Re: [Repeater-Builder] slightly OT: securing feedline to the side of a tower

[Jay Urish]

Great advice! I know how much the andrew hardware costs... That would 
bankrupt this project.

I ended up going the all home depot route with galv unistrut and strut 
clamps, minis  and my spacing is 8'. I will evaluate the load on the 
feedline, and add additional supports in problem areas..


Jeff DePolo wrote:
> 
> 
>  > Nope, because like you said, they would draw the feedline into the
>  > strut, smashing it all up...
> 
> I regularly use cushioned clamps for attaching rigid feedline to unistrut.
> I usually buy them from McMaster-Carr, but I'm sure they're available
> elsewhere. McMaster-Carr has them available in "tubing sizes" in additional
> to normal trade sizes- 1 5/8" or 3 1/8" rigid line is really 1 5/8" or 3
> 1/8" OD. The soft plastic insert prevents the clamps from damaging the
> line. Here's what they look like:
> 
> www.mcmastercarr.com - search for 32625T62
> 
> However, I wouldn't use them nor "mini's (Minearallac-type EMT clamps) on a
> tower, nor would I use any kind of off-the-shelf galvanized, anodized, any
> kind of plated unistrut on a tower. The galv on regular electrical-grade
> hardware doesn't hold up as long as most other tower-grade galvanized
> structural steel. Valmont makes good hot-dipped galv strut if you wanted to
> go that route. And as always, use only high-grade galv or stainless bolts,
> nuts, and other hardware to attach to the tower. Never ever use any kind of
> plated steel components on a tower. They will quickly rust and become
> semiconductors, and you will almost as quickly be banished from the site
> (assuming managed by diligent/competent people).
> 
> Personally, I'd stick with the real stuff - stainless round member adapters
> (hose clamps) or stainless angle member adapters (beam clamps), and
> stainless butterflies or snap-ins. Do it once, do it right. If you make a
> few calls to local tower companies, I'd bet you'll find someone that either
> has a surplus that they'll see you at a fraction of the new cost, or maybe
> even a few 5-gallon buckets of hardware taken down that might still be in
> good condition and can be reused.
> 
> As far as spacing between brackets/hangers, it varies with wind speed, icing
> conditions, and line size. Here's Andrew's chart, based on EIA-222:
> 
> http://www.andrew.com/search/BN_96221.aspx 
> 
> 
> Most towers around here come from the factory with brackets spaced at 4'.
> 
> And remember, coax "hangers" really aren't hangers. They aren't meant to
> hold the vertical weight of the line - that's what hoisting grips (aka
> Kellems grips) are for. The job of the hangers is to keep the line from
> flopping around horizontally in the wind, not to hold the weight up. A
> properly-installed butterfly is only tight enough to keep the line from
> moving, not hold the weight.
> 
> As an alternative to butterflies or snap-ins, on big towers where feedline
> "bundling" is a necessity due to congestion and to reduce the windload, the
> traditional techinque is to install runs of rigid conduit the entire length
> of the tower (inside preferably), and then using tie wires (12AWG THHN
> solid) or "band it" stainless straps to aggregate the lines together around
> the conduit, again at regular (4' nominally) intervals. Hoisting grips are
> still used every 200' to hold the weight of each cable individually.
> 
> Tie-wiring a cable directly to a leg is generally considered bad practice
> for a number of reasons. First, what do you do when you come to a leg
> flange? If you hug the cable tight against the flange, the sharp edges of
> the flange creates a spot for it to wear through. If you form the cable
> loosly around the flange, it leaves it open for room to move and create new
> problems that way. Also, by being mounted to the leg, it becomes an
> obstacle when someone else comes along and wants to attach an antenna mount
> to the leg. It's also more likely to get damaged by climbers and rigging
> lines. The list goes on and on...
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> --- Jeff
> 
> 

-- 
Jay Urish CCNANetwork Engineer
http://jay.unixwolf.net
Home)972.691.0125Cell)972.965.6229

[Repeater-Builder] IC FR4000

[barrypal]

Anyone running the Icom repeater in the ham bands?  This question has
probably come up before buy I couldn't find it.  I am considering the
Icom 4000 or Vertex 7000 for my ham repeater.  I am running a GE Mastr
II now.  I know they are bullet proof and the audio is great but
weight and space are a consideration in a possible new location.  

Thanks

[Repeater-Builder] VHF Repeater

[James Sholan - KI4OSM]

I am looking for a Duplexer for a VHF 2 Meter Amateur Radio Repeater

Repeater in = 144.850
Repeater out = 145.450
a 600 Mhz spit

I have a small budgeted.Repeater is privately owned.




James Sholan - KI4OSM

www.KI4OSM.com

www.MyHamSearch.com

http://bayside.ki4osm.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bayside_Amateur_Radio_club/



Phone: 727-953-5350

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date: 6/1/2007
11:22 AM

[Repeater-Builder] Re: paging system

[Christopher Hodgdon]

As I am learning, I think most all amateurs operators have some
whackyness about them.

