RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: New article on Channel Element/ICOM stability - W3KKC

[N9WYS]

Neither would I...  I've used them several times in the past year to re-rock
some UHF Motorola elements, and I have no complaints at all.

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Fred Flowers

I don't remember Dave's problem.  However, I wouldn't hesitate to use ICM.
I have used them for crystals to be installed by me & have had them
compensate ICOMS for me.  I call my order in.  The nice ladies take my order
& send an email to confirm.  I check the email & have caught a couple of
errors over the years.  A reply to the email gets things corrected ASAP.  I
have never had a ICM crystal not net to frequency or have trouble staying on
frequency.

Fred N4GER

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of no6b

Given the horror story given here recently by Dave KA9FUR, I can't even 
consider ICM at this point.  It's as if most of the crystal manufacturers 
just don't care if they put out a decent product anymore.

Maybe the answer is DDS modules.  Sure, they need stabilization or 
compensation as well, but at least they become an integral, non-replaceable 
part of the radio.  Not sure how you'd direct FM them, though - they may 
not like having their reference modulated.

Bob NO6B 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: New article on Channel Element/ICOM stability - W3KKC

[Fred Flowers]

I don't remember Dave's problem.  However, I wouldn't hesitate to use ICM.
I have used them for crystals to be installed by me & have had them
compensate ICOMS for me.  I call my order in.  The nice ladies take my order
& send an email to confirm.  I check the email & have caught a couple of
errors over the years.  A reply to the email gets things corrected ASAP.  I
have never had a ICM crystal not net to frequency or have trouble staying on
frequency.

Fred N4GER

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:25 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: New article on Channel Element/ICOM
stability - W3KKC

At 2/3/2007 20:09, you wrote:
>If there is such a thing - ICM in OKC would be tops, then Bomar, and down 
>the line.  sb

Given the horror story given here recently by Dave KA9FUR, I can't even 
consider ICM at this point.  It's as if most of the crystal manufacturers 
just don't care if they put out a decent product anymore.

Maybe the answer is DDS modules.  Sure, they need stabilization or 
compensation as well, but at least they become an integral, non-replaceable 
part of the radio.  Not sure how you'd direct FM them, though - they may 
not like having their reference modulated.

Bob NO6B






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: New article on Channel Element/ICOM stability - W3KKC

[no6b]

At 2/3/2007 20:09, you wrote:
>If there is such a thing - ICM in OKC would be tops, then Bomar, and down 
>the line.  sb

Given the horror story given here recently by Dave KA9FUR, I can't even 
consider ICM at this point.  It's as if most of the crystal manufacturers 
just don't care if they put out a decent product anymore.

Maybe the answer is DDS modules.  Sure, they need stabilization or 
compensation as well, but at least they become an integral, non-replaceable 
part of the radio.  Not sure how you'd direct FM them, though - they may 
not like having their reference modulated.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Base?

[no6b]

At 2/3/2007 19:22, you wrote:
>* drwoolweaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Feb 03 21:15 -0600]:
> > Any suggestions for a modern repeater controller that will also
> > operate a frequency agile HF remote base?  Thanks de David
>
>If I recall, the Link Communications models supported the Doug Hall
>interface.

I thought the Doug Hall interface only supported a few out-of-production 
VHF/UHF radios.  I believe the LinkComm controllers provide direct support 
for many HF rigs.  Also NHRC makes a controller (NHRC-10?) that supports 
the Icom IC-706MKIIG*&+%^$!

Bob NO6B

[Repeater-Builder] Re: EFJ Challenger as Repeater

[skipp025]

Great stuff Joel!  great job. I thought I was flying solo 
with the EF Johnson Challengers. 

cheers,
skipp 

>  "Huntley, Joel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Here's some info on the Challenger stuff if you're interested...
> 
> http://www.ccdx.org/zedyx/mods/challenger.htm
> 
> 73 de Joel - WA1ZYX
>

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

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 09:24 PM 02/02/07, you wrote:

Skip,

Interesting you bring up that idea.

I've had  success with an initial CTCSS induced audio delay, ramped 
back to zero, using the PT2399 controlled by a DS1803. I use it in 
the MP100 controllers on a multi hop link system.  Talking from one 
end of the system to the other result is no lost first syllable and, 
after a few seconds of uninterrupted audio, no audio delay.


The data sheets are here:

http://www.princeton.com.tw/webSite/temp/products.asp?product_level2_id=25

http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2779

-Steve


If you'd like to do an article on that for repeater builder please
consider this an invite.

Just do something up in MS Word, inserting as many photos,
diagrams, etc. as you want, then save it as a Word 6 file.
Then zip it up along with the photo, diagram, etc files and
email it to me.

Mike WA6ILQ
co-webmaster at www.repeater-builder.com

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: New article on Channel Element/ICOM stability - W3KKC

[Steve Bosshard (NU5D)]

If there is such a thing - ICM in OKC would be tops, then Bomar, and down
the line.  sb


On 2/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


At 2/3/2007 06:06, you wrote:
>>On 2/2/07, Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>e.
>





, I really wonder if there's anyone out

there that can truly be considered unconditionally reliable.  I mean, is
there any ONE crystal supplier that EVERYONE considers a "rock" of
stability? (pun intended!)  I suppose that's partly why I've resorted to
developing my own alternative methods of frequency stabilization; file
under "if you want something done right, do it yourself".

