RE: [Repeater-Builder] 220 link radios

[Don KA9QJG]

__,_.
Speaking of the Alnico DR-235 ,  I had A Ham Friend  Who was told  by a Ham
Radio Dealer  with   four State stores  the Radio has been discontinued ,
They had one left ,  and the Reason was the New Model would come out made
with Lead free Solder



I have No idea if this is true or not, but maybe with the Lead Toy problem
that  was in the News Who  knows .



Happy Repeater Building



Don KA9QJG _,___

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed

[Kris Kirby]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Jeff wrote:
> There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for Amateur 
> Repeaters.  Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas 
> (450-470 MHz).  I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune 
> one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible.

You know, there's probably a ton of 400-420MHz folded dipoles out there 
on federal sites that will have to be replaced sooner or later...

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* WAR IS PEACE *  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY *
* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH * KETCHUP IS *
  * A VEGETABLE *

Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

[MCH]

Which proposal is that?

Joe M.

> George Henry wrote:
> 
> That pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin of TASMA's
> proposal

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

[Gran Clark]

If you look at the price list is says "discontinued".  Had I seen the 
Tessco unit I might have gone that way.  The $20 dollar ID board will 
meet FCC requirements and the ID will not be heard at the other end 
of the link so everyone is happy.


Gran



Tessco


At 08:37 PM 9/20/2007, you wrote:

http://www.com-spec.com/index1.htm 
Left side of the page 9th item down


http://www.com-spec.com/id8.htm


Milt
- Original Message -
From: Gran Clark
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

Milt

I could not find an ID-8 to purchase.   ComSpec did not list the 
item.  I could have missed it.



Gran K6RIF


At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote:


Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though
that this little gadget.

Milt
N3LTQ

- Original Message -
From: "Gran Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: < 
Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

> Hi All
>
> On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the
> ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets.
>
> This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in
> about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say
> anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using
> this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable
> Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin
> COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm.
>
> My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The
> identifier START "COS" is low true so you may have to invert a high
> true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave,
> as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400
> Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square
> wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to
> the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is
> negative true and will "or" with most PTT logic. Be very careful to
> use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter
> reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz
> deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking.
>
> Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on
> the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others
> on the linked system.
>
> I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar
> needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds
> more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users
> of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The
> other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so
> you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component
> side.
>
> Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see
> and he is great to work with if needed.
>
> All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode
> matrix ID boards!
>
> 
http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64

>
> Gran K6RIF
>
> Gran K6RIF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q-2B05D duplexer

[Burt Lang]

According to an old Sinclair datasheet, the 2B indicates a frequency 
range of 132-150 MHz, the trailing D indicates 3 in cans and the O5 is 
an engineering number.  Looking at Q-203D specs shows 3 MHz min spacing, 
0.6dB insertion loss and 65 dB isolation.

Hope that helps.

Burt Lang  VE2BMQ>>>

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Trying to find specs of the above. It appears to be abt. 20 yrs. old., 5 mhz 
> spacing ?? 
> 
> Any further info is appreciated. 
> 
> Jerry VE3 EXT
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] E.F. Johnson/Dataradio DL-3410 info needed.

[Daron J. Wilson]

I believe they claim no alignment required for the entire band of coverage.
Now.if you figure out how to hack the software and get them into the ham
bands, let me know.  I've not had much luck with their tech guys even though
I use these for telemetry on a regular basis, they claim they just won't go
down to the ham bands.  I suspect they will, just haven't tried getting them
down there.

 

You can always call Joe at tech support, he's pretty good as far as helping
with issues.

 

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kb4mdz
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:49 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] E.F. Johnson/Dataradio DL-3410 info needed.

 

Anyone have any info on alignment, etc. on a E.F. Johnson DL-3410 
radio, Receiver or Transmitter? Got one of RX, two of TX, and am 
trying to decide on suitability for little g-job idea.

Thanks,
Chuk G.
kb4mdz

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] E.F. Johnson/Dataradio DL-3410 info needed.

[Burt Lang]

You might try Dataradio Inc.  They took over the EF Johnson data radio 
line as I recall.

www.dataradio.com/

Burt  VE2BMQ

kb4mdz wrote:
> Anyone have any info on alignment, etc. on a E.F. Johnson DL-3410 
> radio, Receiver or  Transmitter?   Got one of RX, two of TX, and am 
> trying to decide on suitability for  little g-job idea.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chuk G.
> kb4mdz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair duplexer notches

[Burt Lang]

lpcoates wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I'm helping a friend who wants to convert a Sinclair Res-Lok 4 cavity 
> combiner into a duplexer.  Basically turning it into a Q2220E I 
> think).  As far as I can tell, it should be possible by simply adding a 
> vatialbe cap to the coupling loops.  I still haven't found the answers 
> to to two questions.
> 
> 
> 2. What determines the location of the notch?  two cavities will have 
> the notch above the pass band and the other two will have the notch 
> below the pass band.  I suspect there's something different about the 
> coupling loops but I don't know what.

There is no difference between the loops for hi side or lo side notches. 
  A loop with series capacitor will have 2 notches, one above and one 
below the pass frequency. On VHF they are separated by about 10 MHz. The 
capacitor shifts the pair of notches relative to the pass frequency. 
More capacity, lower notch freqs. A low pass notch needs typically 10-12 
pf and a high side 20-25 pf. You will need to use very hi Q capacitors. 
  On VHF the value of the capacitor should be 30 pf.  Sinclair use 
Johanson 5600 (or 5602) 1-30pf trimmers.  They are costly, typically 
12-15$ each and not readily available surplus.  An alternative is to use 
1-10 pf trimmers (Johanson 5200 series) in parallel. They are readily 
available surplus for $1 or less each. You would need two for a low pass 
notch and 3 for a high pass notch.

Warning:  Never use any trimmer that has a sliding or rotating contact 
in the RF circuit.  From experience they are almost guaranteed to cause 
noise problems. The Johanson trimmers use a bellows to make solid 
contact to the movable element.

Good luck in your project

Burt VE2BMQ>>

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bruce
> VE5BNC

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

[David Struebel]

I believe you can still buy an ID-8 from AES.
They are a little pricy but work great.. I have two of them somewhere here in 
the shack if you know what I mean
Dave WB2FTX
  - Original Message - 
  From: Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier


  Hutton no longer carries Comspec. I just ordered 3 ID8s yesterday. My 
  account from 1985 was still good. Steve NU5D

  I wonder if I should have purchased one of the micro repeater 
  controllers, though - get ID plus controllersb

  Mike Morris wrote:
  > At 09:13 AM 09/20/07, you wrote:
  >> Milt
  >>
  >> I could not find an ID-8 to purchase. ComSpec did not list the 
  >> item. I could have missed it.
  >
  > Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
  > Change settings via the Web 
  > 

 
  > (Yahoo! ID required)
  > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest 
  >  
  > | Switch to Fully Featured 
  >  
  >
  > Visit Your Group 
  > 

 
  > | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use  | 
  > Unsubscribe 
  > 
  >
  > 



   


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 
12:07 PM

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed

[n0qzv_jhorn]

The DB 404 and 408 are great antennas, however I just purchased an 
Antenex YDA-4404 which is a regular 4 bay dipole.  It is not as heavy 
duty as the DB antennas but is still better than most fiberglass 
antennas. It is tuneable and it tends to be about half of the price 
of the DB as well.  I think I paid around $180 for it on the web.  
http://www.antenex.com/index051206.htm

thanks

James N0QZV


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> Well, it finally happened.  We got hit by lightning.  And it blew 
the
> antenna in half on the 444.325 machine here at the college.
> 
> It wasn't a great antenna to begin with, obviously.  We'd like to go
> back with something much better if possible.  We're thinking maybe a
> multibay folded dipole antenna of some sort with an omni pattern 
like
> the DB 404, but if there's a better choice we'd love to hear it.
> 
> There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for 
Amateur 
> Repeaters.  Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas
> (450-470 MHz).  I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune
> one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible.
> 
> What is the consensus Best UHF Repeater Antenna, considering all the
> above (omnidirectional, probably no more than 100 watts)? 
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Jeff/KD4RBG
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 03:51 PM 09/20/07, you wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Rosing wrote:
> > What other things out there "repeat" but arent repeaters?
>
>Digipeaters. Since no one ever made a full-duplex digipeater...
>--
>Kris Kirby, KE4AHR  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>* WAR IS PEACE *  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY *
>* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH * KETCHUP IS *
>   * A VEGETABLE *

Sorry, you are wrong on that.

Talk to WB6YMH - Skip Hansen.
Had a 2m digipeater here in LA for over 10 years (maybe 20, I've
not been on packet for along time).

Mike 

[Repeater-Builder] looking for Motorola part number

[Milt]

Looking for the part number for the cable entrance kit for the newer 
Motorola cabinets (Quantar etc.).  The access holes are in the top of the 
cabinet and are 
about 3.5-4" diameter.  The kit consists of 2 plates that slide across each 
other with one on the outside of the cabinet and one on the inside as I 
recall.

Thanks in advance.

Milt
N3LTQ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

[George Henry]

That pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin of TASMA's proposal

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed

[TGundo 2003]

I should add unless your obsessed you dont need to re-tune. My 2 uhf machines 
are using second-hand 450-470 DB-420's, each site is 1.2:1 or less on the ham 
band (441.300 on the lowest output).

TGundo 2003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:DB-420 is the way to go, 
DB-408 second chioce. 450-470 version will go in the ham band no problem. Thats 
my vote.
   
  Tom
  W9SRV

-
  Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.  

   
-
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed

[TGundo 2003]

DB-420 is the way to go, DB-408 second chioce. 450-470 version will go in the 
ham band no problem. Thats my vote.
   