My intention is not to interpit the fcc rules as I want.  I am new to
amateur radio, having my ticket for just over a year and there are a
lot of things that I am still learning.  I have seen and been told
that when you think you know everything about amateur radio, look
again, as there is something new to learn.

That is why I brought up the email you sent and the information
included.  I wanted to see what other people thought and how they
interpit the FCC rules.  In no way am I trying to change/bend the
rules in my favor.

If every other amateur radio operator told me I was wrong and it was
illegal, I would leave it at that, but if some tell me one thing and
others tell me another, I feel as an amatuer, it's my duty to seek the
truth and knowledge from others out there.  I had not elmer or mentor
when I started to get my ticket, but have learned that it really makes
a difference if you have one.

Chris

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ted Bleiman K9MDM - MDM Radio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> it would have been fine with me for you to
> identify me these guys know i'm a whacko.
> 
> the interpretation and implementation of the fcc
> rules is not for you to deicde or interpret. they
> are the final word on whether a system that you
> may think perfectly legal and a logical 
> application of the rules is legal  and they
> interpret the rules very literally.
> public service is not a criterion for their
> decision making.
> the rules as written is the rules.
> there are several guys on the group who have
> years of experience in these matters.
> paging as they use the term is broadcasting. a
> one way transmission and that doesn't wash in the
> amateur service.
> possibly your local fire dispatch center has
> someone well versed in the fcc rules. bounce this
> of'n him.
> mdm ted 
> 
>   Ted Bleiman K9MDM
>   MDM  Radio" If its in stock...we've got it!"
> P O Box 31353
> Chicago, IL 60631-0353 
> 773.631.5130  fax 773.775.8096  
>
>   web http://www.mdmradio.com - 
>email -  [EMAIL PROTECTED] <<< DIRECT ALL EMAIL 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
___
> You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
> in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: paging system

[Christopher Hodgdon]

Now, this makes a little more sense.  As you show here, if you are
using say a DTMF or Tone Page to activate only one radio or pager at a
single time is not considered paging, but if you are activating more
than 1 pager, then that is considered broadcasting, correct.

One problem is that here locally, several ARES/RACES groups in a few
cities and counties, have their repeaters setup to set out a tone
alert and DTMF code that opens up pagers setup for the tones and
radios setup for the DTMF code to activate SkyWarn nets and more.

Some say that their paging cycle takes up to 2 minutes to complete
from start to finish, so I don't know if the system sends the tone
page to each member one at a time or not.  But all of them talk about
sending out the tones ot DTMF tones to open the radios and pagers of
their members.

I would consider this paging  "broadcasting" myself, though it might
no be when the rules and regs are applied.

But my question is still, doesn't the FCC also consider the one way
transmission from, again as an example, W1AW that are training codes,
announcements, bullitens, etc. to also be a "broadcast" transmission,
since it is intened for all amateurs that receive it?  That is one way
I am confused about broadcasting, as it applies to the rules.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "n9wys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey - don't wrap me up in this, simply because I **am** "one To-many"...
> 
> 73 de Mark TOMANY - N9WYS
> Sorry - couldn't resist a bit of weird humor...  hi hi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 97.201 (e): An auxiliary station may transmit one-way communications.
> 
> Amateur paging, at least as how I use it, is a one way transmission
from 
> the "auxiliary" station to the pagee, & is not "broadcasting", a 
> "one-to-many" transmission.
> 
> Bob NO6B
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexer tuning - sanity check

[Gary Schafer]

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 3:03 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexer tuning - sanity check
> 
> 
> On May 31, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Bob M. wrote:
> 
> > The duplexers on UHF are typically set for 5 MHz
> > spacing, although closer spacing is often available.
> > The purpose of the duplexer is to allow the receiver
> > and transmitter to share one antenna. They offer very
> > little filtering of other nearby signals. You need a
> > good, selective receiver front end to handle that. The
> > transmitter can often be cleaned up by adding an
> > isolator to the output; some units may already have
> > that feature, especially commercial base stations.
> 
> Just to clarify a point here, I think I see what you're saying, but
> it's slightly misleading for those who haven't used them...
> 
> An isolator does nothing to "clean" a transmitted signal.  It's a
> circulator with a 50 ohm resistive dummy load on one or more ports
> coming back toward your transmitter.
> 
> It keeps reflected RF in your antenna and feedline system (hopefully
> you don't have any, but there's always some...) and OTHER
> transmitters out of yours.  (Also very helpful if your antenna falls
> off the tower and virtually all of the RF is being reflected... your
> PA might still survive... if the load can handle the power.)
> 
> Since they're ferrous devices, they can actually CREATE broadband
> noise and IMD.
> 
> So I guess you could call keeping external RF signals from coming
> down your feedline, and out of your TX -- thus keeping all those
> frequencies from MIXING in your transmitter --  "cleaning" --  but
> that's not what most people think of when they see that word...
> 
>  From your description, folks might think an isolator is something
> like a bandpass filter (which it's a good idea to have PAST an
> isolator) on the TX side of things.  That's definitely not what they do.
> 
> --
> Nate Duehr, WY0X
> 

Mostly correct but an isolator could be thought of as a device to "clean up
a transmitter" too. An isolator provides a flat 50 ohm load to the
transmitter no matter what kind of load the antenna or duplexer may present.
Sometimes transmitters get a little "squirrelly" and generate spurs when not
seeing a flat 50 ohms.

