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session

NOTE:  Matter within  { +  braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within  { -  braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
 { +  braces and plus signs + } .

LC 1265

 Senate Bill 293

Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the
  President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
  rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part
  of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on
  Judiciary)


 SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

  Creates offense of operating motor vehicle while using mobile
communication device. Punishes by maximum fine of $720.
Authorizes suspension of driving privileges for repeat offenses.

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
  SECTION 1. { +  Sections 2 and 3 of this 2007 Act are added to
and made a part of the Oregon Vehicle Code. + }
  SECTION 2.  { + (1) A person commits the offense of operating a
motor vehicle while using a mobile communication device if the
person, while operating a motor vehicle on a highway, uses a
mobile communication device but does not use a hands-free
accessory.
  (2) For purposes of this section:
  (a) 'Hands-free accessory' means an attachment or built-in
feature for or an addition to a mobile communication device,
whether or not permanently installed in a motor vehicle, that
when used allows a person to maintain both hands on the steering
wheel. + }
   { +  (b) 'Mobile communication device' means a text messaging
device or a wireless, two-way communication device designed to
receive and transmit voice communication. + }
   { +  (3) This section does not apply to:
  (a) A person operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle; or
  (b) A person summoning medical or other emergency help if no
other person in the vehicle is capable of summoning help.
  (4) The offense described in this section, operating a motor
vehicle while using a mobile communication device, is a Class A
traffic violation. + }
  SECTION 3.  { + (1) The Department of Transportation shall
suspend the driving privileges of a person who repeatedly commits
the offense of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile
communication device as described in section 2 of this 2007 Act.
  (2) The department shall suspend driving privileges under this
section for 30 days when a person is convicted of a second
offense within a three-year period.
  (3) The department shall suspend driving privileges under this
section for 90 days when a person is convicted of three or more
offenses within a three-year period.
  (4) A person is entitled to administrative review under ORS
809.440 of a suspension under this section. + }



--

President and CTO - Arcom Communications

Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories.

http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/arcom/index.html

Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and

we offer complete repeater packages!

AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000

http://www.irlp.net

[Repeater-Builder] Re: MICOR BASE OR REPEATER ON BATTERIES?

[Doug Dickinson]

You CAN run a Micor base station on 12VDC, but you
have to arrange a switchover from the 12V supply to
the regulator board in the Micor power supply. As was
said, you need 9.7 or so volts to run much of the
control and logic functions and the power supply
derives that from 12V. You need to make that cutover
at the pre-regulator board in the PS

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna on the side of a water tower

[Gary]

 

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave VanHorn
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:26 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna on the side of a water tower

 

--- In Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com, "Iszak, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Dave;
> 
> Are you able to choose where on the side of the tank (IE, facing a 
particular direction) or are you stuck with a specific spot? 

I haven't seen the details yet, but as far as I know we can pick the 
spot.

> 
> I would suggest 1/2 wave away from the surrounding metal as a 
minimum, but try and get as far away as you can.
> 

Yes, but what's bugging me is that I'm sure there are BAD distances, 
especially up close within 1-2 wavelengths

It is going to be very similar to mounting on the side of a tower except
that the back side will be completely shielded.

 

73

Gary  K4FMX 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters

[Bill Collins]

Check this out. This may be of help.

http://www.arrowantennas.com/uconrtoller.html

Bill 


Bill Collins KG4BKO
EC Toombs County
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.cybersouth.com/wdcollins
Vidalia, GA
146.625(-)  442.500(+)88.5 

-


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by your Internet Service Provider]

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Setting Up A New Repeater

[Christopher Hodgdon]

Thank you for the comments, all will be accepted.  To answer a couple
of the questions, at the initial site, this repeater will be the only
radio system in place and operating.  At the final location, it will
be included in a section that maintains other amatuer equipment and
commercial public safety equipment operated by our parent organziation
(a national SAR organization).  Both locations will have backup power
and the "supplier" is aware of this.

AS to other items, I will have to double check with the person I have
been dealing with at PR about the system.