  Tom
  W9SRV

   
-
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed

[Captainlance]

Check out Comtelco antennas, you will find them online. We use several of them, 
very good quality, reasonable cost.
lance/N2HBA
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jay Urish 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed




  Jeff wrote:
  > 
  > 
  > Hi all,
  > 
  > Well, it finally happened. We got hit by lightning. And it blew the
  > antenna in half on the 444.325 machine here at the college.
  > 
  > It wasn't a great antenna to begin with, obviously. We'd like to go
  > back with something much better if possible. We're thinking maybe a
  > multibay folded dipole antenna of some sort with an omni pattern like
  > the DB 404, but if there's a better choice we'd love to hear it.
  > 
  > There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for Amateur
  > Repeaters. Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas
  > (450-470 MHz). I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune
  > one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible.
  > 
  > What is the consensus Best UHF Repeater Antenna, considering all the
  > above (omnidirectional, probably no more than 100 watts)?

  Get a DB-420... They are plenty broadband...Don't think.. Just do it!

  -- 
  Jay Urish W5GM
  ARRL Life Member Denton County ARRL VEC
  N5ERS VP/Trustee 

  Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5



   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

[Milt]

http://www.com-spec.com/index1.htm   Left side of the page 9th item down

http://www.com-spec.com/id8.htm


Milt
  - Original Message - 
  From: Gran Clark 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier


  Milt

  I could not find an ID-8 to purchase.   ComSpec did not list the item.  I 
could have missed it.


  Gran K6RIF


  At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote:


Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though 
that this little gadget.

Milt
N3LTQ

- Original Message - 
From: "Gran Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: < Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

> Hi All
>
> On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the
> ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets.
>
> This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in
> about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say
> anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using
> this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable
> Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin
> COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm.
>
> My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The
> identifier START "COS" is low true so you may have to invert a high
> true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave,
> as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400
> Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square
> wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to
> the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is
> negative true and will "or" with most PTT logic. Be very careful to
> use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter
> reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz
> deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking.
>
> Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on
> the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others
> on the linked system.
>
> I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar
> needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds
> more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users
> of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The
> other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so
> you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component 
> side.
>
> Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see
> and he is great to work with if needed.
>
> All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode
> matrix ID boards!
>
> http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64
>
> Gran K6RIF
>
> Gran K6RIF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed

[Jay Urish]

Jeff wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Well, it finally happened. We got hit by lightning. And it blew the
> antenna in half on the 444.325 machine here at the college.
> 
> It wasn't a great antenna to begin with, obviously. We'd like to go
> back with something much better if possible. We're thinking maybe a
> multibay folded dipole antenna of some sort with an omni pattern like
> the DB 404, but if there's a better choice we'd love to hear it.
> 
> There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for Amateur
> Repeaters. Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas
> (450-470 MHz). I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune
> one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible.
> 
> What is the consensus Best UHF Repeater Antenna, considering all the
> above (omnidirectional, probably no more than 100 watts)?


Get a DB-420... They are plenty broadband...Don't think.. Just do it!


-- 
Jay Urish W5GM
ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC
N5ERS VP/Trustee

Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5

[Repeater-Builder] Lightning Damage, new UHF antenna needed

[Jeff]

Hi all,

Well, it finally happened.  We got hit by lightning.  And it blew the
antenna in half on the 444.325 machine here at the college.

It wasn't a great antenna to begin with, obviously.  We'd like to go
back with something much better if possible.  We're thinking maybe a
multibay folded dipole antenna of some sort with an omni pattern like
the DB 404, but if there's a better choice we'd love to hear it.

There don't seem to be a lot of choices in antennas tuned for Amateur 
Repeaters.  Most of the ones we're seeing are Part 90 antennas
(450-470 MHz).  I don't know how much trouble it would be to retune
one or in the case of phased folded dipoles if it's even possible.

What is the consensus Best UHF Repeater Antenna, considering all the
above (omnidirectional, probably no more than 100 watts)? 

Thanks in advance,

Jeff/KD4RBG

[Repeater-Builder] WTD: 19D432500G1 Channel guard board for mastr II

[Don Wisdom]

Hi All,
The subject line says it all.   Im looking for a 19D432500G1 channel guard
board for a Mastr II. This is the dip switch encode / decode board.  My old
versatone one died:/   I would also take a 19D432500G3 board which is decode
only (but still dip switch programmable!)
Please contact me off list @ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove
underscores)
Thanks
--Don Wisdom
KD7WKF

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF band opening

[Jeff DePolo]

> >  repeater owners in the New York City metro found  that they 
> > had fewer issues with desense and overload if they flipped to a 
> > negative offset (i.e. get the ham repeater Rx further away from 
> > the 450-455 commercial repeater Tx's). 
> 
> ... which is not really a valid reason. Probably a combination of 
> the available receivers of the day and lack of resources (cavities 
> and duplexers)... not to mention a bit of being lazy ("taking the 
> easy way out") 
> s. 

Or they were converting UHF Micor mobiles into repeaters and didn't realize
high-side injection was an option (inside joke for you Micor mobile fans out
there).

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Jack Taylor]

To add to Nate's comments, prospective D-Star system builders
might coordinate with one of their local MARS services.  MARS
is currently proposing to partner with the ARRL in providing
emergency communications support and an opportunity to
have assistance in setting up a D-Star system should be well
received.

73 de Jack  -  N7OO

  - Original Message - 
  From: Nate Duehr 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater 
coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...


  Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote:

  > If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all 
  > means leave it alone. Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well 
  > with a bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a 
  > couple of minutes a day. The folks wanting the digital repeater could 
  > help fix Joe's antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to 
  > mess with it. If they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM 
  > repeater not much different than the others in town. If they partner 
  > with Joe and upgrade to digital, depending on whether they occupy the 
  > middle of the channel, or offset up or down 6.25 Khz, they can restore 
  > Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make room for one more repeater 
  > in the area.

  While I have no interest in putting a D-Star system on-air, I agree with 
  Steve's sentiment that people wanting to put things on-air in crowded 
  bands can almost ALWAYS find a limping/dead system that needs some help.

  And unless the owner is a total jerk (happens... what-do-ya-do?), if a 
  group of people approached Old Joe with a reasonable "upgrade" plan to 
  digital, and perhaps even offered to BUY OLD JOE A RIG for that new 
  mode... he'd be a proponent and HAPPY to participate, in an awful lot of 
  cases.

  Old Joe is probably PROUD of his old, tired, beat-down repeater... 
  that's the part that a lot of people forget. Back when Old Joe built 
  it, he had more money, more time, and the technology was probably harder 
  to deal with, and he didn't even have access to test gear! He's not 
  going to toss his hard work out without feeling INVOLVED and APPRECIATED 
  by the newbies, but if they play their cards right -- he'll be their 
  best ALLY, and will start spreading the word about the "new repeater on 
  the block"... ESPECIALLY if those building it don't mind leaving Old 
  Joe's CALLSIGN on it.

  There's some basic "How to make friends and influence people" type stuff 
  going on here, that new builders seem to think aren't important...

  Want to REALLY impress Old Joe, fire up a mixed-mode Quantar with P25 on 
  his pair, buying whatever new antennas/hardline/duplexer... whatever it 
  takes to get it to perform well. You can't as easily do this with 
  D-Star... You probably have to buy Old Joe a radio or two.

  But with P-25 mixed-mode repeaters, you can have a "transition" process 
  for Old Joe and his friends with a mixed-mode repeater for a while... 
  announce a date in which you're going to shut down the analog side of 
  things... talk up the digital side... etc.

  You don't get the benefit of the smaller utilization of bandwidth at 
  first, but Old Joe's repeater wasn't going anywhere anyway, and now 
  you've got a dual-usage scenario that works.

  (This "idea" leaves out a lot... like the fact that D-Star's ability to 
  automatically link person-to-person via Internet gateways and callsigns 
  blows anything currently available at a reasonable price for P25 out of 
  the water for hams... for the time being, anyway... but it's just meant 
  to be an example of "thinking outside of the box".)

  Nevertheless, whatever you do -- work with Old Joe and not against 
  him... again, he's got a personal, EMOTIONAL, connection with that 
  repeater... that you have to take into account when trying to find a 
  place to put something new.

  Nate WY0X


   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

[Nate Duehr]

Kris Kirby wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Rosing wrote:
>> What other things out there "repeat" but arent repeaters?
> 
> Digipeaters. Since no one ever made a full-duplex digipeater...

Huh?  Sure they did.  Our club did it in the late 80's and early 90's 
when regular AX.25 packet radio was a lot more popular.

It was called a repeater with bit-regeneration, and they were deployed 
(around here anyway) inside the repeater sub-bands.

The system transmitted at the same time as it was receiving.

Our club had both 1200 baud VHF and 9600 baud UHF varieties on the air 
in our not-so-distant past.

They were built to address the "hidden node" problems inherent in 
simplex packet radio, to have a "coverage area" where either the user 
was "in" or "out" of the repeater...

There was minimal (but measurable) delay from input to output, just like 
the current D-Star, P-25, whatever... digitized voice repeaters.

By having channel traffic go through a bit-regeneration repeater system, 
with separate input/output frequencies and good coverage, it kept 
stations unable to hear other stations with widly varying capabilities 
in RF power levels, antenna, and receiver performance, from colliding on 
the channel and struggling to communicate effectively on busy channels.

Mathematics shows that in cases where some stations can hear others, 
whereas a third station (or fourth, fifth, sixth) can only hear one of 
the original two stations, there's a cap on effective channel throughput 
as eventually the channel (in the worst-case scenario) becomes saturated 
with re-tries to re-send "crashed" packets of data... no matter how hard 
you try to randomize the re-try back-off timers.

In the full-duplex repeater scenario, once a particular station 
"captured" the repeater, they had the channel -- period -- until they 
stopped sending or the repeater's digital hardware forced a timeout.

Nate WY0X

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Nate Duehr]

Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote:

> If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all 
> means leave it alone.  Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well 
> with a bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a 
> couple of minutes a day.  The folks wanting the digital repeater could 
> help fix Joe's antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to 
> mess with it.  If they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM 
> repeater not much different than the others in town.  If they partner 
> with Joe and upgrade to digital, depending on whether they occupy the 
> middle of the channel, or offset up or down 6.25 Khz, they can restore 
> Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make room for one more repeater 
> in the area.