A bandpass filter is not only a good idea to have after an isolator, it is a
must have device. Or a low pass filter in place of the bandpass filter as
isolators generate strong harmonics that need to be filtered.

73
Gary  K4FMX

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thanks, Alum Tape and Antenna...Tape part#=3M 425

[Preston Moore]

Thanks Jeff.  The tape is Scotch 425 which I found by
looking at the 420 instruction sheet.  

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-SpecialtyTapes/SpcltyTape/ProdInfo/Spec6/AlumFoil425




>I bought my last rolls of filament tape and aluminum
>tape from Tessco.  They
>were OEM'ed by 3M but sold as Decibel products.  If
>you can't find them,
>I'll see if I can get a 3M part number off them.

--- Jeff
 

[Hide Quoted Text]
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Finch
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 12:34 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thanks, Alum Tape and 
Antenna...Tape part#?

3M for the aluminum tape, bet it's on their website
and you 
can fine a local
vendor from there.  The fiberglass tape you can get
just 
about anywhere, the
tape DB used was like 1/2 inch wide so it would fit 
completely under the
aluminum tape.  I have used regular 3/4 inch
fiberglass tape with no
problems though.

Paul
  

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Preston Moore
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thanks, Alum Tape and 
Antenna...Tape part#?

While on this subject.  Can someone please advise on
the 3M 
part number for
the aluminum and the fiberglass tape?  I found the
Decibel 
part numbers for
the tape, but would rather find another source.  I
have a 420 
that needs the
harness reattached.  Also, any suggestions on a
general 
cleaning of the
antenna?  I was thinking of steel wool or the like. 
Anyone?

Thanks
Preston Moore, N5YIZ


   

Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star demo

[Paul Metzger]

Ron,

When you wrote "I am interested in the parameters of the D-Star vs  
analog test." Weak Signal D-STAR versus FM.mp3' file located within  
the 'D-STAR Digital Audio' directory of the Illinoisdigitalham yahoo  
group? If so, please forward a copy of your findings to me as well.  
The only reason that I have not yet posted that recording to the  
http://www.hamradio-dv.org web site is for that very reason, I am  
unable to validate it's parameters. Like I had stated earlier in a  
previous e-mail, I was in contact with KC5ZRQ via E-mail until I had  
answered his question as to which recording I was referring to. After  
that I never received a reply again, and my following e-mails had  
never bounced.

Paul Metzger
K6EH

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star demo

[Gary]

What test are referring to? If you find some documented test results of a
real field test then please let us know otherwise I for one don't know what
test you are referring to.

And what do you mean "had hoped the D-Star rigs could be changed to
analog"? D-Star is a digital audio format, analog audio is, well, analog
audio. What exactly are you asking here because it still doesn't make
sense. All of Icom's D-Star capable radios are also analog capable. Icom
claims they compress the D-Star voice into a 6Khz channel (their data
capabilities use more bandwidth).

A comparison of two-way radio systems to HDTV or Direct TV isn't going to
work as they are all generally different media (two-way is terrestrial,
Direct TV is satellite, and HDTV is often cable). Yes, analog signals with
path noise are often still discernible and digital audio is often there or
not. I suggest you read up on modern voice encoding/decoding methods for a
better understanding. Remember, D-Star is an open, published standard. Icom
America offers a link to the JARL documentation as does the JARL.
Gary

"Ron Wright, Skywarn Coodinator" wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the many responses, but guess no one had the answer to my
> question.
>
> So I will try again.
>
> I am interested in the parameters of the D-Star vs analog test.  It
> seems the testees had 2 receivers at a site, one D-Star and one
> conviental analog and made a transmission on each for the recording.
>
> My question was the rigs/power/antennas/etc the same on both.  A test
> of 10 W with D-Star and analog 1 watt HT does not address the issue.  I
> had hoped the D-Star rigs could be changed to analog making the only
> difference the modulation, rx and tx.
>
> Digial has invaded so much with much improved results.  Easy to see
> with Direct-TV or digital cable or fiber, as I have now, and it is
> worlds improvement over the old analog.  Same with HDTV over NTSC TV
> and not just because higher resolution.  However, many 2-way radio
> systems complain about digital with variations in signals digital often
> has problems.  With analog one might be noise, but can get the
> transmission, but as many have said with digital you are there or not,
> no in between.
>
> Just wanted to know if the D-Star and analog test parameters.
>
> 73, ron, n9ee/r

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor 220 mhz

[Scott Zimmerman]

Is this what you are looking for?

http://www.repeater-builder.com/products/ampbd.html

Scott

Scott Zimmerman
Amateur Radio Call N3XCC
612 Barnett Rd
Boswell, PA 15531

- Original Message - 
From: "wd0ekr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 7:43 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Micor 220 mhz


>I seem to recall someone offering a transmitter power amp kit for
> doing the 220 mhz mod, anyone recall this?
> 73
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date: 6/1/2007 
> 11:22 AM
>
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] slightly OT: securing feedline to the side of a tower

[Jeff DePolo]

> Nope, because like you said, they would draw the feedline into the 
> strut, smashing it all up...