Bob NO6B








--
Ham Radio Spoken Here.NU5D
Visit the Temple Ham Club Website
http://www.tarc.org

Re: ADMs (was Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Commercial Trunking repeater)

[Steve Bosshard (NU5D)]

Not sure how this got from commercial trunking repeaters to silence
compression, but in the last days of tone and voice radio paging, silence
compression, and digital reduction were very big items - seems like BBL.
Freeman, Glenayre and Zetron were big players in the game - ancient
history.  sb


On 2/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


At 2/2/2007 21:24, you wrote:
>Skip,
>
>Interesting you bring up that idea.
>
>I've had  success with an initial CTCSS induced audio delay, ramped back



--
Ham Radio Spoken Here.NU5D
Visit the Temple Ham Club Website
http://www.tarc.org

ADMs (was Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Commercial Trunking repeater)

[no6b]

At 2/2/2007 21:24, you wrote:
>Skip,
>
>Interesting you bring up that idea.
>
>I've had  success with an initial CTCSS induced audio delay, ramped back 
>to zero, using the PT2399 controlled by a DS1803. I use it in the MP100 
>controllers on a multi hop link system.  Talking from one end of the 
>system to the other result is no lost first syllable and, after a few 
>seconds of uninterrupted audio, no audio delay.

Interesting, Steve.  This reminds me of a feature on an cheap MP3 player I 
recently bought.  The feature is called "tempo", & adjusting it causes the 
song being played to speed up or slow down without any change in the pitch 
of the instruments or singer's voice.  If you push it too hard either way 
the music gets choppy but for slight speed changes it actually sounds 
somewhat decent.  Kind of weird sounding the first time you hear it.  I'm 
just amazed that this sort of DSP is now available in something so tiny.

Bob

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: New article on Channel Element/ICOM stability - W3KKC

[no6b]

At 2/3/2007 06:06, you wrote:
>>On 2/2/07, Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>But I doubt I'll ever have time to test that possibility.  However, it 
>>might explain why a lot of people have fairly good luck just stuffing 
>>crystals in ICOM's.  There's probably a fairly small range of caps used 
>>to bring "the usual" crystals into spec...  and a good chance that your 
>>new crystal behaves similarly enough to the original that it will work 
>>some large percentage of the time.
>
>I wouldn't say "a lot of people have good luck".  Have you seen the amount 
>of posts on Repeater-Builder and the other radio branded lists on the 
>subject over the years?

FWIW, I've had both good luck & bad with recrystalling Mastr II 
ICOMs.  I'll also say that they appear to have more than one temperature 
compensating capacitor in them.  The reason I say that is that after 
installing a PTC thermistor on the crystal to thermally stabilize it, I 
would still see thermal drift in the oscillator, & replacing just one or 
two of those little blue capacitors didn't fix it - I had to remove all of 
them.  I think there were 4 of them total in the one ICOM I moded but not 
sure.  I did decide not to try that mod on a Mastr II again though.  The 
MVPs are much easier as they only use 1 temp. comp. cap & for some reason 
most of the MVP crystal modules I have don't have any at all.

I agree that from the end users (the repeater builder) standpoint, sending 
elements in for temperature compensation is the easiest way to go.  The 
problem I see is with all the talk about declining quality amongst the 
different crystal vendors today, I really wonder if there's anyone out 
there that can truly be considered unconditionally reliable.  I mean, is 
there any ONE crystal supplier that EVERYONE considers a "rock" of 
stability? (pun intended!)  I suppose that's partly why I've resorted to 
developing my own alternative methods of frequency stabilization; file 
under "if you want something done right, do it yourself".

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Base?

[Mathew Quaife]

The Cat1000 controller will also run an Yeasu FT767, might be a few others by 
now.
   
  Mathew
  

drwoolweaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Any suggestions for a modern repeater controller that will also
operate a frequency agile HF remote base? Thanks de David



 

 
-
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
 Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Base?

[Ken Arck]

At 07:22 PM 2/3/2007, you wrote:

* drwoolweaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
[2007 Feb 03 21:15 -0600]:

> Any suggestions for a modern repeater controller that will also
> operate a frequency agile HF remote base? Thanks de David

If I recall, the Link Communications models supported the Doug Hall
interface.


<---Our RC210 supports many of the modern HF rigs...

http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/rc210/rc210.html

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net

Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Base?

[Nate Bargmann]

* drwoolweaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Feb 03 21:15 -0600]:
> Any suggestions for a modern repeater controller that will also
> operate a frequency agile HF remote base?  Thanks de David

If I recall, the Link Communications models supported the Doug Hall
interface.

73, de Nate >>

-- 
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  |  Successfully Microsoft
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | free since January 1998.
 http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   |  "Debian, the choice of
 My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/   |   http://www.debian.org

[Repeater-Builder] HF Remote Base?