While I have no interest in putting a D-Star system on-air, I agree with 
Steve's sentiment that people wanting to put things on-air in crowded 
bands can almost ALWAYS find a limping/dead system that needs some help.

And unless the owner is a total jerk (happens... what-do-ya-do?), if a 
group of people approached Old Joe with a reasonable "upgrade" plan to 
digital, and perhaps even offered to BUY OLD JOE A RIG for that new 
mode... he'd be a proponent and HAPPY to participate, in an awful lot of 
cases.

Old Joe is probably PROUD of his old, tired, beat-down repeater... 
that's the part that a lot of people forget.  Back when Old Joe built 
it, he had more money, more time, and the technology was probably harder 
to deal with, and he didn't even have access to test gear!  He's not 
going to toss his hard work out without feeling INVOLVED and APPRECIATED 
by the newbies, but if they play their cards right -- he'll be their 
best ALLY, and will start spreading the word about the "new repeater on 
the block"... ESPECIALLY if those building it don't mind leaving Old 
Joe's CALLSIGN on it.

There's some basic "How to make friends and influence people" type stuff 
going on here, that new builders seem to think aren't important...

Want to REALLY impress Old Joe, fire up a mixed-mode Quantar with P25 on 
his pair, buying whatever new antennas/hardline/duplexer... whatever it 
takes to get it to perform well.  You can't as easily do this with 
D-Star... You probably have to buy Old Joe a radio or two.

But with P-25 mixed-mode repeaters, you can have a "transition" process 
for Old Joe and his friends with a mixed-mode repeater for a while... 
announce a date in which you're going to shut down the analog side of 
things... talk up the digital side... etc.

You don't get the benefit of the smaller utilization of bandwidth at 
first, but Old Joe's repeater wasn't going anywhere anyway, and now 
you've got a dual-usage scenario that works.

(This "idea" leaves out a lot... like the fact that D-Star's ability to 
automatically link person-to-person via Internet gateways and callsigns 
blows anything currently available at a reasonable price for P25 out of 
the water for hams... for the time being, anyway... but it's just meant 
to be an example of "thinking outside of the box".)

Nevertheless, whatever you do -- work with Old Joe and not against 
him... again, he's got a personal, EMOTIONAL, connection with that 
repeater... that you have to take into account when trying to find a 
place to put something new.

Nate WY0X

Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

[Bob Dengler]

At 9/20/2007 03:44 PM, you wrote:
>Ok, For someone who isnt that much into the rules and regsthat would 
>seem like a duh statement.   Why is this such a big deal?  To me, a 
>repeater repeats the signal, hince a repeater.  Looking at it, I am seeing 
>that you refer to delays and transmission protocolWhat other things 
>out there "repeat" but arent repeaters?

Kenwood SkyCommand.  100s of "remote bases" in SoCal.  I won't speak for 
other areas, since I'm not familiar with what operators in those areas 
consider their systems to be.  Here, they're "auxiliary stations".  Don't 
believe me?  Consider that back in the early 70's when repeaters & 
auxiliary stations required separate licenses from the FCC, remote base 
owners had to submit detailed information to the FCC (block diagrams, etc.) 
in order to obtain those licenses.  Many licenses issued for what most 
people on this list consider "repeaters" were actually auxiliary station 
licenses, which IIRC used callsigns from the standard group D block (2x3) 
at the time (i.e. WA6BCD); repeaters had the special "WR" prefix.

So if these systems that clearly "repeat" were "repeaters", why did the 
owners apply for auxiliary station licenses, & why did the FCC issue all 
those auxiliary station licenses to these "repeaters" after receiving the 
detailed paperwork clearly indicating the mode of operation?  Because these 
stations, by nature of their operation, were in fact auxiliary 
stations.  Obviously they do "repeat", but if they operate within a network 
of cooperating amateur stations, they can be classified as auxiliary 
stations.  The definition as written is rather loose, but that is a debate 
for some other reflector.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Nate Bargmann]

* Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Sep 20 09:46 -0500]:

> Look at http://www.dstarusers.org and see who is talking now.

Interesting page.  Thanks.

> Maybe this digital stuff is just a fad, and when it dies out, channels 
> used for digital should be returned to re-coordination, but to kill an 
> innovation at the onset by not allowing a place to operate when there is 
> unused / underused space available  just isn't right. 

It's not a fad as I believe it is here to stay.  Most likely it won't
remain in its present form for very long as new CODECs and other
techniques will supplant the current.  I just don't see amateur radio
becoming an all digital service in the foreseeable future.  The present
analog modes still have plenty of usefulness and amateur radio will
remain a playground where the past, present, and future come together.

> As far as constant chatter - I would not want that either, but there are 
> some repeaters that are just plain dead.  It also seems the assumption 
> here is that Joe would not be agreeable to the new folks proposal,  
> maybe he would be.

If they buy him a complimentary radio and respect his prior efforts,
Old Joe may well not just approve, but offer more help than they ask
for.  It's all in the approach.  Too many times we prepare for an
adversarial position when none exists.  Flies to honey and all that.

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] Re: Making room for the new guy

[tony dinkel]

Here is my combination rant/contribution to thread drift...

I recently monitored an exchange on my company's technical email list relating 
to a guy who had set up an ISDN codec system for a broadcast remote.  The 
question was, "how do I get rid of the delay?"  I wanted to start acting like 
the dog on Family Guy when one of the humans does something really stupid to 
him, "what the hell Peter, what the hell!"  But I contained myself.  Yes, I 
have read Shannon, Hartley, Viterbi and a bunch of other people's stuff that 
were/are way smarter than me.

Bottom line here is this, my stuff, the channels I am allowed to occupy and 
most if not all of my equipment is gona' be ANALOG for a damn long time.  Don't 
even try to sell me that crap and don't get it within 20 kHz of the frequencies 
I am using.  After you pull my lifeless, charred body off of my equipment, you 
can do whatever the hell you want, I wont care anymore.

Digital cellphones, digital broadcasting both radio and TV and digital whatever 
else for the sake of going digital is not about getting the message through 
cleaner and farther.  It should be but its not.  I get a reminder of that 
whenever I talk on my digital cellphone.  What crap!  

There are large companies here in So Cal that consider things like Nextel 
walkie talkie an integral part of their emergency restoration plan.  There is 
nothing funnier than to be in a conference room with a bunch of execs trying to 
talk to each other on their PTT cellphones and thinking that its great.

Then there was the non-english speaking plumber crew we had to my house not 
long ago.  They had Nextels, one guy was under my house, almost underground, 
right up against my foundation, trying to talk to the guy working on my kitchen 
sink, with the radios not much more than 6 feet from each other.  The radios 
were spewing stuff I couldn't understand even if they were speaking english.  
Obviously, they couldn't understand each other either because they had to 
resort to screaming through the floor and stomping their feet to communicate.

Lets stick with analog and fall back to simplex when we need to.  Because the 
message has to get through the first time!  There may not be a second chance.

Sorry for the BW.

td
wb6mie

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

[Nate Bargmann]

* n9wys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Sep 20 15:02 -0500]:

> Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems...  I didn't
> become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in
> radio.  But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an
> "appliance operator"...  I need to be able to understand how it works, and
> if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it.  Based on the earlier
> statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to "box and
> ship" it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge
> step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 

Actually, not so much a step backward as outward, as we hams have so
far avoided being held hostage by the manufacturers in that way.  Sure,
most any modern radio is likely to be factory repaired, but many
independent shops also perform the work.  If a future digital
implementation were to use a codec under a license prevents divulging
of its operational parameters, then ham radio is "had".

> I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice,
> since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to "Expan(d) the
> existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators,
> technicians, and electronics experts."  [Part 97.1(d)]

I most assuredly agree with your conclusion.

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

Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

[Kris Kirby]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Rosing wrote:
> What other things out there "repeat" but arent repeaters?

Digipeaters. Since no one ever made a full-duplex digipeater...

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* WAR IS PEACE *  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY *
* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH * KETCHUP IS *
  * A VEGETABLE *

Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

[Chris Rosing]

Ok, For someone who isnt that much into the rules and regsthat would seem 
like a duh statement.   Why is this such a big deal?  To me, a repeater repeats 
the signal, hince a repeater.  Looking at it, I am seeing that you refer to 
delays and transmission protocolWhat other things out there "repeat" but 
arent repeaters?

Chris


- Original Message 
From: Mark Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
List for people interested in the D Star repeaters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 2:35:05 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as 
repeaters

- Forwarded Message 
From: Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>
To: coordinator@ yahoogroups. com; 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:15:49 PM
Subject: NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters


The membership of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council has voted to
ask the FCC to treat all repeaters as repeaters, regardless of mode or
transmission protocol. The following motion was adopted:

That the NFCC send a letter to the FCC that states that the NFCC believes
that any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that
automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a
different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in
processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station
within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal
Communications Commission, and should be treated as such.

Under the NFCC's proportional voting system, 93 votes were cast in favor of
the motion by 19 members, and 54 against by 11 members.

The letter will be sent to the FCC's Bill Cross today.
-- 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC   http://www.conmicro .com
http://jmaynard. livejournal. com  http://www.tronguy. net
http://www.hercules -390.org   (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepres s.com/hercules- 390




Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 

[Repeater-Builder] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

[Mark Thompson]

- Forwarded Message 
From: Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:15:49 PM
Subject: NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters


The membership of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council has voted to
ask the FCC to treat all repeaters as repeaters, regardless of mode or
transmission protocol. The following motion was adopted:

That the NFCC send a letter to the FCC that states that the NFCC believes
that any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that
automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a
different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in
processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station
within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal
Communications Commission, and should be treated as such.

Under the NFCC's proportional voting system, 93 votes were cast in favor of
the motion by 19 members, and 54 against by 11 members.