I regularly use cushioned clamps for attaching rigid feedline to unistrut.
I usually buy them from McMaster-Carr, but I'm sure they're available
elsewhere.  McMaster-Carr has them available in "tubing sizes" in additional
to normal trade sizes- 1 5/8" or 3 1/8" rigid line is really 1 5/8" or 3
1/8" OD.  The soft plastic insert prevents the clamps from damaging the
line.  Here's what they look like:

www.mcmastercarr.com - search for 32625T62

However, I wouldn't use them nor "mini's (Minearallac-type EMT clamps) on a
tower, nor would I use any kind of off-the-shelf galvanized, anodized, any
kind of plated unistrut on a tower.  The galv on regular electrical-grade
hardware doesn't hold up as long as most other tower-grade galvanized
structural steel.  Valmont makes good hot-dipped galv strut if you wanted to
go that route.  And as always, use only high-grade galv or stainless bolts,
nuts, and other hardware to attach to the tower.  Never ever use any kind of
plated steel components on a tower.  They will quickly rust and become
semiconductors, and you will almost as quickly be banished from the site
(assuming managed by diligent/competent people).

Personally, I'd stick with the real stuff - stainless round member adapters
(hose clamps) or stainless angle member adapters (beam clamps), and
stainless butterflies or snap-ins.  Do it once, do it right.  If you make a
few calls to local tower companies, I'd bet you'll find someone that either
has a surplus that they'll see you at a fraction of the new cost, or maybe
even a few 5-gallon buckets of hardware taken down that might still be in
good condition and can be reused.

As far as spacing between brackets/hangers, it varies with wind speed, icing
conditions, and line size.  Here's Andrew's chart, based on EIA-222:

http://www.andrew.com/search/BN_96221.aspx

Most towers around here come from the factory with brackets spaced at 4'.

And remember, coax "hangers" really aren't hangers.  They aren't meant to
hold the vertical weight of the line - that's what hoisting grips (aka
Kellems grips) are for.  The job of the hangers is to keep the line from
flopping around horizontally in the wind, not to hold the weight up.  A
properly-installed butterfly is only tight enough to keep the line from
moving, not hold the weight.

As an alternative to butterflies or snap-ins, on big towers where feedline
"bundling" is a necessity due to congestion and to reduce the windload, the
traditional techinque is to install runs of rigid conduit the entire length
of the tower (inside preferably), and then using tie wires (12AWG THHN
solid) or "band it" stainless straps to aggregate the lines together around
the conduit, again at regular (4' nominally) intervals.  Hoisting grips are
still used every 200' to hold the weight of each cable individually.

Tie-wiring a cable directly to a leg is generally considered bad practice
for a number of reasons.  First, what do you do when you come to a leg
flange?  If you hug the cable tight against the flange, the sharp edges of
the flange creates a spot for it to wear through.  If you form the cable
loosly around the flange, it leaves it open for room to move and create new
problems that way.  Also, by being mounted to the leg, it becomes an
obstacle when someone else comes along and wants to attach an antenna mount
to the leg.  It's also more likely to get damaged by climbers and rigging
lines.  The list goes on and on...

Hope this helps.

--- Jeff

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thanks, Alum Tape and Antenna...Tape part#?

[Jeff DePolo]

I bought my last rolls of filament tape and aluminum tape from Tessco.  They
were OEM'ed by 3M but sold as Decibel products.  If you can't find them,
I'll see if I can get a 3M part number off them.

--- Jeff
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finch
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 12:34 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thanks, Alum Tape and 
> Antenna...Tape part#?
> 
> 3M for the aluminum tape, bet it's on their website and you 
> can fine a local
> vendor from there.  The fiberglass tape you can get just 
> about anywhere, the
> tape DB used was like 1/2 inch wide so it would fit 
> completely under the
> aluminum tape.  I have used regular 3/4 inch fiberglass tape with no
> problems though.
> 
> Paul
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Preston Moore
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:25 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Thanks, Alum Tape and 
> Antenna...Tape part#?
> 
> While on this subject.  Can someone please advise on the 3M 
> part number for
> the aluminum and the fiberglass tape?  I found the Decibel 
> part numbers for
> the tape, but would rather find another source.  I have a 420 
> that needs the
> harness reattached.  Also, any suggestions on a general 
> cleaning of the
> antenna?  I was thinking of steel wool or the like.  Anyone?
> 
> Thanks
> Preston Moore, N5YIZ
> 
> 
>
> __
> __
> 
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now 
> (it's updated
> for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
> http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release 
> Date: 6/1/2007
> 11:22 AM
>  
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release 
> Date: 6/1/2007
> 11:22 AM
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release 
> Date: 6/1/2007 11:22 AM
>  
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] paging system

[mch]

I use paging in more than one format.