[drwoolweaver]

Any suggestions for a modern repeater controller that will also
operate a frequency agile HF remote base?  Thanks de David

[Repeater-Builder] Icom 900 / 901 Modules Needed

[Scott Overstreet]

Sorry for the previous---here is a retry with my correct email address

Hello All

I need 3 Icom 900 / 901 Band units (2 meters, 220 and 440) to spare those that 
I have working remote base duty in an emergency services repeater here. If you 
have one or more of what I need and would like to sell, please contact me off 
the group net with condition and price - Many thanks.

Scott, N6NXI

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Repeater-Builder] Icom 900 / 901 Modules Needed

[Scott Overstreet]

Hello All

I need 3 Icom 900 / 901 Band units (2 meters, 220 and 440) to spare those that 
I have working remote base duty in an emergency services repeater here. If you 
have one or more of what I need and would like to sell, please contact me off 
the group net with condition and price - Many thanks.

Scott, N6NXI

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Jeff DePolo]

> Some one heard the owner of 165 talk about having to keep the 
> power down
> because of desense. 

A perfect example of bandaidsmanship.

> What about a band pass on 147.765?  

Nah, it would only buy you a couple of dB of attenuation at 147.93.

> It may take a crystal 
> filter or just
> padding the input a little.  I don't know what kind of preamp it is.  

If it's his repeater Tx overloading his preamp or Rx, an extra pass/reject
cavity (pass 147.765, reject 147.165) before the preamp would likely fix the
33 issue, and possibly help, if not cure, his desense problem as well,
unless the desense is being caused by transmitter noise, in which more
filtering on the Tx would be necessary.

--- Jeff

RE: [SPAM] RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Fred Flowers]

Thanks

 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finch
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:14 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM] RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

 

Google Commshop.

 

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Flowers
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

 

Does anyone have a source for an intermod calculation program?

 

Fred N4GER 

 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 2/2/2007
11:39 PM

 


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 2/2/2007
11:39 PM




Visit OurPhonelist.com  
It's free and you'll never lose track of a phone number again! 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Fred Flowers]

Jeff,

>I'd bet a box of isolators that the problems at the 165 site, NOT at the 33
>site.

I think you would win.

>Just add the mobile frequencies to the mix and you'll get the hits.


>Sure sounds like this is the problem.  Without knowing anything else, my
bet
>is that the 165 repeater doesn't have enough Tx to Rx isolation resulting
in
>the preamp being driven into nonlinearity, thereby producing the mix you're
>seeing.  Adding pads to the input of the preamp would be the easy way to
>confirm this is the case (while keeping all other variables, including the
>signal strength of the 33 user, constant).

Some one heard the owner of 165 talk about having to keep the power down
because of desense. 

>That would be ideal, but you're talking about a 165 kHz difference there.
>That's not to say that it can't be done, but it's getting kinda tight.
>Before trying to notch out 147.93, I think the other repeater owner needs
to
>take a closer look at their isolation.  Any idea what kind of preamp it is?

What about a band pass on 147.765?  It may take a crystal filter or just
padding the input a little.  I don't know what kind of preamp it is.  

>For kicks and giggles, have someone within a mile or two of the 165 site
>transmit on 147.600 while both repeaters' transmitters (147.33 and 147.165)
>are up.  That would produce the same IM product (147.600 + 147.330 -
147.165
>= 147.765) If you can get the 765 receiver to open up with this trick,
>that's one more finger pointing toward the 147.765 receiver/preamp as being
>the culprit.

We tried this, you are right.  Thanks.

Fred

--- Jeff






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Paul Finch]

Google Commshop.
 

   _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Flowers
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod



 

Does anyone have a source for an intermod calculation program?

 

Fred N4GER 

 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 2/2/2007
11:39 PM



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 2/2/2007
11:39 PM
 


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

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Jeff DePolo]

> As 
> soon as the 33
> subscriber unkeys the interfering signal on 165 goes away.  

I'd bet a box of isolators that the problems at the 165 site, NOT at the 33
site.

> Is it valid to add 600 kHz to the intermod calculator?  I get 
> an interesting
> fifth order when I do.

Just add the mobile frequencies to the mix and you'll get the hits.

> As I said before, the owner may have added a preamp to 
> 147.165 a day or two
> ago.  

Sure sounds like this is the problem.  Without knowing anything else, my bet
is that the 165 repeater doesn't have enough Tx to Rx isolation resulting in
the preamp being driven into nonlinearity, thereby producing the mix you're
seeing.  Adding pads to the input of the preamp would be the easy way to
confirm this is the case (while keeping all other variables, including the
signal strength of the 33 user, constant).

> It looks to me like the cure is to notch 147.930 at the 
> 147.756 receiver.

That would be ideal, but you're talking about a 165 kHz difference there.
That's not to say that it can't be done, but it's getting kinda tight.
Before trying to notch out 147.93, I think the other repeater owner needs to
take a closer look at their isolation.  Any idea what kind of preamp it is?

For kicks and giggles, have someone within a mile or two of the 165 site
transmit on 147.600 while both repeaters' transmitters (147.33 and 147.165)
are up.  That would produce the same IM product (147.600 + 147.330 - 147.165
= 147.765) If you can get the 765 receiver to open up with this trick,
that's one more finger pointing toward the 147.765 receiver/preamp as being
the culprit.