The letter will be sent to the FCC's Bill Cross today.
-- 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC   http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com  http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org   (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390


   

Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

[Kenneth Hansen]

you have my vote
100% agreement

KB2SSE

Ken


On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 14:56 -0500, n9wys wrote:
> Gentle people,
> 
> I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread
> progress.
> And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own
> opinions on
> digital vs. analog. (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star)
> 
> Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or
> better
> said, "digitized") voice thing has me very concerned. As a public
> safety
> worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance
> and
> call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few
> syllables were dropped because of the CODEC. For example: how many
> people
> have told someone else on their cell phone that "you sounded like you
> just
> went under water?" (Especially with Nextel?) Or suddenly had your
> call
> discontinued - with no prior warning/indication?
> 
> As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical
> traffic...
> we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly
> received in
> the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the
> message or it is obscured because of "artificial" means. My question
> is:
> why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by
> adding
> another layer of fallibility into the picture?
> 
> Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems... I
> didn't
> become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest
> in
> radio. But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an
> "appliance operator"... I need to be able to understand how it works,
> and
> if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it. Based on the
> earlier
> statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to "box
> and
> ship" it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a
> huge
> step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 
> 
> I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge
> disservice,
> since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to "Expan(d)
> the
> existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained
> operators,
> technicians, and electronics experts." [Part 97.1(d)]
> 
> OK, flame-proof suit on... You may fire when ready, Gridley!
> 
> 73 de Mark - N9WYS
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard
> (NU5D)
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
> 
> I take care of a pretty large EDACS system. There is a simulator
> built 
> into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging.
> 
> This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters. The 
> procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests. Same with 
> subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be
> caught 
> in conventional mode.
> 
> On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output 
> allows basic receiver testing. This does not simulate DSTAR but gets
> to 
> a go/no go point. Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an 
> aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would
> encode 
> and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well.
> 
> I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume
> product 
> because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester.
> 
> Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing
> around 
> surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and
> ship.
> 
> Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up...
> 
> 73, Steve NU5D
> 
> Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
> >
> > And one more point - and it's a major one
> >
> > You can get P25 test equipment.
> >
> > Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General
> Dynamics
> > (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service
> monitors) 
> > or any
> > other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not
> even
> > the manufacturer has one.
> >
> > So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right?
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

[MCH]

I have a slightly different take on the matter.

If say 2% (ridiculously high figure at this time) of the people can
communicate with D-STAR or P25 or some other narrowband mode, and 98% of
the people cannot, in an emergency you have to cater to the least common
demoninator. In this case, that is NBFM.

It has been proven time and again that the current systems hams use can
withstand devistation that has trashed virtually (if not literally)
every other PS system out there except for other NBFM systems. Do we
REALLY want to follow those whose decisions have failed? When the ham
radio network is as fragile as those other systems, we will be as
useless as the radios that don't work anymore because the infrastructure
is gone. Don't throw away the ace up your sleeve.

NBFM is 100% interoperable. NBFM is in widespread use - almost
exclusively. Everyone has the capability of NBFM. D-STAR/P25 is not
compatible with NBFM for communications. Why do we need a 2:1 increase
of repeaters when so many repeaters are silent most of the day?

If D-STAR is the future, why is it you cannot convince ANYONE to switch
their repeater from NBFM to D-STAR? This has been proven in California -
nobody wants to switch - NOBODY! That is why D-STAR repeaters are
setting up shop in non-repeater band segments. Nobody is buying the
argument that they are the future.

Joe M.

n9wys wrote:
> 
> Gentle people,
> 
> I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress.
> And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on
> digital vs. analog.  (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star)
> 
> Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better
> said, "digitized") voice thing has me very concerned.  As a public safety
> worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and
> call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few
> syllables were dropped because of the CODEC.  For example: how many people
> have told someone else on their cell phone that "you sounded like you just
> went under water?"  (Especially with Nextel?)  Or suddenly had your call
> discontinued - with no prior warning/indication?
> 
> As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic...
> we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in
> the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the
> message or it is obscured because of "artificial" means.  My question is:
> why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding
> another layer of fallibility into the picture?
> 
> Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems...  I didn't
> become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in
> radio.  But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an
> "appliance operator"...  I need to be able to understand how it works, and
> if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it.  Based on the earlier
> statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to "box and
> ship" it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge
> step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby.
> 
> I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice,
> since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to "Expan(d) the
> existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators,
> technicians, and electronics experts."  [Part 97.1(d)]
> 
> OK, flame-proof suit on...  You may fire when ready, Gridley!
> 
> 73 de Mark - N9WYS
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
> 
> I take care of a pretty large EDACS system.  There is a simulator built
> into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging.
> 
> This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters.  The
> procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests.  Same with
> subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught
> in conventional mode.
> 
> On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output
> allows basic receiver testing.  This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to
> a go/no go point.  Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an
> aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode
> and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well.
> 
> I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product
> because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester.
> 
> Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around
> surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship.
> 
> Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up...
> 
> 73, Steve NU5D
> 
> Mike Morris 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

[n9wys]

And no "burns" received.  ;-)

Like I said in my first post - I usually am *very* open to newer
technologies... in fact, I'm a big user/proponent of the digital modes
(especially PSK31) on HF.  You can usually find me on 20 or 30 PSK - when I
can find the time.  I just think this one (digitized voice) was either not
thought-through properly prior to deployment, or was ram-rodded down some
people's throats.  Kinda like, "Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!!"

In all reality Steve, I do certainly hope they overcome some of the issues I
see daily on my public safety agency's network with what I refer to as
digital artifacts - the "squeek-squawk-fart" lost voice thing I referred to.
I see it MUCH more on the Motorola systems than I do on the EDACS systems -
and I choke to say this, because I've been a *big* Motorola fan for many
years.

I haven't personally played around with any of the D-Star systems/radios...
yet.  Who knows, maybe 10 years from now we'll be calling D-Star "old
technology" too.

Yep - old habits die hard.  Hehehehe

73 de Mark - N9WYS 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)

No flames here, Mark,

Maybe we should have stuck with straight keys - those bugs might obscure 
transmissions - maybe a 10 wpm speed limit.  But no, folks added 
microphones and heising coils.  Next thing the cans went to the sideline 
and there were loudspeakers, then Central Electronics with the 
multiphase exciter, and here comes sideband and warbulators2M and 6M 
AM gave way to fm - point being this should be progress - just as 
digital has surpassed almost every analog strong hold.

Your telephone network has used PCM digital mux since the days of N 
Carrier went away - remember LD calls with cross talk in the back ground 
- gone.

Digitized voice is in its infancy in ham radio, but I do believe with 
continued development it will continue to gain acceptance.

I am not so big on critical traffic on ham radio - that is what public 
safety networks are for.  We as hams provide comms for events like 
marathons, parades, etc, and during disasters, augment failed and downed 
public systems.  Critical traffic is not intended to be hams mainstay.  
- kind of off topic for repeater builders, though.

As for serviceability I have been a bench and field tech since 1972, 
when selenium rectifiers stunk, and tuned lines were king.  We could 
actually repair radios then.  Today, unless you have hot air soldering / 
desoldering stations and a microscope, I defy the average tech to get 
into board level repair - has nothing to do with digital, or smarts, or 
education and  everything to do with automated manufacture and 
unbelievable reliability.  It was unusual to see a tube radio in a 
butane truck go 6 months without some kind of failure.  Now it's unusual 
for a modern radio not to outlast several butane trucks - things have 
changed.

Our technology has changed too - the diddle stick is replaced with 
digital pots and firmware upgrades - flash new data and go.

The really sad thing is my profession is also fast disappearing - 2 Way 
Radio Shops are turning into dinosaurs - we still change mics and volume 
controls and do minor repairs - but most major fixes go to a depot 
because who buys several thousand $$$ in custom repair and testing 
fixtures to change a 128 pin IC that cost $20 and fails in 3 out of 
every 500 radios in the first 2 years ???

So, no flames my friend - I too don't like all the change taking place 
but like a wise friend once said "a bend in the road is not the end of 
the road, unless you fail to turn."

73, Steve NU5D



 

n9wys wrote:
> Gentle people,
>
> Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or
better
> said, "digitized") voice thing has me very concerned.  As a public safety
> worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and
> call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few
>
> As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic...
>
>
> Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems...  I didn't
> become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in
> radio.  But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an
> "appliance operator"...  I need to be able to understand how it works, and
> if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it.  Based on the earlier
> statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to "box and
> ship" it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge
> step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 
>
>
> 73 de Mark - N9WYS
>   





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

Hutton no longer carries Comspec.  I just ordered 3 ID8s yesterday.  My 
account from 1985 was still good.  Steve NU5D

I wonder if I should have purchased one of the micro repeater 
controllers, though - get ID plus controllersb


Mike Morris wrote:
> At 09:13 AM 09/20/07, you wrote:
>> Milt
>>
>> I could not find an ID-8 to purchase.   ComSpec did not list the 
>> item.  I could have missed it.
>
> Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
> Change settings via the Web 
> 
>  
> (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest 
>  
> | Switch to Fully Featured 
>  
>
> Visit Your Group 
> 
>  
> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use  | 
> Unsubscribe 
> 
>
>  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

No flames here, Mark,

Maybe we should have stuck with straight keys - those bugs might obscure 
transmissions - maybe a 10 wpm speed limit.  But no, folks added 
microphones and heising coils.  Next thing the cans went to the sideline 
and there were loudspeakers, then Central Electronics with the 
multiphase exciter, and here comes sideband and warbulators2M and 6M 
AM gave way to fm - point being this should be progress - just as 
digital has surpassed almost every analog strong hold.

Your telephone network has used PCM digital mux since the days of N 
Carrier went away - remember LD calls with cross talk in the back ground 
- gone.

Digitized voice is in its infancy in ham radio, but I do believe with 
continued development it will continue to gain acceptance.

I am not so big on critical traffic on ham radio - that is what public 
safety networks are for.  We as hams provide comms for events like 
marathons, parades, etc, and during disasters, augment failed and downed 
public systems.  Critical traffic is not intended to be hams mainstay.  
- kind of off topic for repeater builders, though.