One is user initiated - just like playing a message.

Another is telemetry when something is wrong at the station. It's a page
followed by a report of the malfunction.

Both are perfectly legal under Part 97.

Joe M.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> At 6/2/2007 06:58, you wrote:
> 
> >the interpretation and implementation of the fcc
> >rules is not for you to deicde or interpret. they
> >are the final word on whether a system that you
> >may think perfectly legal and a logical
> >application of the rules is legal  and they
> >interpret the rules very literally.
> >public service is not a criterion for their
> >decision making.
> >the rules as written is the rules.
> >there are several guys on the group who have
> >years of experience in these matters.
> >paging as they use the term is broadcasting. a
> >one way transmission and that doesn't wash in the
> >amateur service.
> 
> 97.201 (e): An auxiliary station may transmit one-way communications.
> 
> Amateur paging, at least as how I use it, is a one way transmission from
> the "auxiliary" station to the pagee, & is not "broadcasting", a
> "one-to-many" transmission.
> 
> Bob NO6B
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: slightly OT: securing feedline to the side of a tower

[Kris Kirby]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007, Ron Wright, Skywarn Coodinator wrote:
> I have also seen 1ft pieces of #14 house wire cut to 1 ft lengths used 
> with success, but have to make sure properly route arround tower leg 
> flanges or movement, and there is suppose to be some movement, will 
> eventually ware into feedline jacket.  Prefer the clamps, but at $3 
> each the wire looked good and did work or now since 1998.

There's "do it right" and there's "do it again".

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The illegal we do immediately.  The unconstitutional takes
 a bit longer." -- Henry Kissinger

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star demo

[Kris Kirby]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007, Ron Wright, Skywarn Coodinator wrote:
> My question was the rigs/power/antennas/etc the same on both.  A test 
> of 10 W with D-Star and analog 1 watt HT does not address the issue.  
> I had hoped the D-Star rigs could be changed to analog making the only 
> difference the modulation, rx and tx.

Test lab setup: radio, attenuator, noise generator, combiner, radio.

Run the FM through the test, noting noise levels, etc. 

Then do the same with D-Star. 

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The illegal we do immediately.  The unconstitutional takes
 a bit longer." -- Henry Kissinger

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexer tuning - sanity check

[Ron Wright, Skywarn Coodinator]

Vern,

Typically a BP/BR has a wide pass and narrow notch.  On mobile 
duplexers the pass is usually very broad.  Base type often have 
pretty good attenuation a few MHz away.  Adding a bandpass will 
improve this.

No cavity is going to illimate something 16 kHz awaywell and let 
the desired sig thru.  On many duplexers a notch might be 50-100 kHz 
wide, but the pass is MHz wide.  For 16 kHz one would have to rely on 
the receiver selective IF filters, but for typical FM NB repeaters 
this is a bit much.  For SSB no problem assuming the signal is not 
very strong.

73, ron, n9ee/r



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "w6nct" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm tuning up a cavity-type duplexer for a 70cm repeater, and in the
> process, I showed my results to a fellow ham.  He asked a couple
> questions that cause me to think; so I decided to ask the experts...
> 
> FIRST QUESTION TOPIC:
> 
> For reference, my primary cavities were made by Tx-Rx Systems, and
> have both bandpass and band-reject tuning controls on each cavity. 
> When tuning them (either singularly or as pairs in-series), I see 
and
> can adjust the band-pass and notch for the desired Tx and Rx 
frequencies.
> 
> However, in the broad-band sweep, I can also see a bunch of other
> signals passing through the cavities; all of which are well away 
from
> my Tx/Rx frequencies.  I suspect that these are normal, and are a 
side
> effect of how the can-type resonant cavities work.  Am I correct in
> this assumption?
> 
> As a sanity check, I combined this set of cavities with another
> (Phelps-Dodge) set I have, and tuned these supplemental cavities for
> band-pass only (one cavity for my Tx frequency, and one cavity for 
my
> Rx frequency).  Sure enough when I put these in series with my 
primary
> set, I can eliminate nearly all of the "other signals" from the
> broad-band sweep.  This observation seems to reinforce my initial
> assumption about the Tx-Rx cavities.  Do you agree?
> 
> 
> SECOND QUESTION TOPIC:
> 
> The other ham thought that I should end up with a band-pass that is
> narrow enough to eliminate adjacent repeaters (at 16kHz spacing, as
> per the current SCRRBA band-plan separation).  I tried but I cannot
> get either set of cavities to have that narrow of a band-pass; at
> least not without sacraficing most of the signal in the process.  I
> suspect that the receiver and transmitter need to actually inforce
> these much narrower bandwidth requirements within the broader
> protection provided by the cavity-duplexer.  I suspect that I should
> focus my duplexer tuning on passing the desired frequency, notching
> the alternate repeater frequency, and trying to do so with the least
> amount of signal attenuation.  Am I correct in these understandings?
> 
> 
> 
> For both of these question topics, feel free to point out anything
> that I might be missing or misunderstanding.  I'm by no means
> sensative about this stuff, and still consider myself on the 
learning
> curve about duplexers and repeaters in general.
> 
> Thank-you (in advance) for your time, thought, and opinions.
> 
> <<< vern >>>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: slightly OT: securing feedline to the side of a tower