--- Jeff

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Fred Flowers]

Steve, Jeff, Nate,

Ya'll are on the right track.  I did some additional tests.  It not the
147.765 subscriber it's the 147.93 subscriber that is throwing the stinky
stuff into the fan.  Keying the 33 repeater does not cause the 165 repeater
to come up.  However, when both repeaters are on the air 33 will keep 165
keyed & the 33 audio can be heard on the 165 repeater.  As soon as the 33
subscriber unkeys the interfering signal on 165 goes away.  

I a ham not infected with ctcss phobia, therefore 33 (which I built) has RX
& TX tone.  This lets me TX on 33's input & not key the repeater.  The 165
repeater is not interfered with.   Also lowering the power of the 147.930 TX
clears the problem.  174.33, 147.93 & 147.165 have to be on the air to cause
the problem in the 147.765 RX.  I assume it is in the 147.765 RX, I don't
have access to look at RX audio on the 147.165 repeater.

Is it valid to add 600 kHz to the intermod calculator?  I get an interesting
fifth order when I do.

147.9300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  0.6000 MHz -  0.6000 MHz  =
147.7650 MHz   Right on the 147.165 input.

As I said before, the owner may have added a preamp to 147.165 a day or two
ago.  This problem just came to light last night.  These two repeaters have
been on the air for years.  I was wrong about the spacing, they are 4 miles
apart.   The 33 repeater equipment was getting tired & I replaced it with a
Mastr II station repeater two weeks ago.  I can't say for sure if the
problem started with new 33 equipment or the preamp on 165.

It looks to me like the cure is to notch 147.930 at the 147.756 receiver.
Anyone have any thoughts.

Fred N4GER


-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:35 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

On 2/3/07, Jeff DePolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think I see how Steve's logic is leaning, and I agree - I don't see any
> logical mix here until you include a user's transmission on one of the
> repeater's inputs.  Fred - do you hear ALL 147.33 transmitter activity
> coming in on the 147.765 input, or just when there is actually a user
keyed
> up on 147.93?  If the latter, that's a big clue...
>
> --- Jeff

Yep, that's going to be the key... been there done that... Ye olde 600
KHz split on VHF problem.

It creates perfect mixes with users and the repeaters themselves that
fall right smack on the input of the next repeater along the band.  A
close-in high-powered user to a VHF repeater can mix with it with bad
results for the next in line machine.  Requiring CTCSS on a different
tone than the original machine and users will cover up the problem,
but not fix it, of course... not a permanent fix, but sometimes
necessary.

If Jeff's observation is correct, and you only hear input activity...
try to find a ham who's rig causes the issue consistently (and you'll
probably find that HT users don't, also -- they're usually just too
weak to create a strong-enough mix).

Then you can have that person lower their power and see if the problem
signal on the repeater's input seems to drop out quickly or get much
weaker, since you're looking for a mix that would drop off rapidly as
one of the transmitter's power levels was lowered.

If that's not it... have a 600 KHz AM station in your town?  There's
always the possibility of other mixes as well... Jeff's test is the
kicker to start with -- do you hear the full TX tail of the other
repeater or just user input?  Does it do it on ALL transmissions or
just certain users?  Anyone involved in the situation live real close
to either repeater, who you know has high gain antennas and runs lots
of power?

Nate WY0X




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[Repeater-Builder] Re: MSR200 Edge connectors

[J Dye]

I can get you some edge connectors if you need them.  Just tell me how 
many cards you are wanting to "adapt" and I will help you.  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  I need rss for syntor x9000, help?
J

[Repeater-Builder] test

[Gary Schafer]

Test 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] 2 meter repeater

[Mike Mullarkey]

A better radio for this would be the Motorola SM50 radio in my opinion. They
are a very stable and reliable unit and on EBay you generally can pick them
up for a $100 bucks or so.

 

Oregon Repeater Linking Group

Mike Mullarkey

6539 E Street

Springfield, OR 97478

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.orlg.org

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Abdul Rauf
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 3:04 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 2 meter repeater

 

I want to build 2 meter repeater station by using two IC-V8000 
transceivers. Any body can guide me on this? how to interconnect these 
transceivers? do i need controller? if so which is best? what if i use 
two seperate antennas for receive and transmit istead of duplexer? 

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Nate Duehr]

On 2/3/07, Jeff DePolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think I see how Steve's logic is leaning, and I agree - I don't see any
> logical mix here until you include a user's transmission on one of the
> repeater's inputs.  Fred - do you hear ALL 147.33 transmitter activity
> coming in on the 147.765 input, or just when there is actually a user keyed
> up on 147.93?  If the latter, that's a big clue...
>
> --- Jeff

Yep, that's going to be the key... been there done that... Ye olde 600
KHz split on VHF problem.

It creates perfect mixes with users and the repeaters themselves that
fall right smack on the input of the next repeater along the band.  A
close-in high-powered user to a VHF repeater can mix with it with bad
results for the next in line machine.  Requiring CTCSS on a different
tone than the original machine and users will cover up the problem,
but not fix it, of course... not a permanent fix, but sometimes
necessary.