As for serviceability I have been a bench and field tech since 1972, 
when selenium rectifiers stunk, and tuned lines were king.  We could 
actually repair radios then.  Today, unless you have hot air soldering / 
desoldering stations and a microscope, I defy the average tech to get 
into board level repair - has nothing to do with digital, or smarts, or 
education and  everything to do with automated manufacture and 
unbelievable reliability.  It was unusual to see a tube radio in a 
butane truck go 6 months without some kind of failure.  Now it's unusual 
for a modern radio not to outlast several butane trucks - things have 
changed.

Our technology has changed too - the diddle stick is replaced with 
digital pots and firmware upgrades - flash new data and go.

The really sad thing is my profession is also fast disappearing - 2 Way 
Radio Shops are turning into dinosaurs - we still change mics and volume 
controls and do minor repairs - but most major fixes go to a depot 
because who buys several thousand $$$ in custom repair and testing 
fixtures to change a 128 pin IC that cost $20 and fails in 3 out of 
every 500 radios in the first 2 years ???

So, no flames my friend - I too don't like all the change taking place 
but like a wise friend once said "a bend in the road is not the end of 
the road, unless you fail to turn."

73, Steve NU5D



 

n9wys wrote:
> Gentle people,
>
> Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better
> said, "digitized") voice thing has me very concerned.  As a public safety
> worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and
> call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few
>
> As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic...
>
>
> Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems...  I didn't
> become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in
> radio.  But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an
> "appliance operator"...  I need to be able to understand how it works, and
> if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it.  Based on the earlier
> statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to "box and
> ship" it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge
> step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 
>
>
> 73 de Mark - N9WYS
>   

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

[Corey Dean N3FE]

JUst like CW.  I still use it and love it!  I still use analog.  When 
everyone goes digital, I will still use CW and analog!

Corey  N3FE

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, n9wys wrote:

> Gentle people,
>
> I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress.
> And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on
> digital vs. analog.  (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star)
>
> Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better
> said, "digitized") voice thing has me very concerned.  As a public safety
> worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and
> call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few
> syllables were dropped because of the CODEC.  For example: how many people
> have told someone else on their cell phone that "you sounded like you just
> went under water?"  (Especially with Nextel?)  Or suddenly had your call
> discontinued - with no prior warning/indication?
>
> As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic...
> we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in
> the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the
> message or it is obscured because of "artificial" means.  My question is:
> why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding
> another layer of fallibility into the picture?
>
> Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems...  I didn't
> become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in
> radio.  But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an
> "appliance operator"...  I need to be able to understand how it works, and
> if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it.  Based on the earlier
> statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to "box and
> ship" it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge
> step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby.
>
> I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice,
> since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to "Expan(d) the
> existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators,
> technicians, and electronics experts."  [Part 97.1(d)]
>
> OK, flame-proof suit on...  You may fire when ready, Gridley!
>
> 73 de Mark - N9WYS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR
>
> I take care of a pretty large EDACS system.  There is a simulator built
> into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging.
>
> This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters.  The
> procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests.  Same with
> subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught
> in conventional mode.
>
> On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output
> allows basic receiver testing.  This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to
> a go/no go point.  Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an
> aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode
> and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well.
>
> I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product
> because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester.
>
> Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around
> surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship.
>
> Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up...
>
> 73, Steve NU5D
>
> Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
>>
>> And one more point - and it's a major one
>>
>> You can get P25 test equipment.
>>
>> Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics
>> (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors)
>> or any
>> other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even
>> the manufacturer has one.
>>
>> So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
> Click here to report this message as spam.
> http://simba.repeater.net/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=C3D1927EE1.B78AA
>
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

[n9wys]

Gentle people,

I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, watching this thread progress.
And I think that maybe it's time for me to jump in with my own opinions on
digital vs. analog.  (Whether it be P-25 or D-Star)

Although I'm usually very open to newer technology, this digital (or better
said, "digitized") voice thing has me very concerned.  As a public safety
worker, I shudder to think that maybe some day I might need assistance and
call for back-up, only to have my meaning misunderstood because a few
syllables were dropped because of the CODEC.  For example: how many people
have told someone else on their cell phone that "you sounded like you just
went under water?"  (Especially with Nextel?)  Or suddenly had your call
discontinued - with no prior warning/indication?

As ham radio operators, one of our missions is to pass critical traffic...
we cannot fulfill that mission if the traffic cannot be properly received in
the first place, whether it is because we cannot ourselves discern the
message or it is obscured because of "artificial" means.  My question is:
why make it more difficult on ourselves to accomplish this mission by adding
another layer of fallibility into the picture?

Now in regard to the testing/repairing these D-Star systems...  I didn't
become a ham until later in life, although I've always had an interest in
radio.  But since I have, I continue to strive to be more than just an
"appliance operator"...  I need to be able to understand how it works, and
if within my means, troubleshoot and/or repair it.  Based on the earlier
statement that the only way to test/repair these stations is to "box and
ship" it back to the manufacturer, I feel we as Amateurs are taking a huge
step backward, both for ourselves and for our hobby. 

I also feel we are doing the Amateur Radio Service itself a huge disservice,
since one of the basic tenets of the Service itself is to "Expan(d) the
existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators,
technicians, and electronics experts."  [Part 97.1(d)]

OK, flame-proof suit on...  You may fire when ready, Gridley!

73 de Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:53 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

I take care of a pretty large EDACS system.  There is a simulator built 
into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging.

This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters.  The 
procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests.  Same with 
subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught 
in conventional mode.

On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output 
allows basic receiver testing.  This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to 
a go/no go point.  Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an 
aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode 
and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well.

I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product 
because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester.

Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around 
surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship.

Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up...

73, Steve NU5D

Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
>
> And one more point - and it's a major one
>
> You can get P25 test equipment.
>
> Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics
> (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) 
> or any
> other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even
> the manufacturer has one.
>
> So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right?





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o

[Dan Blasberg]

No, D-Star does not automatically switch between analog and digital.  
You have to have one channel set up for analog and then if you want to 
do digital on the same frequency, you have to set up a digital channel. 
   P25 can monitor both analog and digital in mixed mode operation but 
only transmit in one or the other (so you need to channels on a P25 
radio as well for transmit purposes.

Dan
KA8YPY

On Sep 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, wb6ymh wrote:

>
>> Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the
>> North side of town.  We respectfully request you re-consider
>> coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have
>> monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no
>> activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair /
>> replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived
>> to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using 
>> part
>> of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to 
>> share
>> this spectrum with Joe.  (Sharing a frequency is not interference).
>
> Technical question: Does a DSTAR radio automatically switch between
> analog and digital?  i.e. can the DSTAR user hear the analog activity
> when his radio is in DStar mode so he can "share" the frequency?
>
> Sharing between digital and analog was tried back in the packet
> days... to say the least it didn't work.
>
> 73's Skip WB6YMH
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room - testing DSTAR

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

I take care of a pretty large EDACS system.  There is a simulator built 
into my COM120B just for EDACS and LTR - even decodes pocsag paging.

This is never used in setting up the base station/repeaters.  The 
procedure uses simple deviation and receiver tests.  Same with 
subscriber units - most (but certainly not all) problems can be caught 
in conventional mode.

On the repeater receiver a sniff point on the discriminator output 
allows basic receiver testing.  This does not simulate DSTAR but gets to 
a go/no go point.  Kind of like the first DPL - I had to buy an 
aftermarket board and wire it to my CE50 service monitor - would encode 
and if the light went out on receive - would decode as well.

I doubt any manufacturer will make a test set for a low volume product 
because there are not enough folks wanting to pay for a DSTAR tester.

Next problem - if the thing is broke - I am not gonna go probing around 
surface mount chips with my simpson and weller - better to box and ship.

Anyhow that another 2 cents - might make payroll if this keeps up...

73, Steve NU5D

Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
>
> And one more point - and it's a major one
>
> You can get P25 test equipment.
>
> Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics
> (the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) 
> or any
> other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even
> the manufacturer has one.
>
> So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right?

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF band opening

[Corey Dean N3FE]

ahhh... ok.  THat might explain why you couldn't hear me then.  I had 
Buffalo stations using my 146.910 machine and 444.600 in Wellsboro was 
hearing A new Jersey station.  That was pretty impressive.

The WB2JPQ system was hearing the target system on 146.835 and the 835 in 
Eden, NY was hearing all the people on it's input...  What an opening...

Corey

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Ryan wrote:

> I was on top of Bald Eagle Mt. Williamsport getting our clubs
> 443.050 mastr Base on the air hearing signals grom ohio, to south
> at  North carolina that use the same PL's as we do in this area.
>
> Ryan
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> But, what would you realign it to? I believe PAVE PAWS covers the
> entire
>> band. There is no spectrum left to put them.
>>
>> Maybe they can move up to 450-451 as long as they don't cause
>> interference to users there... (a dig on the D-STAR repeaters
> operating
>> in non-repeater bands due to 'no repeater band spectrum left and
>> non-interference where they are operating'). ;->
>>
>> Joe M.
>>
>> Glenn Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>> Its pretty much a moot point now in most of New Eng due to Pave
> Paws.  Maybe
>>> it would be a good time forNESMC to realign things with all
> these 440
>>> repeaters going QRT.
>>>
>>> Glenn N1GBY
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:12 PM
>>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening
>>>
>>> I believe it was done to accomodate radios that would not TX
> well below
>>> 445 MHz. Those repeaters could use LIHO and TX well between 447
> and 450 MHz.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's going to be 'fun' when the 12.5 kHz pairs come into
> use.
>>>
>>> Joe M.
>>>
>>> Bob Dengler wrote:

 Does anyone know why the New England bandplan has inverted 70
> cm pairs
 every 25 kHz (unlike the rest of the country, which is either
> all + or
 all
 - 5 MHz)? 25 kHz isn't close enough for any adjacent channel
> issues to
 be a concern.

 Bob NO6B


 Yahoo! Groups Links



>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG.
>>> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release
> Date: 9/18/2007
>>> 11:53 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
> Click here to report this message as spam.
> http://simba.repeater.net/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=6EAED299AE.E175A
>
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
believed to be clean.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF band opening

[Ryan]

I was on top of Bald Eagle Mt. Williamsport getting our clubs 
443.050 mastr Base on the air hearing signals grom ohio, to south 
at  North carolina that use the same PL's as we do in this area.