[Ron Wright, Skywarn Coodinator]

Jay,

Here on some of the towers that hold repeaters, cel phone sites, FM 
broadcast all with helix they use the proper clamp at 5 ft or less 
intervals.  See some at about 5" helix, but most either 7/8 or 1-5/8.

I have also seen 1ft pieces of #14 house wire cut to 1 ft lengths 
used with success, but have to make sure properly route arround tower 
leg flanges or movement, and there is suppose to be some movement, 
will eventually ware into feedline jacket.  Prefer the clamps, but at 
$3 each the wire looked good and did work or now since 1998.

73, ron, n9ee/r



In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jay Urish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
> This weekend I will be un jury rigging a lame feed line install at 
my 
> repeater site. The tower is a 300' four sided guyed monster.
> 
> I am planning on using uni-strut on the side facing the building 
and 
> using butterfly clamps or EMT clamps to hold my feed line. I am 
open to 
> suggestions on the vertical spacing of my unistrut brackets. At 
what 
> interval should 1/2 - 7/8 and 1-1/4 heliax be secured?
> 
> Any suggestions?
> -- 
> Jay Urish W5GM
> ARRL Life Member  Denton County ARRL VEC
> N5ERS VP/Trustee  
> 
> Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star demo

[Ron Wright, Skywarn Coodinator]

Hi all,

Thanks for the many responses, but guess no one had the answer to my 
question.

So I will try again.

I am interested in the parameters of the D-Star vs analog test.  It 
seems the testees had 2 receivers at a site, one D-Star and one 
conviental analog and made a transmission on each for the recording.

My question was the rigs/power/antennas/etc the same on both.  A test 
of 10 W with D-Star and analog 1 watt HT does not address the issue.  I 
had hoped the D-Star rigs could be changed to analog making the only 
difference the modulation, rx and tx.

Digial has invaded so much with much improved results.  Easy to see 
with Direct-TV or digital cable or fiber, as I have now, and it is 
worlds improvement over the old analog.  Same with HDTV over NTSC TV 
and not just because higher resolution.  However, many 2-way radio 
systems complain about digital with variations in signals digital often 
has problems.  With analog one might be noise, but can get the 
transmission, but as many have said with digital you are there or not, 
no in between.

Just wanted to know if the D-Star and analog test parameters.

73, ron, n9ee/r




--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Wright, Skywarn 
Coodinator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi all,
> 
> In the FILES section of this board is a Weak Sig D-Star demon by 
> WB9WZB.  Most impressive test.
> 
> Can anyone give details of the test...was same rig with power levels 
> and antennas used in the test???
> 
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: VHF Engineering PA-144 repair

[skipp025]

Hello Andreas, 

The first step would be to locate the Manual for the PA. Someone 
in the group here provided a copy of the manual to me in the past. 
If it's not also available in the Repeater Builder web site I can 
send you a copy... painfully slow from my current dial up connection. 

Try the RB web page first... 

skipp 

> Andreas Papagapiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
> 
> We have an old repeater made of "VHF Engineering" kits.
> The repeater suddently became silent. It seems that there's a problem 
> with the PA module
> (PA-144). I used a handheld radio to provide 1W input to the PA, but 
> there's no output.
> 
> Did anyone have a similar problem? Any ideas of what could be wrong?
> I've never tried to repair a PA again, so I need a place to start... :-)
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Andreas - 5B8AP
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date:
1/6/2007 11:22 ðì
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: TP163 Decoding

[skipp025]

Hi James, 

Kind of hard to understand what you want...   From what I gather 
you have repeaters with CSI TP-163 tone panels attached.  You dial 
up and download the Tone-Panel information, which was pretty standard 
some years back. 

You simply capture/log the downloaded data and probably save it 
to a text file.  Most of the terminal software has loging/recording 
functions available.  Procomm Plus is what I use most of the time. 

The text file can then be "plugged in" and sorted in MS Excel or 
similar Open Office spread sheet programs. 