If Jeff's observation is correct, and you only hear input activity...
try to find a ham who's rig causes the issue consistently (and you'll
probably find that HT users don't, also -- they're usually just too
weak to create a strong-enough mix).

Then you can have that person lower their power and see if the problem
signal on the repeater's input seems to drop out quickly or get much
weaker, since you're looking for a mix that would drop off rapidly as
one of the transmitter's power levels was lowered.

If that's not it... have a 600 KHz AM station in your town?  There's
always the possibility of other mixes as well... Jeff's test is the
kicker to start with -- do you hear the full TX tail of the other
repeater or just user input?  Does it do it on ALL transmissions or
just certain users?  Anyone involved in the situation live real close
to either repeater, who you know has high gain antennas and runs lots
of power?

Nate WY0X

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Jeff DePolo]

I think I see how Steve's logic is leaning, and I agree - I don't see any
logical mix here until you include a user's transmission on one of the
repeater's inputs.  Fred - do you hear ALL 147.33 transmitter activity
coming in on the 147.765 input, or just when there is actually a user keyed
up on 147.93?  If the latter, that's a big clue...

--- Jeff


> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> Bosshard (NU5D)
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:51 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod
> 
> Shouldn't the 147.765 subscriber station be counted in the 
> mix?  While the distance and field strength may vary, the 
> user sending to the 147.165 does make a contribution to the mix.  sb
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/3/07, Fred Flowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>   Kevin,
> 
>   Please allow me to pick your brain.
> 
>
> 
>   I was just informed of an intermod problem with 2 two 
> meter repeaters.  They are on towers about 2 miles apart.  
> The frequencies are 147.33+ tone 107.2 & 147.165+ no tone.  
> Two weeks ago I replaced the 147.33 equipment with a Mastr II 
> station repeater & 4 cavity DB duplexer.  I believe the 
> 147.165 repeater to be a Micor.  When the 165 is on the air, 
> 33 can be heard on the input of 165.  I show a third order of 
> 270 kHz away & a fifth order of 270 & 105 kHz away.
> 
>
> 
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
>   
>   
> 
> 
> Site Name:
> 
> BG33
> 
> Frequency Separation:
> 
> 600.00 KHz
> 
> Site Description:
> 
> Ham
> 
> Calculate 1st Order:
> 
> true
> 
> Company:
> 
>  
> 
> Calculate 2nd Order:
> 
> true
> 
> User Name:
> 
> Fred Flowers
> 
> Calculate 3rd Order:
> 
> true
> 
> Address:
> 
>  
> 
> Calculate 4th Order:
> 
> true
> 
> Time of Printing:
> 
> February 03, 2007
> 
> Calculate 5th Order:
> 
> true
> 
>   
> 
> 
> Transmitter Frequencies
> 
> 147.16500 MHz
> 
> 147.33000 MHz
> 
> Receiver Frequencies
> 
> 147.76500 MHz
> 
>   
> 
> 
> Transmitter Freq(s).
> 
> Receiver Freq.
> 
> Freq. Separation
> 
> First Order (Direct) Results:
> 
> 147.1650 MHz
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 600.00 KHz
> 
> 147.3300 MHz
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 435.00 KHz
> 
> Second Order Results:
> 
> Third Order Results:
> 
> 147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 600.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 600.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 435.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 270.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 600.00 KHz
> 
> 147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 435.00 KHz
> 
> 147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 435.00 KHz
> 
> Fourth Order Results:
> 
> Fifth Order Results:
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz 
> -  147.1650 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 600.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz 
> -  147.1650 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 600.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz 
> -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 435.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 270.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 105.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 600.00 KHz
> 
> 147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 270.00 KHz
> 
> 147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 435.00 KHz
> 
> 147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 
> -  147.3300 MHz 
> 
> 147.7650 MHz
> 
> 435.00 KHz
> 
> Calculations: 70
> 
> IM Products Found: 18
> 
> C Copyright 2007 - TCS Consultants, Inc. - All rights reserved.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
>
> 
>   My question is, are the 105 & 270 kHz signals close 
> enough to cause problems with a Micor receiver?  I have 
> worked on Mastr II's sense they came out.  I have spent the 
> same amount of time running from Micor's. :-)  
> 
>   BTW I heard through the grape vine that the owner of 
> 165 added a preamp in the last day or so.  I don't know what 
> kind.  I don't know how he's dealing with desense.  
> 
>
> 
>   Thanks
> 
>   Fred N4GER
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ham Radio Spoken Here.NU5D
> Visit the Temple Ham Club Website
> http://www.tarc.org  
> 
> 
> --

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?

[Chris Rosing]

Another note to this topic.  Sometimes when I post a msg to a group, i will get 
a reply before my msg gets to my inbox.  Same thing with other msgs, just the 
delay of electrons going from one atom to the next, well a lot of electrons 
havent gottent the balls to hop over i guess.
Chris


- Original Message 
From: Doug Zastrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2007 10:57:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?

Bob,
 
I'm getting the *opposite* here - seeing Kevin's replies but not the original 
poster.  Similar experience for the last 24-48 hours on other Yahoo Groups I 
belong to.
 
