[Repeater-Builder] Re: MSF5000 External Power Failure Indication
If you look in the MSF service manual at the section for the battery revert power supply, you will find that it has an output signal called AC FAIL [active low] which is connected from the power supply to the station control tray through the station's interconnect board. This control signal is on pin 6 of J603 on the power supply distribution board. The pin is unused on power supplies that do not have the battery revert option. If you connect your external 'running on UPS' signal to that point, that should accomplish what you want. --- --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Keith Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Was wondering if anyone knew of a way to tell a MSF500 CXB station when the main power failed and a UPS kicked in (External dry contact closure from the UPS is available) ?...
RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!
I've stayed out of the debate so far, but even Amphenol claims nominal 50 ohm impedance for their 50 ohm BNC connectors up to 4 GHz. On their N-connector they drop the nominal but they don't elaborate. BNC's are rated for a lower MUF because the mechanics of the bayonet lock aren't ideal. The inner portion of the connector can pivot somewhat depending on the angle the cable (or gravity) is pulling at. So, although the dielectric and the mating surfaces of the connector would likely work well above 4 GHz with creating a significant bump, the imperfections in bayonet causes it to be rated lower. In contrast, the TNC with its threaded attachment maintains the geometry better, and is thus rated for a higher frequency. The same issue exists between SMA and SMB connectors. Presumably SMA's are rated for higher MUF because the threaded coupling maintains a more consistent interface geometry as compared to SMB's which are push on connectors which leave more wiggle room (pun intended). N, BNC, TNC, LC, HN, SMA, et al were designed to maintain 50 ohms through the interface, though none are truly precision connectors. Not even an SMA is a precision connector. Precision connectors have virtually perfect mating repeatability. The most popular precision connectors are APC/GPC varients. They're more likely to be found on microwave test equipment. UHF connectors weren't designed for constant impedence. They were designed at a time when UHF was what we would now consider to be VHF-low, and the impedence bump was less of an issue. UHF connectors with Teflon dielectric have less of an impedence bump than cheaper (phenolic, bakelite, plastic, etc.) dielectric types. Some really cheezy UHF connectors have such high dielectric losses that they will get warm and, under very high power at VHF/UHF, actually melt. So stick with Teflon. I'll agree that maybe a BNC is not as good as an N-connector overall, but similar to your argument -- I'll bet no one here can measure the difference at VHF/UHF. Bet I can on my network analyzer :-) Seriously, with a good VNA, you'll be able to see changes in return loss at varying frequencies as you flex a BNC connection. Likewise, using TDR (or a VNA with time-domain analysis), you will be able to clearly see the bump in the line. Would you notice, or could you measure, the slight variation in Z of a BNC connection when it's flexed using a wattmeter or other gross measurement techniques at VHF or UHF? Probably not. But it's there. A UHF connector is tolerable on 70cm, providing it (and its mate) are Teflon dielectric. I will still try to avoid them whenever possible and stick with type N. Amp shows (much!) more RF leakage from a BNC than an N (which would be a detriment in some installations!) Again, due to the bayonet. One of the reasons you see UHF connectors on VHF and UHF mobile radios, including commercial radios, is because it is a lot harder to screw a UHF connector. You really have to work hard to bend a center pin on a PL-259, whereas a type N is a bit more delicate in that regard. Some may argue that a regular (solder-type) PL-259 is easier to install on a cable than a regular (mil clamp type) Type N, so that's why they were used (personally, I disagree, I always thought type N's were easier to put on). Nowadays, with the proliferation of crimp-type connectors, there is no advantage to one over the other. --- Jeff
RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!
One of the reasons you see UHF connectors on VHF and UHF mobile radios, including commercial radios, is because it is a lot harder to screw a UHF connector. DOH! That should have said screw up a UHF connector. Blame Freud, and Ken with his Anna Nicole comment...
[Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR feedline revisited and revised!