Please feel free to continue to comment about this as all help will
make this better in the long run.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff DePolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if you were looking for constructive criticism or not.
 If you
> were, here's mine.  If not, the delete key is within finger's reach...
>  
> > 1 TKR-750 VHF Kenwood Repeater - $1350
> > 1 KPG-91D Repeater Programming Kit - $119
> > 1 TKR-PS1223 Kenwood Internal Power Supply - $169
> > 1 PC24-NN Patch Cable (Repeater TX to Duplexer) - $31.50
> > 1 PC24-NB Patch Cable (Repeater RX to Duplexer) - $26.35
> > 1 PRD-1556 6 Cavity Pass-Reject Duplexer - $1859
> > 1 PC95-400-NN Patch Cable (Duplexer to Polyphaser) - $54
> > 1 IS-50NX-CI Polyphaser (Lighting Protection) - $62
> > 100 feet of LMR-400 Feed Line $82
> > 2 CC4-NM Coax Connector Type N Male - $25
> > 1 ANT150D6-9 VHF 4-Bay Folded Dipole Antenna - $995
> > 1 Setup, programming, and bench testing before shipping - $105
> 
> My comments would be:
> 
> 1.  AVOID the LMR coax!!!  100 feet of 1/2" Heliax with connectors
is only
> going to cost you maybe $50 more than the prices shown.  Feedline is
NOT the
> place to cut corners.
> 
> 2.  I don't know what the PC??-?? patch cables are, but I'm guessing
that
> they, too, are LMR400 (judging by the PC95-400-NN nomenclature).  If
that's
> the case, upgrade to either double-shielded silver-braid coax (RG142B,
> RG214, RG393, RG400), or are solid-shield cables such as Superflex-type
> Heliax.  For the prices quoted, you could afford to buy the
materials AND
> crimp tools to make your own RG400 or RG214 cables with silver-plated
> gold-pin telfon-dielectric connectors.
> 
> 3.  Consider budgeting for an isolator for the transmitter and
additional
> receiver filtering.  A pass/reject duplexer like the Telewave
TPRD-1556 does
> a great job of protecting your receiver from your own transmitter,
but does
> very little as far as protecting you from anyone else, or anyone
else from
> you.  Without knowing what the RF landscape is like at your site,
it's hard
> to say what will be necessary.  Maybe nothing if it's a very quiet,
isolated
> site.  Maybe a lot if it's a crowded commercial site.
> 
> 4.  I don't see a controller listed?  If you intend to use the stock
> controller built into the TKR-750, be advised that you will still need a
> means of remote control (i.e. a control link above 222 MHz or landline),
> which makes an amateur-type controller better suited for the job.
> 
> 5.  Not being familiar with the Kenwood power supply, I don't know
whether
> or not it has provisions for battery backup, but that's something
that would
> probably be desirable on an ARES/RACES machine.
> 
> I won't comment in detail about the prices other than to say it would be
> wise to shop around.
> 
> 73 and good luck on your project.
> 
>   --- Jeff
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 820 MHz duplexer problem:urgent !!

[vikas gupta]

the capacitor is ceramic type.
  can you please give me the construction detail of this type of duplexer.
  please give me.
  waiting for you.

skipp025 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  What type of material is the capacitor made from? 
skipp

> vikas gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please advise me how i tune the duplexr of Tx (811.1-819.2MHz) Rx 
> (856.1-864.2 MHz) . I am tuning this by desigig band reject notch 
> type duplxer but I have a problem in achieving 1 dB insertin loss 
> and 70 dB iisolation on low and high side.
> I am using 1 PF capacitor on high side .
> 
> please suggest me how I design the duplexer and get 8 MHz broad
notch. saparetion between Tx and Rx is 45 MHz.
> 



 

 
-
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people 
who know.

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 2 meter repeater

[Gary]

 

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave VanHorn
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:21 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 2 meter repeater

 

--- In Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com, "IF YOUR NICE I MAY TELL YOU"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all another question do you need 1 0r 2 antenna's on a repeater.
> Thanks
>

Yes!

You can do it either way, but MOST systems use one antenna and a
rather expensive device called a "duplexer" which separates the
transmit and receive into two separate feedlines. 

Dual antennas can be done, but you need a lot of physical separation
to make that work.

 

It is usually cheaper to use one antenna. If you use 2 antennas you will
usually also need some cavities in both the receiver and transmitter lines
to get enough isolation. A duplexer may be a little more cost than a couple
of cavities but then there is also the cost of the second antenna and feed
line.

 

73

Gary  K4FMX

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters

[Greg]

Thanks Eric,
It will be for experimental purposes mainly with a fairly low duty cycle. I was 
looking at the UHF 470Mhz band because I can get radios cheap for those freqs. 
I am not sure about the seperation I am not interested in large power 
outputs, I am looking at 5w max.

Thanks
Greg

- Original Message 
From: Eric Lemmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:17:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters









  



Greg,



Is this going to be used for commercial or Amateur purposes?  What frequency

band?  What separation between TX and RX?  Is the repeater intended for

casual, low-duty-cycle purposes such as a family reunion or for

high-duty-cycle purposes such as emergency support?  The answers to these

question will be helpful in guiding you to a solution.



73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY

  



-Original Message-

From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com

[mailto:Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of gregmrfs

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:04 AM

To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Hand Held radios as repeaters



Hi!



I want to build my first repeater using 2 hand held radios mounted in

a Pelican case with a gel cell for power.



I have no idea where to start or what is required to build the

repeater. Can anyone give me some ideas on connecting the radios? So

far I think I have to get 2 radios, case, battery. Do I need 2

antennas or should I use a duplexer. I want this setup to be as basic

as possible.



Thanks in advance



Greg






  
















 

Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Setting Up A New Repeater

[Gary]

 

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Arck
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:23 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Setting Up A New Repeater

 

At 02:13 PM 1/29/2007, you wrote:

On 1/29/07, Jeff DePolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  net> 
wrote:







> 3. Consider budgeting for an isolator for the transmitter and additional
> receiver filtering. A pass/reject duplexer like the Telewave TPRD-1556
does
> a great job of protecting your receiver from your own transmitter, but
does
> very little as far as protecting you from anyone else, or anyone else from
> you. Without knowing what the RF landscape is like at your site, it's hard
> to say what will be necessary. Maybe nothing if it's a very quiet,
isolated
> site. Maybe a lot if it's a crowded commercial site.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2 meter repeater

[Nate Duehr]

On 1/25/07, IF YOUR NICE I MAY TELL YOU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Hi all another question do you need 1 0r 2 antenna's on a repeater.

You need to study up at the Repeater Builder website...
http://www.repeater-builder.com, same name as the mailing list.

You'll find PLENTY of study materials there on antennas, feedline,
radios, and all of the basic technology that goes into building a good
repeater.

Nate WY0X