No spam filter here so I chalked  it up (rightly or wrongly) to Yahoo.
 
 
Doug
- Original Message - 
From: Bob M. 
To: repeater-builder@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:00 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?


I am getting the group's messages via e-mail to a
Yahoo account.

I see people replying to Kevin's messages, but I'm NOT
getting Kevin's original messages to the group.

I can view them all by going to the Groups pages.

I can forward them to my Yahoo e-mail account and they
come through in a couple of minutes.

I am getting some e-mail from other groups.

Is anyone else NOT getting messages? I realize it's
hard to notice something missing. The only way I knew
was when I saw a new post as a reply to a thread I
hadn't seen before.

Bob M.


 
 _ _ _ _ _ _ 
_ _
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos. yahoo.com/ new_cars. html 




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Steve Bosshard (NU5D)]

Shouldn't the 147.765 subscriber station be counted in the mix?  While the
distance and field strength may vary, the user sending to the 147.165 does
make a contribution to the mix.  sb


On 2/3/07, Fred Flowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 Kevin,

Please allow me to pick your brain.



I was just informed of an intermod problem with 2 two meter repeaters.
They are on towers about 2 miles apart.  The frequencies are 147.33+ tone
107.2 & 147.165+ no tone.  Two weeks ago I replaced the 147.33 equipment
with a Mastr II station repeater & 4 cavity DB duplexer.  I believe the
147.165 repeater to be a Micor.  When the 165 is on the air, 33 can be
heard on the input of 165.  I show a third order of 270 kHz away & a fifth
order of 270 & 105 kHz away.






  --

Site Name:

BG33

Frequency Separation:

600.00 KHz

Site Description:

Ham

Calculate 1st Order:

true

Company:



Calculate 2nd Order:

true

User Name:

Fred Flowers

Calculate 3rd Order:

true

Address:



Calculate 4th Order:

true

Time of Printing:

February 03, 2007

Calculate 5th Order:

true
   --

*Transmitter Frequencies*

147.16500 MHz

147.33000 MHz

   *Receiver Frequencies*

147.76500 MHz

   --

*Transmitter Freq(s).*

*Receiver Freq.*

*Freq. Separation*

*First Order (Direct) Results:*

147.1650 MHz

147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz

147.3300 MHz

147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz

*Second Order Results:*

*Third Order Results:*

147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz

147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz

147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz

147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz

147.7650 MHz

270.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz

147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz

147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz

147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz

147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz

147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz

*Fourth Order Results:*

*Fifth Order Results:*

147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz


147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz


147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

270.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

105.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz

147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

270.00 KHz

147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz

147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz

*Calculations: 70*

*IM Products Found: 18*

*(c) Copyright 2007 - TCS Consultants, Inc. - All rights reserved.*












My question is, are the 105 & 270 kHz signals close enough to cause
problems with a Micor receiver?  I have worked on Mastr II's sense they
came out.  I have spent the same amount of time running from Micor's. J

BTW I heard through the grape vine that the owner of 165 added a preamp in
the last day or so.  I don't know what kind.  I don't know how he's dealing
with desense.



Thanks

Fred N4GER
 





--
Ham Radio Spoken Here.NU5D
Visit the Temple Ham Club Website
http://www.tarc.org

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Fred Flowers]

Kevin,

Please allow me to pick your brain.

 

I was just informed of an intermod problem with 2 two meter repeaters.  They
are on towers about 2 miles apart.  The frequencies are 147.33+ tone 107.2 &
147.165+ no tone.  Two weeks ago I replaced the 147.33 equipment with a
Mastr II station repeater & 4 cavity DB duplexer.  I believe the 147.165
repeater to be a Micor.  When the 165 is on the air, 33 can be heard on the
input of 165.  I show a third order of 270 kHz away & a fifth order of 270 &
105 kHz away.

 


TCS Consultants, Inc.


P.O. Box 884


Montgomery, TX 77356


(936) 588-3200 phone | (936) 588-4434 fax | http://www.tcstx.com

  _  


Site Name:

BG33

Frequency Separation:

600.00 KHz


Site Description:

Ham

Calculate 1st Order:

true


Company:

 

Calculate 2nd Order:

true


User Name:

Fred Flowers

Calculate 3rd Order:

true


Address:

 

Calculate 4th Order:

true


Time of Printing:

February 03, 2007

Calculate 5th Order:

true

  _  



Transmitter Frequencies


147.16500 MHz


147.33000 MHz


Receiver Frequencies


147.76500 MHz

  _  


Transmitter Freq(s).

Receiver Freq.

Freq. Separation


First Order (Direct) Results:


147.1650 MHz

147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz


147.3300 MHz

147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz


Second Order Results:


Third Order Results:


147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz 

147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz 

147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 

147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 

147.7650 MHz

270.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 

147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz


147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 

147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz


147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz 

147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz


Fourth Order Results:


Fifth Order Results:


147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz


147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz


147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

270.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz +  147.1650 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

105.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

600.00 KHz


147.1650 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

270.00 KHz


147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz


147.3300 MHz +  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz -  147.3300 MHz


147.7650 MHz

435.00 KHz


Calculations: 70

IM Products Found: 18


C Copyright 2007 - TCS Consultants, Inc. - All rights reserved.