And Ken is right... some of us in the industry also call it an impedance bump. Going back into history... I'm told the original RCA style connector is one of the better early rf connectors. Heathkit used to drive hams crazy with it... but it is/was the better animal. And... After all these years we don't hate the Mini UHF and TNC connectors nearly as much as when they started to appear on common two-way radio and cell-phone gear. cheers, skipp ---Pt...don't tell anyone but a PL259 ain't as horrible (loss wise at least) at VHF UHF as folklore would have you believe. The real issue is not of loss but rather that of a PL259 not being a constant impedance connector. This is where BNC's and N's shine. Ken
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR feedline revisited and revised!
At 08:25 AM 3/23/2007, you wrote: Going back into history... I'm told the original RCA style connector is one of the better early rf connectors. Heathkit used to drive hams crazy with it... but it is/was the better animal. ---Everyone from Motorola to GE to Marconi used RCA plugs/jacks in lower power RF applications - all the way up through UHF. Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Coming soon - the most advanced repeater controller EVER. Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion
Sorry I haven't responded to this is previous, but I did some research. I actually converted a GE Mastr II receiver to 220. (Several times actually!!) As they say in the world of mathematics, I ran through all the permutations. I used 2 5C compensated elements from Bomar on 222.400 for my testing. One was a x9 multiplier with a crystal frequency of 23.4. The other was a x12 multiplier with a crystal frequency of 17.600. Both of these were used for low-side injection. These were obtained while researching the cross-talk phenomenon that happens between transmit harmonics and receiver sensitive spots. (More about that in different articles to come) Here is what I found: http://homepage.mac.com/pseabolt/mods/oscillat.htm The mods from W4UWH work OK. The best sensitivity I could get from tuning and re-tuning and trying different combinations of capacitor tuning positions, was about -106dB for 12dB SINAD. The most interesting thing was that either ICOM seem to work equally well! (I don't understand it either, but I was able to tune and make the same sensitivity with either crystal.) This mod worked, but it seemed to be a lot of hocus-pocus magic to get the LO to tune correctly. I DID NOT change the transistors as suggested in the article. I'm not sure if that would have helped the sensitivity or not. Frankly I was so dismayed at how difficult it was to tune that I simply didn't take the time to swap the transistors. Due to the lack of suggestion of a formula change and the fact that he changes all of the stages in the LO chain, I would agree with those that this modification is simply a raise the frequency type mod. It does not change the multiplier from a x9. http://www.jonadams.com/pages/amateur_radio/ge_mastr_2_220mhz_mods.htm These mods are very similar to the mods I settled on as my final recommendation. They change the multiplier from a x9 to a x12. This fact is spelled out in the conversion. The change is done in the last 2 stages of the LO. The first LO stage remains as-is. The second tripler is changed to a doubler and the third buffer stage is changed to a tripler. Everything seems to work ok until the last tripler stage. I'm not sure if it's an omission in the mods or what happened, but the author doesn't change anything in the final stage to make it a tripler! I couldn't get this mod to work at all. http://www.condor-connection.org/mods/mastr2.htm The condor connection's mods seemed to work the best. They are the same as the Jon Adams mods above, but they actually make a modification to the inductor in the last stage. This makes the stage tune correctly as a tripler. This mod seemed to have LOTS of injection level. With this mod, tuned per the book the first time, I was able to make 12dB SINAD at -115dB of signal. This is what I would have expected to see. This mod seems well suited to repeatability. It will need re-written with some descriptive pictures, but it works. The tuning of it impressed me especially. My plan is to take pictures of the winning mods exactly as I did them, make them into a bit better article, and post them for all to use. I should have this done later today. Scott Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 612 Barnett Rd Boswell, PA 15531 - Original Message - From: w5dk_don [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:25 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion Scott, Thanks for your summary and also the previous note regarding stabilty of xtals when using the rocks above 18 megs. My recieve xtal is 23 something so your experience mentioned was noted here. But below you mentioned a rc xtal formula change from vhf but linked to the W4UWH method, which I used recently. It uses the standard VHF math. I think thats an error. Also on the IF/mixer, I made that one short on the bottom/non component side from a through