Ryan 
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But, what would you realign it to? I believe PAVE PAWS covers the 
entire
> band. There is no spectrum left to put them.
> 
> Maybe they can move up to 450-451 as long as they don't cause
> interference to users there... (a dig on the D-STAR repeaters 
operating
> in non-repeater bands due to 'no repeater band spectrum left and
> non-interference where they are operating'). ;->
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> Glenn Shaw wrote:
> > 
> > Its pretty much a moot point now in most of New Eng due to Pave 
Paws.  Maybe
> > it would be a good time forNESMC to realign things with all 
these 440
> > repeaters going QRT.
> > 
> > Glenn N1GBY
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:12 PM
> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening
> > 
> > I believe it was done to accomodate radios that would not TX 
well below
> > 445 MHz. Those repeaters could use LIHO and TX well between 447 
and 450 MHz.
> > 
> > Yes, it's going to be 'fun' when the 12.5 kHz pairs come into 
use.
> > 
> > Joe M.
> > 
> > Bob Dengler wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know why the New England bandplan has inverted 70 
cm pairs
> > > every 25 kHz (unlike the rest of the country, which is either 
all + or
> > > all
> > > - 5 MHz)? 25 kHz isn't close enough for any adjacent channel 
issues to
> > > be a concern.
> > >
> > > Bob NO6B
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release 
Date: 9/18/2007
> > 11:53 AM
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> >
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o

[MCH]

You know - it would be SO much easier to transition if the REPEATERS
could serve dual-use. That way, existing analog repeaters could be
replaced with D-STAR and both modes could be used while the users
transition to digital.

This is a huge advantage of P25 - those repeaters CAN be dual mode.
D-STAR is digital only.

Joe M.

wb6ymh wrote:
> 
> Technical question: Does a DSTAR radio automatically switch between
> analog and digital?  i.e. can the DSTAR user hear the analog activity
> when his radio is in DStar mode so he can "share" the frequency?

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

[Mike Morris]

At 09:13 AM 09/20/07, you wrote:

Milt

I could not find an ID-8 to purchase.   ComSpec did not list the 
item.  I could have missed it.


Gran K6RIF


G to http://www.com-spec.com then click on the very first
item in the web site menu ("Communications Specialists").

Then in the "Products" area (the left blue area) click on ID-8.

Com-Spec will sell direct to the end user and can easily beat
Hutton's, Tessco's and most others prices.
Call 800-854-0547 or 714-998-3021 from 8:00am to 4:30pm
(Pacific time zone), Monday to Friday

And check out the article at


Mike



At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote:


Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though
that this little gadget.

Milt
N3LTQ

- Original Message -
From: "Gran Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: < 
Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

> Hi All
>
> On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the
> ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets.
>
> This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in
> about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say
> anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using
> this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable
> Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin
> COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm.
>
> My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The
> identifier START "COS" is low true so you may have to invert a high
> true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave,
> as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400
> Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square
> wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to
> the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is
> negative true and will "or" with most PTT logic. Be very careful to
> use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter
> reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz
> deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking.
>
> Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on
> the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others
> on the linked system.
>
> I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar
> needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds
> more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users
> of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The
> other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so
> you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component
> side.
>
> Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see
> and he is great to work with if needed.
>
> All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode
> matrix ID boards!
>
> 
http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64

>
> Gran K6RIF
>
> Gran K6RIF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: TS64 as repeater controller

[fxbuilder]

ZI'd just like to thank everyone for the help figuring this problem
out.  I took the duplexer to a radio shop and had it tuned correctly.
 The outfit we bought it from said it was tuned.  According to the
radio shop it was off.  What a difference a day makes. Repeater works
great now. Thanks agian to all.
Craig




--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> fxbuilder wrote:
> > Put a different radio in as the receiver and tried 2 different
> > configurations for the controller and the behavior was about the same.
> >  So it looks like I'm down to desense. The jumper cables from the
> > radios to duplexer are of an unknown type. The cable to the antenna is
> > RG-8. Or it could just be repeater location. Thanks for all the help. 
> > Craig
> 
> Did you try the weak-signal transmitter on/off test?
> 
> You're not "down" to anything if you didn't.  :-)
> 
> Nate WY0X
>

FW: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

[n9wys]

Hi, Gran

 

http://www.com-spec.com/id8.htm

 

http://www.com-spec.com/index1.htm

I believe they sell direct. if not, you can buy it from Tessco - once they
establish an account for you.  

 

Try also AES in Milwaukee - they may carry it, too, but I haven't verified
this.

 

Mark - N9WYS

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Gran Clark



Milt

I could not find an ID-8 to purchase.   ComSpec did not list the item.  I
could have missed it.

Gran K6RIF


At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote:



Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though 
that this little gadget.

Milt
N3LTQ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

[Maire-Radios]

we buy them by the box from Tessco.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Gran Clark 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier


  Milt

  I could not find an ID-8 to purchase.   ComSpec did not list the item.  I 
could have missed it.


  Gran K6RIF


  At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote:



Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though 
that this little gadget.

Milt
N3LTQ

- Original Message - 
From: "Gran Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: < Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

> Hi All
>
> On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the
> ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets.
>
> This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in
> about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say
> anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using
> this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable
> Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin
> COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm.
>
> My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The
> identifier START "COS" is low true so you may have to invert a high
> true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave,
> as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400
> Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square
> wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to
> the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is
> negative true and will "or" with most PTT logic. Be very careful to
> use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter
> reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz
> deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking.
>
> Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on
> the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others
> on the linked system.
>
> I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar
> needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds
> more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users
> of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The
> other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so
> you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component 
> side.
>
> Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see
> and he is great to work with if needed.
>
> All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode
> matrix ID boards!
>
> http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64
>
> Gran K6RIF
>
> Gran K6RIF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



   

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[k7pfj]

Hi Glen,

If i were going to install a digital repeater i would be going with a P25 
system. Hardware is very accessible and not to expensive. Also take in to 
consideration interoperability. Motorola, Kenwood, Macom, Icom, Yeasu, Thales, 
BK, Datron, etc and many others all provide radios for P25. Not to Bash Icom, 
butt how many do you think are really going to buy off on the D-Star system. 
P25 is established and works.

Mike

-- Original message -- 
From: "Glenn Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Hi Steve
You have a lot of valid points. There ought to be a way to create a sub
band within the 2M and 440 repeater pairs for digital. Maybe interstitial.
Who knows. My hope is that people decide on D Star or P25 so we will not
have the old VHS vs Beta thing. 

Glenn
N1GBY 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard
(NU5D)
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater
coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

Hi Glenn,

If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all
means leave it alone. Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well with a
bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a couple of
minutes a day. The folks wanting the digital repeater could help fix Joe's
antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to mess with it. If
they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM repeater not much different
than the others in town. If they partner with Joe and upgrade to digital,
depending on whether they occupy the middle of the channel, or offset up or
down 6.25 Khz, they can restore Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make
room for one more repeater in the area.

This is only because there are no more 2M or 70CM channels available in
Joe's neighborhood, and the folks wanting to place the new digital system
have no other place within the rules to go in the band they want.

Never would I want wholesale run this through and make it happen, but
thoughtful well planned migration might be a good thing. 

Also like you said, the new equipment would cost more than fixing the old
system for Joe, but then folks would not have the benefits of the digital
system - no white noise (garble instead), good comm grade audio, and a
smaller occupied bandwidth.

I certainly respect your comments, and your points are valid. I am just
trying to put forth some ideas that will foster a planned gradual move for
some folks to digital - by no means a wholesale jump like the cellular folks
did. Also there are still folks with radios that don't have channel guard
tone - some things don't change.

Lets put your 2 cents and a few others together and have a cup of coffee,
73, Steve NU5D

(BTW - I can assure you that not all land mobile operators, RCCs etc have
buckets of money - forced migration in the SMR business was very costly for
me, and this don't take into account loss of customers who didn't want to
mess with re-programming radios) sb.

Glenn Shaw wrote:
> Steve
>
> Wouldnt it be easy and more effective and cheaper if your: ..."hand 
> full of folks" just go ahead and use Joes repeater that is already on 
> the air instead of complicating the situation more than it needs to 
> be? Of course
>
>
> Refarming ham radio wholesale will be ill advised and I dont think you 
> will see it in our lifetimes.. The users of ham radio are not the US 
> government or public saftey or RCC's with bottomless buckets of money 
> to just go out and replace equipment. We are losing people in the ham 
> radio community not gaining them. Most hams buy a radio and use it for 
> years and dont have to
>
> For those that want to experiment and promote investigation of the new 
> dig modulation such as DStar and P25 that is good and we should 
> encourage this on new spectrum that can be found that is unused, 
> without destroying the existing repeater sub bands.
>
> Just my .02 for thought.
>
> Glenn N1GBY
> 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007
3:59 PM


 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

[Gran Clark]

Milt

I could not find an ID-8 to purchase.   ComSpec did not list the 
item.  I could have missed it.



Gran K6RIF


At 08:11 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote:


Consider the ComSpec ID-8 for true sine wave output. Bit more pricy though
that this little gadget.