 

 

 



 

My question is, are the 105 & 270 kHz signals close enough to cause problems
with a Micor receiver?  I have worked on Mastr II's sense they came out.  I
have spent the same amount of time running from Micor's. :-)  

BTW I heard through the grape vine that the owner of 165 added a preamp in
the last day or so.  I don't know what kind.  I don't know how he's dealing
with desense.  

 

Thanks

Fred N4GER

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Fred Flowers]

Thanks Kevin, I should have looked there first.  I was on the way out the
door, headed for my breakfast watering hole.  I was about to starve. 

Fred

 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Custer
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:17 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

 

Fred Flowers wrote: 

 Does anyone have a source for an intermod calculation program?


http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/ant-sys-index.html

Click on the "Calculators" shortcut.

Kevin
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Bob M.]

I configured my Yahoo mailbox so it put spam into the
BULK folder rather than immediately deleting it.

I found this message between 1200 and 1226 EST.

So nice of Yahoo to consider this SPAM ! I would
surmise that this is why I'm not seeing any of Kevin's
messages.

Bob M.
==
--- Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Fred Flowers wrote:
> >
> >  Does anyone have a source for an intermod
> calculation program?
> >
> 
>
http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/ant-sys-index.html
> 
> Click on the "Calculators" shortcut.
> 
> Kevin


 

Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Kevin Custer]

Fred Flowers wrote:


 Does anyone have a source for an intermod calculation program?



http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/ant-sys-index.html

Click on the "Calculators" shortcut.

Kevin

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Bob M.]

Check the repeater-builder web site.

Bob M.
==
--- Fred Flowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
> 
> Does anyone have a source for an intermod
> calculation program?
> 
>  
> 
> Fred N4GER


 

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 

[Repeater-Builder] 2 meter repeater

[Abdul Rauf]

I want to build 2 meter repeater station by using two IC-V8000 
transceivers. Any body can guide me on this? how to interconnect these 
transceivers? do i need controller? if so which is best? what if i use 
two seperate antennas for receive and transmit istead of duplexer? 

[Repeater-Builder] EFJ Challenger as Repeater

[Huntley, Joel]

Here's some info on the Challenger stuff if you're interested...

http://www.ccdx.org/zedyx/mods/challenger.htm

73 de Joel - WA1ZYX

[Repeater-Builder] Intermod

[Fred Flowers]

 

Does anyone have a source for an intermod calculation program?

 

Fred N4GER 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?

[Doug Zastrow]

Bob,

I'm getting the *opposite* here - seeing Kevin's replies but not the original 
poster.  Similar experience for the last 24-48 hours on other Yahoo Groups I 
belong to.

No spam filter here so I chalked  it up (rightly or wrongly) to Yahoo.


Doug
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob M. 
  To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:00 AM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?


  I am getting the group's messages via e-mail to a
  Yahoo account.

  I see people replying to Kevin's messages, but I'm NOT
  getting Kevin's original messages to the group.

  I can view them all by going to the Groups pages.

  I can forward them to my Yahoo e-mail account and they
  come through in a couple of minutes.

  I am getting some e-mail from other groups.

  Is anyone else NOT getting messages? I realize it's
  hard to notice something missing. The only way I knew
  was when I saw a new post as a reply to a thread I
  hadn't seen before.

  Bob M.


   
  

  Don't pick lemons.
  See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
  http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html 




   
  Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?

[Bob M.]

Nope. My spam / block lists are entirely empty.

Bob M.
==
--- Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi
> you don't have him listed as spam do you. I don't
> see any from an MSN address as I have my spam prog
> set to zap them due to spam and nattempts to saend
> me virus,s
> 
> Steve
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Bob M. 
>   To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 3:00 PM
>   Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing
> Kevin's messages?
> 
> 
>   I am getting the group's messages via e-mail to a
>   Yahoo account.
> 
>   I see people replying to Kevin's messages, but I'm
> NOT
>   getting Kevin's original messages to the group.
> 
>   I can view them all by going to the Groups pages.
> 
>   I can forward them to my Yahoo e-mail account and
> they
>   come through in a couple of minutes.
> 
>   I am getting some e-mail from other groups.
> 
>   Is anyone else NOT getting messages? I realize
> it's
>   hard to notice something missing. The only way I
> knew
>   was when I saw a new post as a reply to a thread I
>   hadn't seen before.
> 
>   Bob M.


 

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

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?

[Steve]

Hi
you don't have him listed as spam do you. I don't see any from an MSN address 
as I have my spam prog set to zap them due to spam and nattempts to saend me 
virus,s

Steve
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob M. 
  To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 3:00 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?


  I am getting the group's messages via e-mail to a
  Yahoo account.

  I see people replying to Kevin's messages, but I'm NOT
  getting Kevin's original messages to the group.

  I can view them all by going to the Groups pages.

  I can forward them to my Yahoo e-mail account and they
  come through in a couple of minutes.

  I am getting some e-mail from other groups.

  Is anyone else NOT getting messages? I realize it's
  hard to notice something missing. The only way I knew
  was when I saw a new post as a reply to a thread I
  hadn't seen before.