hole on the board to a ground trace. It was easier than dealing with the resistor. Not sure if every board has a hole under that coil right where ya need it. 73 Don W5DK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Scott Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I went to the Condor site and notice that they don't give a formula for the Rx crystal, is it the same as for the M2 mod? I'm not sure. Here at repeater builder we use the following for 220 Mastr II's For the PLL exciter: (preferred) http://www.repeater-builder.com/ge/mastrII222pllexciter.html For a phase exciter: http://www.condor-connection.org/mods/mastr2.htm Helical assy: http://homepage.mac.com/pseabolt/mods/rf_assembly.htm PA assy: (we use our AMPBD for a circuit board) http://homepage.mac.com/pseabolt/mods/pa.htm http://www.repeater-builder.com/products/ampbd.html Osc. Mult: (I have not found it necessary to replace the transistors as described) http://homepage.mac.com/pseabolt/mods/oscillat.htm Mixer board: http://homepage.mac.com/pseabolt/mods/mixer.htm In the
[Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation
What would be the guidelines to use for antenna seperation on a 2 meter machine w/o a duplexer. Horizonal and vertical, this will be a limited use machine, so there will not be a lot of traffic. Sam KE5MID
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RCA connectors NOT for power
Personally I don't like the RCA connector for power use. Assuming the female is chassis mounted, as it has been on a number of pieces of equipment (DEMI transverters come to mind), that means there's a mating male connector with +12VDC on the exposed pin, just looking for something to short out with. Granted, it may see very few insertions/extractions, but when extracted it exposes a live pin. A pigtail on the equipment with a male connector could be used, making the power source available on a female inline connector. PowerPoles are a much better choice IMHO, and they can be chassis mounted with some insulating shoulder washers, like power transistors banana connectors often are. At 11:43 AM 3/23/2007, you wrote: How about using an RCA connector for power? I have a TX/RX Systems preamp that has a male RCA plug threaded into the case to supply it with 12 VDC. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Ken Arck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR feedline revisited and revised! At 08:25 AM 3/23/2007, you wrote: Going back into history... I'm told the original RCA style connector is one of the better early rf connectors. Heathkit used to drive hams crazy with it... but it is/was the better animal. ---Everyone from Motorola to GE to Marconi used RCA plugs/jacks in lower power RF applications - all the way up through UHF. Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Coming soon - the most advanced repeater controller EVER. Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 3/22/2007 7:44 AM Yahoo! Groups Links Thanks, Robin Midgett K4IDC 615-322-5836 office - rolls to pager 615-835-7699 pager 615-301-1642 home [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.people.vanderbilt.edu/~robin.midgett/index.htm
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Controller Recommendations
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Question for the gurus: I am tuning up and donating an E.F. Johnson CR1100 repeater to the local Ham Club. They have asked me to install a talking, chirping, beeping type repeater controller (which they have offered to buy). I work with basic repeater, one each type stuff, so I have no idea where to start. I welcome any opinions of a repeater controller that meets the following somewhat carefully thought out criteria: 1. Reasonably affordable. (a couple hundred bucks or so) 2. It has to talk, beep and chirp. 3. It has to have a phone patch. 4. Well supported. 5. Reliable. 6. Not require re-engineering the radio. (Translation: easy installation) Feel free to add to this list. There are a bunch of good controllers out there. My recommendation is either the Arcom RC-210, as mentioned, or the S-Com 7330, which should be available very soon. Arcom also has an RC-810 coming, but it may be a bit higher priced then what it sounds like you/they want to spend. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation
At 09:27 AM 03/23/07, you wrote: What would be the guidelines to use for antenna seperation on a 2 meter machine w/o a duplexer. Horizonal and vertical, this will be a limited use machine, so there will not be a lot of traffic. Sam KE5MID Vertical separation is more effective simply because when you run horizontal the receive antenna is directly in the pattern of the transmit antenna. Go to www.repeater-builder.com, then to the Antennas page, then scroll down to these two articles: Vertical and Horizontal antenna separation charts http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/separation.html and Some thoughts on Repeater Receiver-to-Transmitter Isolation http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/thoughts-on-isolation.html Mike
RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!