After a bit of time you'll probably stop logging air time as most 
people don't bill/track by community repeater airtime much anymore. 
It just seems to be more work than it's worth. 

cheers, 
skipp 


> "jamesupington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Groupmembers,
> 
> Can anyone please help. We have a few TP163 repeaters installed and 
> manage them with simple DOS-bases automated software that dial each of 
> them up once a day. Most of the data we download we can use, but some 
> of it must be decoded for ex the total hits and airtime per user.
> 
> Sincerely
> James
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] paging system

[n9wys]

Hey - don't wrap me up in this, simply because I **am** "one To-many"...

73 de Mark TOMANY - N9WYS
Sorry - couldn't resist a bit of weird humor...  hi hi

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

97.201 (e): An auxiliary station may transmit one-way communications.

Amateur paging, at least as how I use it, is a one way transmission from 
the "auxiliary" station to the pagee, & is not "broadcasting", a 
"one-to-many" transmission.

Bob NO6B

[Repeater-Builder] VHF Engineering PA-144 repair

[Andreas Papagapiou]

Hello everyone,

We have an old repeater made of "VHF Engineering" kits.
The repeater suddently became silent. It seems that there's a problem 
with the PA module
(PA-144). I used a handheld radio to provide 1W input to the PA, but 
there's no output.

Did anyone have a similar problem? Any ideas of what could be wrong?
I've never tried to repair a PA again, so I need a place to start... :-)

cheers,

Andreas - 5B8AP


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date: 1/6/2007 11:22 ðì






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Repeater-Builder] TP163 Decoding

[jamesupington]

Groupmembers,

Can anyone please help. We have a few TP163 repeaters installed and 
manage them with simple DOS-bases automated software that dial each of 
them up once a day. Most of the data we download we can use, but some 
of it must be decoded for ex the total hits and airtime per user.

Sincerely
James

Re: [Repeater-Builder] paging system

[no6b]

At 6/2/2007 06:58, you wrote:

>the interpretation and implementation of the fcc
>rules is not for you to deicde or interpret. they
>are the final word on whether a system that you
>may think perfectly legal and a logical
>application of the rules is legal  and they
>interpret the rules very literally.
>public service is not a criterion for their
>decision making.
>the rules as written is the rules.
>there are several guys on the group who have
>years of experience in these matters.
>paging as they use the term is broadcasting. a
>one way transmission and that doesn't wash in the
>amateur service.

97.201 (e): An auxiliary station may transmit one-way communications.

Amateur paging, at least as how I use it, is a one way transmission from 
the "auxiliary" station to the pagee, & is not "broadcasting", a 
"one-to-many" transmission.

Bob NO6B

[Repeater-Builder] paging system

[Ted Bleiman K9MDM - MDM Radio]

it would have been fine with me for you to
identify me these guys know i'm a whacko.

the interpretation and implementation of the fcc
rules is not for you to deicde or interpret. they
are the final word on whether a system that you
may think perfectly legal and a logical 
application of the rules is legal  and they
interpret the rules very literally.
public service is not a criterion for their
decision making.
the rules as written is the rules.
there are several guys on the group who have
years of experience in these matters.
paging as they use the term is broadcasting. a
one way transmission and that doesn't wash in the
amateur service.
possibly your local fire dispatch center has
someone well versed in the fcc rules. bounce this
of'n him.
mdm ted 

  Ted Bleiman K9MDM
  MDM  Radio" If its in stock...we've got it!"
P O Box 31353
Chicago, IL 60631-0353 
773.631.5130  fax 773.775.8096  
   
  web http://www.mdmradio.com - 
   email -  [EMAIL PROTECTED] <<< DIRECT ALL EMAIL 












  
___
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Do Anyone Use Their Repeater For This

[Christopher Hodgdon]

Thanks for all the replies.  I wanted to bring this up and see what
ya'll think of it.

I had someone send me an email directly regarding this and I wanted to
further the question that was presented from it.  I do not wish to
include the email or name, as I wish to just make this a new question
on this same subject and see what everyone has to say.

The goal is (or was) to develop a paging system that would be included
on our repeater system once it's operational.  Though during most of
the time, the repeater would be available to the general amateur radio
users, it will be owned and operated by our ARES program and during
times of emergency would become a ARES operational repeater only,
meaning emergency traffic only.

Th purpose of the pager system is that we wish to provide both our
ARES members, some older with no cellphone or on limited funds, or
might not have a mobile rig, but work from a base station and to
provide our CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) program also with
pagers for call outs, as they 1. might be the same people, or 2 have
no need for a regular amateur radio as they might not have their
license.  Though we are asking them to get one if they can.  This
would allow them to receive the callout, but we would not have to
worry about them illegally broadcasting on the frequency.

The pagers and tones would only be used when an emergency arises and
not be used on a normal basis.  