Milt
N3LTQ

- Original Message -
From: "Gran Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
<Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Slick Identifier

> Hi All
>
> On Mike Morris's suggestion here is an experience using the
> ID-O-Matic identifier from Hamgadgets.
>
> This is a $20.00 + ($2.67 shipping) kit that can be assembled in
> about 30 minutes including reading the instructions. I would say
> anyone who has interfaced a repeater would not have any trouble using
> this CW identifier. It is using a PIC16F648A PIC (Programmable
> Integrated Circuit). It is preprogrammed to interface via the 9 pin
> COMM port on your computer using the Hypr Terminal or in my case Procomm.
>
> My application was to identify a UHF GE MPV link transmitter. The
> identifier START "COS" is low true so you may have to invert a high
> true COS line from you repeater. The audio output is a square wave,
> as they state, so it would be wise to use a fairly low tone like 400
> Hz and roll off the high frequencies of the sharp wavefront square
> wave (10k and a 0.1 uF followed by what ever resistance it takes to
> the microphone input) did it for me. PTT is a Vmos 60V FET which is
> negative true and will "or" with most PTT logic. Be very careful to
> use the scope on your IFR or at least multiply any deviation meter
> reading by two. This is a differentiated wave form. I used 1 kHz
> deviation just in case it did identify over someone speaking.
>
> Sort of to the side, I used the repeater COS to enable the CTCSS on
> the MVP. This will prevent the ID from being repeated for the others
> on the linked system.
>
> I suppose like most products your own application has peculiar
> needs. I wish the identifier had a sine wave output. The ID sounds
> more like a buzzer than the nice tones of an ACC 850 but since users
> of our system don't hear the ID it makes little difference. The
> other comment would be to supply pins to put in the PC board holes so
> you could mate connectors or have posts to solder to from the component
> side.
>
> Dale N0XAS is the only one marketing this product that I could see
> and he is great to work with if needed.
>
> All in all I think this is a neat ID solution. Sure beats diode
> matrix ID boards!
>
> 
http://www.hamgadgets.com/product_info.php?products_id=64

>
> Gran K6RIF
>
> Gran K6RIF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 08:17 AM 09/20/07, you wrote:

Hi Steve
You have a lot of valid points.  There ought to be a way to create a sub
band within the 2M and 440 repeater pairs for digital.  Maybe interstitial.
Who knows.  My hope is that people decide on D Star or P25 so we will not
have the old VHS vs Beta thing.

Glenn
N1GBY


And one more point - and it's a major one

You can get P25 test equipment.

Show me one piece of test equipment - an IFR, an HP, a General Dynamics
(the folks that made some of Motorolas R-series of service monitors) or any
other test equipment manufacturer that makes a dstar tester. Not even
the manufacturer has one.

So haw do you verify that a dstar system is actually working right?

Use a user radio?

Does a user radio give a complete test of a conventional transmitter
the way that a scope-equipped IFR does??

(would you trust a handheld to tell you that your conventional
repeater transmitter deviation was set right?)

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

wb6ymh wrote:
> Technical question: Does a DSTAR radio automatically switch between
> analog and digital?  i.e. can the DSTAR user hear the analog activity
> when his radio is in DStar mode so he can "share" the frequency?
>
> Sharing between digital and analog was tried back in the packet
> days... to say the least it didn't work.
>
> 73's Skip WB6YMH
>
>
>
>   
Hi Skip,

Dang service call broke into coffee time, but I did get to visit the 
local hams for a bit.  As far as I know the DSTAR user radios can be set 
to busy channel lock out, so they will not transmit when there is 
anything on the channel.  They also have an S Meter that will show 
activity, and can be set to monitor for analog or digital.

One down side would be the internet gateway.  I can direct a call to the 
DSTAR repeater in Malibu, CA from here in Temple, Texas  and have no 
idea whether the channel in Malibu had analog traffic or not.  Local 
folks could be observant, but folks thru the gateway would not know.  
This may be how folks contrive the DSTAR repeater to be an AUX Station 
because it can be caused to transmit by another station via the internet 
in another area.  This may be a secondary function, though, because 
primarily the repeater works as a repeater, and I would venture that 2/3 
of the DSTAR systems in the US are not connected to the internet.

73, Steve NU5D

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Glenn Shaw]

Hi Steve
You have a lot of valid points.  There ought to be a way to create a sub
band within the 2M and 440 repeater pairs for digital.  Maybe interstitial.
Who knows.  My hope is that people decide on D Star or P25 so we will not
have the old VHS vs Beta thing. 

Glenn
N1GBY 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard
(NU5D)
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater
coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

Hi Glenn,

If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all
means leave it alone. Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well with a
bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a couple of
minutes a day. The folks wanting the digital repeater could help fix Joe's
antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to mess with it. If
they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM repeater not much different
than the others in town. If they partner with Joe and upgrade to digital,
depending on whether they occupy the middle of the channel, or offset up or
down 6.25 Khz, they can restore Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make
room for one more repeater in the area.

This is only because there are no more 2M or 70CM channels available in
Joe's neighborhood, and the folks wanting to place the new digital system
have no other place within the rules to go in the band they want.

Never would I want wholesale run this through and make it happen, but
thoughtful well planned migration might be a good thing. 

Also like you said, the new equipment would cost more than fixing the old
system for Joe, but then folks would not have the benefits of the digital
system - no white noise (garble instead), good comm grade audio, and a
smaller occupied bandwidth.

I certainly respect your comments, and your points are valid. I am just
trying to put forth some ideas that will foster a planned gradual move for
some folks to digital - by no means a wholesale jump like the cellular folks
did. Also there are still folks with radios that don't have channel guard
tone - some things don't change.

Lets put your 2 cents and a few others together and have a cup of coffee,
73, Steve NU5D

(BTW - I can assure you that not all land mobile operators, RCCs etc have
buckets of money - forced migration in the SMR business was very costly for
me, and this don't take into account loss of customers who didn't want to
mess with re-programming radios) sb.

Glenn Shaw wrote:
> Steve
>
> Wouldnt it be easy and more effective and cheaper if your: ..."hand 
> full of folks" just go ahead and use Joes repeater that is already on 
> the air instead of complicating the situation more than it needs to 
> be? Of course
>
>
> Refarming ham radio wholesale will be ill advised and I dont think you 
> will see it in our lifetimes.. The users of ham radio are not the US 
> government or public saftey or RCC's with bottomless buckets of money 
> to just go out and replace equipment. We are losing people in the ham 
> radio community not gaining them. Most hams buy a radio and use it for 
> years and dont have to
>
> For those that want to experiment and promote investigation of the new 
> dig modulation such as DStar and P25 that is good and we should 
> encourage this on new spectrum that can be found that is unused, 
> without destroying the existing repeater sub bands.
>
> Just my .02 for thought.
>
> Glenn N1GBY
> 



 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007
3:59 PM

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o

[wb6ymh]

> Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the
> North side of town.  We respectfully request you re-consider
> coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have
> monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no
> activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair /
> replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived
> to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part
> of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share
> this spectrum with Joe.  (Sharing a frequency is not interference).

Technical question: Does a DSTAR radio automatically switch between
analog and digital?  i.e. can the DSTAR user hear the analog activity
when his radio is in DStar mode so he can "share" the frequency?

Sharing between digital and analog was tried back in the packet
days... to say the least it didn't work.

73's Skip WB6YMH

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I think you'll find in most areas where the repeater frequencies are 
> "Full", that there are more repeaters to talk on than there are people 
> to actually talk on them.
>
> And we need more repeaters?
>

My point exactly, Larry - is ham radio best served by more repeaters 
than there are folks to use them blocking folks who want to try and 
revitalize things with a digital system?

Look at http://www.dstarusers.org and see who is talking now.

Maybe this digital stuff is just a fad, and when it dies out, channels 
used for digital should be returned to re-coordination, but to kill an 
innovation at the onset by not allowing a place to operate when there is 
unused / underused space available  just isn't right. 

As far as constant chatter - I would not want that either, but there are 
some repeaters that are just plain dead.  It also seems the assumption 
here is that Joe would not be agreeable to the new folks proposal,  
maybe he would be.

Anyhow this is all intended in the spirit of amateur radio and I don't 
want to provoke any arguments or ill will, as before I am thinking about 
ways to make this work for everyone.  Almost coffee time,  73, Steve NU5D

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too o

[wb6ymh]

Frequency coordination boards have no power to get Joe to take his
repeater off the air because he doesn't use it enough.

In reality when the local frequency coordination group won't/can't do
anything most (but not quite all) groups will eventually pick the most
likely pair and set up shop on it without coordination.  If Joe's
group is truly dead they'll be all set.  More likely Joe's group will
come back to life and make noise.  If it's a lot of strong noise the
new group will probably pick a new pair and try again.

Three points:

1. USE IT OR LOSE IT!

2. We need ACTIVE frequency coordination boards even when "all pairs
are gone". A frequency coordination council that's nothing more than a
bit bucket does no one any good.

3. A dedicated group will aways find a frequency, one way or another.

This isn't the place for venting about frequency coordination, but I
feel a tad bit better.

73's Skip WB6YMH
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Illegal is Illegal" period.
> 
> Look at what there is to gain by promoting digital repeater technologies
> - more spectrum - less interference - better range and better quality
> communications - no pots to adjust on your repeater - 1s and 0s
> 
> We have it within reach to re-farm present spectrum for a 2 for 1 or
> better yield in recovering spectrum by fostering digital technologies,
> be it P25 or DSTAR, or other means not to market at present. 
> 
> First - voluntary negotiated agreements - ie.  Hey Joe, that repeater
> you have, you know, the one on the North side of town with the bad
> antenna - our group would like to share the channel and put up a new
> digital repeater and would like to partner with you - what do you
think ?
> 
> Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the
> North side of town.  We respectfully request you re-consider
> coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have
> monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no
> activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair /
> replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived
> to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part
> of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share
> this spectrum with Joe.  (Sharing a frequency is not interference).
> 
> Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate
> with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and
> while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also
> note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would
> better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this
> coordination.
> 
> Maybe the wording is not so great, but the idea is to work within the
> existing rules to promote more spectrally efficient frequency use to the
> end that there is more spectrum for everyone.  I do not believe DSTAR
> repeaters to be anything other than repeaters, and unless there is a
> proper waiver of the FCC rules, should not be placed in any part of the
> band where repeaters are not permitted.
> 
> Again, thanks to the volunteer coordinators who do their best to make
> things fit for the betterment of our hobby and service,  Steve NU5D 
> moderator dstar_digital yahoo group.
> 
> 
> MCH wrote:
> > I know, but in many areas there are a lot of unused frequencies.
> >
> > Still, I would never seriously tell someone to operate there. I would
> > also not recommend operating repeaters in the parts of the band where
> > repeaters are prohibited. Others don't see this prohibition as a
> > deterrent, however. The reason? "The repeater bands are full" and
there
> > is a desire to put more repeaters on the air.
> >   
> >
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

Hi Glenn,

If old Joe's repeater were usable and folks were making use of it by all 
means leave it alone.  Poor old Joe's repeater is not working so well 
with a bad antenna, and it only has 2 folks that make contact for a 
couple of minutes a day.  The folks wanting the digital repeater could 
help fix Joe's antenna and get it back in shape, but Joe don't want to 
mess with it.  If they get is back in shape they have a 20 Khz FM 
repeater not much different than the others in town.  If they partner 
with Joe and upgrade to digital, depending on whether they occupy the 
middle of the channel, or offset up or down 6.25 Khz, they can restore 
Joe's system to a ?better? system, and make room for one more repeater 
in the area.