Hi Allan, Coax line impedance is determined mainly by the size of the center conductor and its spacing to the outer shield of the cable and somewhat by the dielectric in the cable. The same is true for a connector. Any time you change the size of that center conductor or the spacing to the shell the impedance changes slightly. In a PL type connector the ratio of center conductor to shield changes from what the ratio of the cable to shield is so that gives an impedance change. A connector with a constant impedance may have different sizes of center conductors (center pin) than what the cable size is but that change in size maintains the same ratio of pin size to shield as the ratio of the cable center conductor to shield. That keeps the impedance the same through the connector as what the cable is. This is why a connector for a 75 ohm cable will be slightly different in size than one for 50 ohms. Note that 75 ohm cable has a smaller diameter center conductor than a 50 ohm cable that has the same outer shield size. 73 Gary K4FMX _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of allan crites Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! I sure would like to hear what you all mean by constant impedance . Allan Crites, WA9ZZU Gary Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Builder%40yahoogroups.com .com] On Behalf Of Ken Arck Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:42 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! At 04:33 PM 3/22/2007, you wrote: doesn't make it right though considering the potentual losses. ---Pt...don't tell anyone but a PL259 ain't as horrible (loss wise at least) at VHF UHF as folklore would have you believe. The real issue is not of loss but rather that of a PL259 not being a constant impedance connector. This is where BNC's and N's shine. Ken Ken is exactly right! I would venture to say that there are probably few to none on this list that have any equipment that could measure the difference in loss between a PL259 and a good N connector. That loss thing is an old myth. Now as Ken said they are not a constant impedance and you will get a bump in the impedance with one that can give a mismatch in a fixed tuned circuit and you can have what is called mismatch loss which results from the circuit getting detuned slightly because of the impedance difference. There can also be swr losses caused by the impedance mismatch but a direct loss from the PL259 at VHF and UHF is almost non existent. At least not measurable. If you really want to get picky use only N connectors and not even bnc. A bnc is not a constant impedance connector either although somewhat better than a PL259. Yes I know you can plug an N connector into a bnc but the bnc still is not a constant impedance device. Case in point: The Motorola 2600 service monitor uses an N connector in order to meet the flatness spec over the entire range even though most people want a bnc for the rf connector on it. So they supply an N to bnc adaptor with each unit for those that insist on bnc connectors. 73 Gary K4FMX
RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!
-Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:04 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! On 3/22/07, Gary Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you really want to get picky use only N connectors and not even bnc. A bnc is not a constant impedance connector either although somewhat better than a PL259. Yes I know you can plug an N connector into a bnc but the bnc still is not a constant impedance device. Could you site a credible source that claims this? I can't find any references to impedance regarding BNC connectors. I've stayed out of the debate so far, but even Amphenol claims nominal 50 ohm impedance for their 50 ohm BNC connectors up to 4 GHz. On their N-connector they drop the nominal but they don't elaborate. They also say the BNC has low reflection below 4GHz... and their N connector specifications show nothing at all regarding that. The assumption here would be the N is slightly better again. And they show that you have to switch to a TNC for anything above 4GHz through 11GHz. Or the N again, of course. I'll agree that maybe a BNC is not as good as an N-connector overall, but similar to your argument -- I'll bet no one here can measure the difference at VHF/UHF. Amp shows (much!) more RF leakage from a BNC than an N (which would be a detriment in some installations!), insertion loss numbers that are within .05 dB of each other, and the center conductor also has a slightly higher resistance on the BNC vs. the N. If I missed anything there, here's their links: http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/bnc.asp http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/typen.asp But again, just like your comment about the PL259's... I would love to see a credible source on impedance measurements of BNC's that's available to the public. Don't worry, I'm not defending the BNC -- I'd rather not use them myself. Just playing devil's advocate on the statement, since it doesn't have any more credibility or science behind it than the PL259 comments did. I *can* find credible sources that show PL259's generally stink with real measurements at VHF/UHF... but I haven't been able to find such data for BNC's (yet). And judging by Amphenol's site, TNC's keep up pretty well with the N connector. Nate WY0X I don't know if I have seen this stuff in print either. I have gotten most of my info from engineers at Motorola and Wavetek. I used to sell their service monitors. Jeff pretty well sums up what the problems are with the bnc connectors. In most applications it doesn't matter much. But like I noted with the service monitors they could not maintain the output level and return loss spec with the bnc connectors and this was probably mostly due to the bnc not being a solid connector. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a bnc connector is junk. The comment was that if you want to worry about connectors then use an N rather than a bnc. This was for the benefit of those that worry about PL259's not being any good. The bnc is not too bad as HP used it on the front end of their older spectrum analyzers. They latter switched to a type N though. I guess they saw the light. :) A PL259 serves the purpose well in most cases and will have almost immeasurable loss but it will not have a constant impedance. Some places that matters and some places it does not. If you start sticking several PL type adaptors in line with your wattmeter you may see the wattmeter read different to what looks like loss but it is not loss in the adaptors or connectors. The change in impedance fools the wattmeter and it gives a different reading. If that change in impedance is reflected to a point where it upsets the tuning of a tuned circuit, like back to the output of a transmitter, then it can detune the transmitter slightly and actually cause it to put out less power. But the less output power is not due to connector loss. Jeff mentioned that non Teflon connectors get warm. I am not so sure that is due to poor dielectric or poor contact of the mating surfaces. Dielectric does not come into play much until you get into uhf. Coax cable dielectric makes little difference in cable loss thru vhf as most loss is attributed to resistive losses. 73 Gary K4FMX
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR feedline revisited and revised!
I always got a chuckle out of the hams that just had to rip out the rca jacks on their heath kits and butcher the chassis to put in an SO239 jack. 73 Gary K4FMX -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of skipp025 Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 11:25 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR feedline revisited and revised! And Ken is right... some of us in the industry also call it an impedance bump. Going back into history... I'm told the original RCA style connector is one of the better early rf connectors. Heathkit used to drive hams crazy with it... but it is/was the better animal. And... After all these years we don't hate the Mini UHF and TNC connectors nearly as much as when they started to appear on common two-way radio and cell-phone gear. cheers, skipp ---Pt...don't tell anyone but a PL259 ain't as horrible (loss wise at least) at VHF UHF as folklore would have you believe. The real issue is not of loss but rather that of a PL259 not being a constant impedance connector. This is where BNC's and N's shine. Ken Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR feedline revisited and revised!