The issue brought up in the email was that 

"using paging for your area emergency alerting is
probably a good idea for the amatuers but you
can't 'broadcast' in amateur so it won't work for
the non-amateur volunteers. how will the fcc
know...trust me they will know and  apply the
regs.sternly. you may be better off getting the
hams on the fire freq than the other way around.

the trick is that you must identify who you are
calling then page that person. unless they have
relaxed the regs and i doubt that..."

I would figure that this idea would be legally under FCC rules, as I
would not consider it broadcasting.  I may be wrong, but I would think
that if sending out a tone page to people that have the pagers or
radios setup to receive it, would be considered a 1 way announcement,
such as a club meeting reminder that might be sent out, or the various
information spots that are sent out by the ARRL on the W1AW.  Would I
be right in assuming that a page that follows this format,

"TONE A - TONE B, Attenattion all Kaufman County ARES Members, we are
activiting the skywarn net at the request of the National Weather
Service, with severe storms moving into our county, First Page 2:00pm
- KE5KBY"

or 

"TONE A - TONE B, Attention Kaufman County CERT, we have a major
accident on Highway 20, 2 miles east of Terrell, assistance required,
First Tone 1:30 am - KE5KBY"

I consider this to be an information transmission, identifying the
people that are receiving the page, the time and orginiating callsign.  

Now, granted ARES members or CERT members that are amateur operators
would be able to reply to inform they are responding, but otherwise,
this is just an information page being sent out.

I have heard clubs here locally send the following:

"To all TVARC members, we will be holding our monthly meeting and swap
shop on March 20, at the Mcdonalds on I-20 in Terrell.  We will start
at 5:00"

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the same type of "page"
announcement as I described in my pages.

Would like all sorts of input on this.  

If it comes down to it and we can find the funding, yeah, it would be
nice to have a commericial system on a non-amateur frequency, and we
have even been quoted on a system that would also include 2 way
pagers, which would allow the person receiving the page to respond
back to the base stations, which we really are not worried about, but
he system to cover our county would cost us about $350,000.00

The main problem with going with a commercial paging system, as far as
getting an account with a company, is that not many of them offer
voice paging and if we get the alpha pagers, so that details can be
sent, it would cost us more than we want to pay out each month.  I
know that our sherrif's department using one transmitter and tones
most of the fire departments in the county, though 2 or 3 run their
own radio systems.  But to try and get approval to add tones to their
system and allow us to get the pagers is almost impossible. 
Basically, they feel that their dispatchers are already doing to much.

Maybe we need to by the $350,000 system and get the fire departments
to change their paging service over to it and charge a small yearly
fee to maintain their system?  Hmm...

Thanks for the input and look forward to this ones also.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Do Anyone Use Their Repeater For This

[exkal_work]

Take a look at www.apollowireless.com.  They sell pagers that can be 
programmed for both frequency and cap-code through the keypad of the 
pager.  Retail, the Apollo Gold (a direct copy of the Motorola 
Advisor Gold) goes for about $140 Canadian.  They're fully 
synthesized and are available in VHF, UHF and 900MHz - they'll all go 
into the respective ham band with no problem at all.

-M

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
> > And many pager receivers are crystal controlled, and most of them 
> > won't go down
> > to 2m or 440 amateur. Those that will still need  crystal, and 
they 
> > won't be cheap...
> > And those that are programmable and in surplus generally aren't 
analog.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexer tuning - sanity check

[Nate Duehr]

On May 31, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Bob M. wrote:

> The duplexers on UHF are typically set for 5 MHz
> spacing, although closer spacing is often available.
> The purpose of the duplexer is to allow the receiver
> and transmitter to share one antenna. They offer very
> little filtering of other nearby signals. You need a
> good, selective receiver front end to handle that. The
> transmitter can often be cleaned up by adding an
> isolator to the output; some units may already have
> that feature, especially commercial base stations.

Just to clarify a point here, I think I see what you're saying, but  
it's slightly misleading for those who haven't used them...

An isolator does nothing to "clean" a transmitted signal.  It's a  
circulator with a 50 ohm resistive dummy load on one or more ports  
coming back toward your transmitter.

It keeps reflected RF in your antenna and feedline system (hopefully  
you don't have any, but there's always some...) and OTHER  
transmitters out of yours.  (Also very helpful if your antenna falls  
off the tower and virtually all of the RF is being reflected... your  
PA might still survive... if the load can handle the power.)

Since they're ferrous devices, they can actually CREATE broadband  
noise and IMD.

So I guess you could call keeping external RF signals from coming  
down your feedline, and out of your TX -- thus keeping all those  
frequencies from MIXING in your transmitter --  "cleaning" --  but  
that's not what most people think of when they see that word...

 From your description, folks might think an isolator is something  
like a bandpass filter (which it's a good idea to have PAST an  
isolator) on the TX side of things.  That's definitely not what they do.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star demo

[Nate Duehr]

On May 30, 2007, at 8:50 PM, mch wrote:

> Actually correction for half of the 'other 2400' and the other 1200 is
> for data.
>
> Joe M.

Ahh yes, oops.  You got it right.  Thanks Joe.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X