  Bob M.

  __
  Don't pick lemons.
  See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
  http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html 


   


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.20/664 - Release Date: 2/2/2007 
3:42 PM

[Repeater-Builder] Anyone else missing Kevin's messages?

[Bob M.]

I am getting the group's messages via e-mail to a
Yahoo account.

I see people replying to Kevin's messages, but I'm NOT
getting Kevin's original messages to the group.

I can view them all by going to the Groups pages.

I can forward them to my Yahoo e-mail account and they
come through in a couple of minutes.

I am getting some e-mail from other groups.

Is anyone else NOT getting messages? I realize it's
hard to notice something missing. The only way I knew
was when I saw a new post as a reply to a thread I
hadn't seen before.

Bob M.


 

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: New article on Channel Element/ICOM stability - W3KKC

[Kevin Custer]

On 2/2/07, *Kevin Custer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:



I don't know that any commercial manufacturer did, but that's not
the point.  The point is if someone stuffs a new crystal in a 5C
element, it MAY NOT hold to its OEM specifications no matter the
temperature change.  Are you going to guarantee that any
recrystaled 5C is going to be 2PPM in the 'normal range' if the
recrystaled ICOM was not temperature compensated? I didn't
think so.


Nate Duehr wrote:

Actually I'd have to think about that, and maybe even do some tests.  
You just never know... there's always the possibility that no matter 
what value of capacitor you stuff into an ICOM's compensation circuit 
-- within a "normal" range of capacitors that would normally be used 
for netting in a crystal -- the thing just might be designed from the 
get-go to barely be 2PPM even in worst-case conditions. 


All depends on the engineering on that one.  (GRIN)


I think we need to ask some of the folks that have the facilities to do 
this to comment.  I think you'll find that with the crystals that are 
being made today, that changing the main compensation capacitor with 
every re-stuff is pretty common.


Dave Karr?  Care to comment?

But I doubt I'll ever have time to test that possibility.  However, it 
might explain why a lot of people have fairly good luck just stuffing 
crystals in ICOM's.  There's probably a fairly small range of caps 
used to bring "the usual" crystals into spec...  and a good chance 
that your new crystal behaves similarly enough to the original that it 
will work some large percentage of the time.


I wouldn't say "a lot of people have good luck".  Have you seen the 
amount of posts on Repeater-Builder and the other radio branded lists on 
the subject over the years?  I have, because I've commented seemingly 
hundreds of times.  In my personal experience, it seems like the bare 
crystals I bought years ago were generally better in quality, no matter 
who I had bought them from.  Now a days, it's pretty common to stuff a 
crystal in a element (of any kind) (from any place) and have it not come 
up on frequency.  Recently I have had two such crystals that I couldn't 
change the main ranging capacitor to even get it close.  Even if I would 
have gotten them to resonate on channel, would it have been stable 
(within OEM specs?)
Your article is correct -- if you HAVE to know it's going to work... 
have the whole ICOM worked on at the crystal shop... and pick wisely 
on the shop.


So seriously, do you see a lot of folks complaining that their 
un-compensated crystal elements aren't working after replacing a 
crystal on the GE's?  I'm genuinely curious?  Or maybe you see it a 
lot on some other different radio types?


Go back through the archives, or just pay attention from here on out.  
And remember, these are the folks that have come to the end of their 
string and have had to ask.  Now with the article I presented, the need 
for these types of postings will likely be less because of folks reading it.


It's -1.3 degrees F here (Friedens PA) as I write this.  How many 'not 
properly compensated' ham (or worse yet, commercial) radios are there 
that are running out of spec?   More than anyone would want to admit.  
The crystal has to get pretty damn far off before distortion results, 
and these are the folks that complain, think of the folks that don't 
complain; that don't post - are quiet, read the posts, and send in their 
botched attempt to have it 'done right'.





With the above-mentioned comment about there probably being a fairly 
"standard" range of caps, for something that's not being used as a 
"top of the mountain" repeater that is in a basement as a "back-yard" 
system... if you had a small supply of 5C elements and were building 
something out of GE MASTR II's on a severely limited budget... I 
honestly don't think there's much harm in stuffing a crystal yourself.


This is plainly stated in an article I pointed you to earlier.  You must 
not have read it the whole way through?  

http://www.repeater-builder.com/ge/mastrii/m2icoms.html
Look at the last paragraph after the pictures and before the horizontal 
bar. 


I'll post that text here, so you don't have to go to the article:
/There is one way to cheat if all you have is ECs.   An EC will maintain 
better than 5ppm from +32 degrees F to above 120 degrees F only if you 
have a stable +5v DC voltage on the compensation line.   This is plenty 
good for a garage repeater (i.e. your test bed system), while you finish 
it and burn it in.   A voltage divider made from a pair of 1.0K, 2.2K, 
3.3K or 4.7K 1/4w or 1/2w metal film resistors in series from the +10vDC 
supply to ground, with the center point tied to the compensation line is 
all that is needed (with suitable RF bypassing).   The two resistors 
must be the same value, and they and the bypass cap can be soldered onto 
a base connector salvaged fr