Ken Arck wrote: At 08:25 AM 3/23/2007, you wrote: Going back into history... I'm told the original RCA style connector is one of the better early rf connectors. Heathkit used to drive hams crazy with it... but it is/was the better animal. ---Everyone from Motorola to GE to Marconi used RCA plugs/jacks in lower power RF applications - all the way up through UHF. Ken Anyone remember the Kenwood TH-21/31/41 series handhelds that had a threaded RCA connector??? wow... -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
RE: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation
There are some graphs on this site I believe that show antenna isolation for different separations. That will get you started. 73 Gary K4FMX -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:27 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation What would be the guidelines to use for antenna seperation on a 2 meter machine w/o a duplexer. Horizonal and vertical, this will be a limited use machine, so there will not be a lot of traffic. Sam KE5MID Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion
My plan is to take pictures of the winning mods exactly as I did them, make them into a bit better article, and post them for all to use. I should have this done later today. As promised: http://www.repeater-builder.com/ge/mii220rxdefguide.html Enjoy!! Scott
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion
Scott I guess you're using that new math cause some of those don't sum up to 12 !! hihi But how does the same hardware (1st stage) act as a tripler AND a quadrupler?? thanks for the additional 220 pages btw 73 Don KirchnerW5DK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Scott Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Awe c'mon Scott, I'm not gonna let you get off without explaining where the extra stage of multiplication is! I was quite confused myself. then I sat and did the math. Realize that 3x3=9 Simple enough. But 2x3x3, 3x2x3, 3x3x2, 4x3, or 3x4 all equal 12, so it could have been any of these that made things work. Here is my theory using 222.400Mhz operating frequency:
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion
Scott, I just looked the article and was very impressed with both the general content and also the pictures. Although I'm a VHF guy, I really enjoyed the article. Very nicely done! Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Scott Zimmerman To: Don ; Repeater Builder List ; GE Master II List Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion My plan is to take pictures of the winning mods exactly as I did them, make them into a bit better article, and post them for all to use. I should have this done later today. As promised: http://www.repeater-builder.com/ge/mii220rxdefguide.html Enjoy!! Scott !DSPAM:1016,46043f8b166133626617945!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR feedline revisited and revised!
Anyone remember the Kenwood TH-21/31/41 series handhelds that had a threaded RCA connector??? wow... -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL I just picked up a TH-31 my self. Hanz Gruber would be proud.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RCA connectors NOT for power
who's dumb enough to do that?? At 02:07 PM 3/23/2007, you wrote: Gotta be better then using one of those 'mini' or 'micro' earphone plug style connectors! You know where the center pin shorts to the outer contact briefly while your inserting/removing? ZAP! -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Robin Midgett wrote: Personally I don't like the RCA connector for power use. Assuming the female is chassis mounted, as it has been on a number of pieces of equipment (DEMI transverters come to mind), that means there's a mating male connector with +12VDC on the exposed pin, just looking for something to short out with. Granted, it may see very few insertions/extractions, but when extracted it exposes a live pin. A pigtail on the equipment with a male connector could be used, making the power source available on a female inline connector. PowerPoles are a much better choice IMHO, and they can be chassis mounted with some insulating shoulder washers, like power transistors banana connectors often are. At 11:43 AM 3/23/2007, you wrote: How about using an RCA connector for power? I have a TX/RX Systems preamp that has a male RCA plug threaded into the case to supply it with 12 VDC. Chuck WB2EDV Yahoo! Groups Links Thanks, Robin Midgett K4IDC 615-322-5836 office - rolls to pager 615-835-7699 pager 615-301-1642 home [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.people.vanderbilt.edu/~robin.midgett/index.htm
Re: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperatio
On 3/23/07, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would be the guidelines to use for antenna seperation on a 2 meter machine w/o a duplexer. Horizonal and vertical, this will be a limited use machine, so there will not be a lot of traffic. Sam KE5MID It'll more likely be a limited use machine because it'll be deaf. :-) :-) :-) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion
220 *IS* VHF! ;- Joe M. Don Kupferschmidt wrote: Scott, I just looked the article and was very impressed with both the general content and also the pictures. Although I'm a VHF guy, I really enjoyed the article. Very nicely done! Don, KD9PT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion
Huh? (really dumb look) I think you mean 3x2x2, 2x3x2, and 2x2x3 as well as 3x4 and 4x3 = 12. Joe M. Scott Zimmerman wrote: Realize that 3x3=9 Simple enough. But 2x3x3, 3x2x3, 3x3x2, 4x3, or 3x4 all equal 12, so it could have been any of these that made things work. Here is my theory using 222.400Mhz operating frequency:
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TX RC antenna seperation
Hi Sam, It's all a game of numbers and balance. The most obvious bang for the buck is vertical antenna sepearation. So you simply shoot for the most you can get. Charts and graphs are realistic (not a division of Tandy Corp) generic guidelines when the actual antennas used are referenced (mentioned). The more practical answer is to install the antennas and measure the actual isolation or coupling (really just depends on how you look at it). Placing the antennas on different sides of the tower or pole, the antenna gain, vertical beamwidth and design all become part of the system picture. Once you know the coupling or isolation value you can run your repeater adjusted for what as-built values you have available. My first six meter repeater had no duplexers... same site with a smokin' 2.5 watts output on split antennas. Fairly easy to work fixed station some 35 miles away... cheers, skipp Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would be the guidelines to use for antenna seperation on a 2 meter machine w/o a duplexer. Horizonal and vertical, this will be a limited use machine, so there will not be a lot of traffic. Sam KE5MID
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion
Well, that's a matter on how high you want to go. I like the 144 - 148 band. But let's not get into a deep discussion about this, like what happened with the repeat audio thread just recently. Although I thought Nate summed things up really good. Geez Louise, I thought that was going to go on forever . . . . Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion 220 *IS* VHF! ;- Joe M. Don Kupferschmidt wrote: Scott, I just looked the article and was very impressed with both the general content and also the pictures. Although I'm a VHF guy, I really enjoyed the article. Very nicely done! Don, KD9PT Yahoo! Groups Links !DSPAM:1016,460455b1178545209328925!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion
Joe Don, Yea, That's it. It had been one of those days!!! Moral of the story it was 3x2x2 and 4x3x1 that made the conversion in question work for both a x9 and a x12. If you need a father explanation I can provide it. Scott Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 474 Barnett Road Boswell, PA 15531 - Original Message - From: mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 220 conversion Huh? (really dumb look) I think you mean 3x2x2, 2x3x2, and 2x2x3 as well as 3x4 and 4x3 = 12. Joe M. Scott Zimmerman wrote: Realize that 3x3=9 Simple enough. But 2x3x3, 3x2x3, 3x3x2, 4x3, or 3x4 all equal 12, so it could have been any of these that made things work. Here is my theory using 222.400Mhz operating frequency: Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/731 - Release Date: 3/23/2007 3:27 PM
[Repeater-Builder] software
does anyone know of software I can load into my laptop computer and then hook on the TX and rx lines on the serial port and see the data on the screen? it would be short bits of info I would get that I would need to see the data string. thanks John
Re: [Repeater-Builder] software
At 06:54 PM 3/23/2007, you wrote: does anyone know of software I can load into my laptop computer and then hook on the TX and rx lines on the serial port and see the data on the screen? it would be short bits of info I would get that I would need to see the data string. ---Try this, John. I use it myself.. http://www.hhdsoftware.com/Family/serial-monitor.html Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Coming soon - the most advanced repeater controller EVER. Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net
[Repeater-Builder] Tait repeaters
Hey guys, I had a friend of mine ask me this. How good is the tait 220 stuff? Also he wants to know of any mobiles or HTs they have for 220. Any ideas for a repeater all in 1 box, TX, RX? He's gonna interface his own controller. Thanks, Jed -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.12/724 - Release Date: 3/16/2007 12:12 PM Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation
Sam, Just to give you a ballpark estimate, I used CommShop for Windows to generate a solution for a 50 watt transmitter that is separated by 600 kHz from a receiver with 0.25 uV sensitivity in the 2m Amateur band. CommShop reported that a minimum of 90.14 dB of isolation is required, which can be met with a vertical antenna separation of 240 feet- assuming that the antennas are identical and are exactly in line with each other vertically. The required horizontal separation to achieve the same isolation is about five miles, which is obviously impractical without a link radio. If you use a transmitter with greater power, or use a receiver with greater sensitivity, the required isolation and the separation will increase. It makes no difference if your machine is used once a year or continuously; the isolation requirements are firm. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:27 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation What would be the guidelines to use for antenna separation on a 2 meter machine w/o a duplexer. Horizontal and vertical, this will be a limited use machine, so there will not be a lot of traffic. Sam KE5MID
RE: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation
Eric, Just what kind of receiver did you use in your ballpark estimate example? Allan Crites WA9ZZU Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam, Just to give you a ballpark estimate, I used CommShop for Windows to generate a solution for a 50 watt transmitter that is separated by 600 kHz from a receiver with 0.25 uV sensitivity in the 2m Amateur band. CommShop reported that a minimum of 90.14 dB of isolation is required, which can be met with a vertical antenna separation of 240 feet- assuming that the antennas are identical and are exactly in line with each other vertically. The required horizontal separation to achieve the same isolation is about five miles, which is obviously impractical without a link radio. If you use a transmitter with greater power, or use a receiver with greater sensitivity, the required isolation and the separation will increase. It makes no difference if your machine is used once a year or continuously; the isolation requirements are firm. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:27 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation What would be the guidelines to use for antenna separation on a 2 meter machine w/o a duplexer. Horizontal and vertical, this will be a limited use machine, so there will not be a lot of traffic. Sam KE5MID
RE: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation
Allan, Several years ago, I corresponded with the designer of the CommShop for Windows program, and I posed the same question. His answer was that the calculations were based upon an average of typical commercial receivers. I suspect that the extensive research by General Electric Company in developing the Duplex Operation Curves (available on the GE Master LBI Index) was considered. My personal experience is that CommShop and similar programs are likely to err on the generous side, and that more isolation will be required than predicted in order to achieve zero desense in duplex operation. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of allan crites Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation Eric, Just what kind of receiver did you use in your ballpark estimate example? Allan Crites WA9ZZU Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam, Just to give you a ballpark estimate, I used CommShop for Windows to generate a solution for a 50 watt transmitter that is separated by 600 kHz from a receiver with 0.25 uV sensitivity in the 2m Amateur band. CommShop reported that a minimum of 90.14 dB of isolation is required, which can be met with a vertical antenna separation of 240 feet- assuming that the antennas are identical and are exactly in line with each other vertically. The required horizontal separation to achieve the same isolation is about five miles, which is obviously impractical without a link radio. If you use a transmitter with greater power, or use a receiver with greater sensitivity, the required isolation and the separation will increase. It makes no difference if your machine is used once a year or continuously; the isolation requirements are firm. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Sam Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:27 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] TX RC antenna seperation What would be the guidelines to use for antenna separation on a 2 meter machine w/o a duplexer. Horizontal and vertical, this will be a limited use machine, so there will not be a lot of traffic. Sam KE5MID
Re: [Repeater-Builder] software
On 3/23/07, Ken Arck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:54 PM 3/23/2007, you wrote: does anyone know of software I can load into my laptop computer and then hook on the TX and rx lines on the serial port and see the data on the screen? it would be short bits of info I would get that I would need to see the data string. ---Try this, John. I use it myself.. http://www.hhdsoftware.com/Family/serial-monitor.html John, just for completeness... There's also a free package for Linux that will do what you're looking for, if you're a Linux geek... it's pre-packaged for Debian linux, I don't know if any other Linux flavors have it pre-packaged and available as a prepared package. http://packages.debian.org/stable/comm/snooper From the package description for Debian Linux: Snooper passes data transparently between two serial (RS232C) devices, capturing and logging the data and occasional comments you want to insert into the logs. It is useful for debugging or analyzing the communications protocol between two devices that would normally be connected directly to each other, e.g. a digital camera and a personal computer. By sitting in the middle (after you connect the two devices to serial ports on your Linux machine) snooper is able to capture data traveling in either direction while also passing it unmodified to the other device. Nate WY0X