This is only because there are no more 2M or 70CM channels available in 
Joe's neighborhood, and the folks wanting to place the new digital 
system have no other place within the rules to go in the band they want.

Never would I want wholesale run this through and make it happen, but 
thoughtful well planned migration might be a good thing. 

Also like you said, the new equipment would cost more than fixing the 
old system for Joe, but then folks would not have the benefits of the 
digital system - no white noise (garble instead), good comm grade audio, 
and a smaller occupied bandwidth.

I certainly respect your comments, and your points are valid.  I am just 
trying to put forth some ideas that will foster a planned gradual move 
for some folks to digital - by no means a wholesale jump like the 
cellular folks did.  Also there are still folks with radios that don't 
have channel guard tone - some things don't change.

Lets put your 2 cents and a few others together and have a cup of 
coffee,  73, Steve NU5D

(BTW - I can assure you that not all land mobile operators, RCCs etc 
have buckets of money - forced migration in the SMR business was very 
costly for me, and this don't take into account loss of customers who 
didn't want to mess with re-programming radios)  sb.


Glenn Shaw wrote:
> Steve
>
> Wouldnt it be easy and more effective and cheaper if your: ..."hand full of
> folks"  just go ahead and use Joes repeater that is already on the air
> instead of complicating the situation more than it needs to be?  Of course
>
>
> Refarming ham radio wholesale will be ill advised and I dont think you will
> see it in our lifetimes..  The users of ham radio are not the US government
> or public saftey or RCC's with bottomless buckets of money to just go out
> and replace equipment.  We are losing people in the ham radio community not
> gaining them.  Most hams buy a radio and use it for years and dont have to
>
> For those that want to experiment and promote investigation of the new dig
> modulation such as DStar and P25 that is good and we should encourage this
> on new spectrum that can be found that is unused, without destroying the
> existing repeater sub bands.
>
> Just my .02 for thought.
>
> Glenn  N1GBY
>   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Jim]

Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote:

> Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the
> North side of town.  We respectfully request you re-consider
> coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have
> monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no
> activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair /
> replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived
> to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part
> of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share
> this spectrum with Joe.  (Sharing a frequency is not interference).
> 
> Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate
> with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and
> while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also
> note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would
> better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this
> coordination.

I don't agree with the 'underutilized/inactive' parts of this. Just 
because a repeater doesn't have a bunch of jibber-jabber all day long 
shouldn't make it fair game. I know if we did that here, all of the 
repeaters that have dedicated agreements with local agencies, EMA, Red 
Cross, etc, would be the first ones to go, and the truly useless 
repeaters that have truck drivers blathering away all day long would be 
all that was left.

Now, as far as repeaters that are decidedly not on the air at all, and 
haven't been for years, well...
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Glenn Shaw]

Steve

Wouldnt it be easy and more effective and cheaper if your: ..."hand full of
folks"  just go ahead and use Joes repeater that is already on the air
instead of complicating the situation more than it needs to be?  Of course
this assumes that Joes repeater is open.  This brings up another issue in
that I believe that closed repeaters should be disallowed where the band is
full and there are people who will put up a repeater open to all.  Closed
repeaters could be allowed on 902 or 1.2G if need be. 

Refarming ham radio wholesale will be ill advised and I dont think you will
see it in our lifetimes..  The users of ham radio are not the US government
or public saftey or RCC's with bottomless buckets of money to just go out
and replace equipment.  We are losing people in the ham radio community not
gaining them.  Most hams buy a radio and use it for years and dont have to
worry about it becoming useless or worthless, nor do they want to have to
reinvest in something twice.  I would say that the narrow band fm systems we
use now work very well and are *much* more spectrally efficient than the
wideband stuff that was out there when I became a ham back in the sixties.
For those that want to experiment and promote investigation of the new dig
modulation such as DStar and P25 that is good and we should encourage this
on new spectrum that can be found that is unused, without destroying the
existing repeater sub bands.

Just my .02 for thought.

Glenn  N1GBY

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard
(NU5D)
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:10 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater
coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

"Illegal is Illegal" period.

Look at what there is to gain by promoting digital repeater technologies
- more spectrum - less interference - better range and better quality
communications - no pots to adjust on your repeater - 1s and 0s

We have it within reach to re-farm present spectrum for a 2 for 1 or better
yield in recovering spectrum by fostering digital technologies, be it P25 or
DSTAR, or other means not to market at present. 

First - voluntary negotiated agreements - ie. Hey Joe, that repeater you
have, you know, the one on the North side of town with the bad antenna - our
group would like to share the channel and put up a new digital repeater and
would like to partner with you - what do you think ?

Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the North
side of town. We respectfully request you re-consider coordination because
we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have monitored this frequency for
the last XX days and find little or no activity - well beyond the alloted 90
days allowed for repair / replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's
coordination be waived to the extent we may construct and operate a digital
repeater using part of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time
offering to share this spectrum with Joe. (Sharing a frequency is not
interference).

Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with
Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and while we
concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also note a lack
of activity as documented herein and propose our group would better serve
the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this coordination.

Maybe the wording is not so great, but the idea is to work within the
existing rules to promote more spectrally efficient frequency use to the end
that there is more spectrum for everyone. I do not believe DSTAR repeaters
to be anything other than repeaters, and unless there is a proper waiver of
the FCC rules, should not be placed in any part of the band where repeaters
are not permitted.

Again, thanks to the volunteer coordinators who do their best to make things
fit for the betterment of our hobby and service, Steve NU5D moderator
dstar_digital yahoo group.

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Paul Finch]

Good post Steve.



-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard
(NU5D)
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:10 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater
coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

"Illegal is Illegal" period.

Look at what there is to gain by promoting digital repeater technologies
- more spectrum - less interference - better range and better quality
communications - no pots to adjust on your repeater - 1s and 0s

We have it within reach to re-farm present spectrum for a 2 for 1 or
better yield in recovering spectrum by fostering digital technologies,
be it P25 or DSTAR, or other means not to market at present. 

First - voluntary negotiated agreements - ie.  Hey Joe, that repeater
you have, you know, the one on the North side of town with the bad
antenna - our group would like to share the channel and put up a new
digital repeater and would like to partner with you - what do you think ?

Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the
North side of town.  We respectfully request you re-consider
coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have
monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no
activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair /
replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived
to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part
of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share
this spectrum with Joe.  (Sharing a frequency is not interference).

Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate
with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and
while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also
note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would
better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this
coordination.

Maybe the wording is not so great, but the idea is to work within the
existing rules to promote more spectrally efficient frequency use to the
end that there is more spectrum for everyone.  I do not believe DSTAR
repeaters to be anything other than repeaters, and unless there is a
proper waiver of the FCC rules, should not be placed in any part of the
band where repeaters are not permitted.

Again, thanks to the volunteer coordinators who do their best to make
things fit for the betterment of our hobby and service,  Steve NU5D 
moderator dstar_digital yahoo group.


MCH wrote:
> I know, but in many areas there are a lot of unused frequencies.
>
> Still, I would never seriously tell someone to operate there. I would
> also not recommend operating repeaters in the parts of the band where
> repeaters are prohibited. Others don't see this prohibition as a
> deterrent, however. The reason? "The repeater bands are full" and there
> is a desire to put more repeaters on the air.
>   
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007
3:59 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 9/19/2007
3:59 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] UHF band opening

[Glenn Shaw]

Hi Bob
Yes the shutdowns are ongoing.  They will allow some fixed stations to
continue but only at very low power.  For all practical purposes the Air
Force is imposing a quiet zone for 420-450 Mhz within 125 miles of the MA
PAVE PAWS site and 150 miles of the CA one.  Yes they did shut down 20 odd
PAVEPAWS sites but the ones in AK, CA and MA were upgraded with all new
equipment from Raytheon (?) and now do the work of all of the old sites, and
also are better at detecting sea launched missles.  These remaining super
PAVEPAWS sites if you will,  will continue on now for many years to come.
The 440 guys in MA are all talking about moving to 900 or 220 or 2 m and
there has been some talk about trying to get a primary allocation on the 700
band.  But 440 is all through around here in MA as it is generally seen.
That would be nice since we are secondary on 900 also.

73  Glenn

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Dengler
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:56 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening

At 9/19/2007 01:52 PM, you wrote:
>But, what would you realign it to? I believe PAVE PAWS covers the 
>entire band. There is no spectrum left to put them.

Perhaps they can be QSY'd during the QRT period, assuming PAVE PAWS will
only operate for a few years given that one site has already been shut down.

When I was in Cape Cod last month there were still some 70 cm repeaters
operating, but the locals were talking about a total shutdown. Don't know if
it's happened yet.

>Maybe they can move up to 450-451 as long as they don't cause 
>interference to users there... (a dig on the D-STAR repeaters operating 
>in non-repeater bands due to 'no repeater band spectrum left and 
>non-interference where they are operating'). ;->

What amateur modes are legal outside the amateur bands?

Bob NO6B



 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date: 9/18/2007
11:53 AM

[Repeater-Builder] Making room for the new guy - repeater coordination - Hope this is not too off topic...

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

"Illegal is Illegal" period.

Look at what there is to gain by promoting digital repeater technologies
- more spectrum - less interference - better range and better quality
communications - no pots to adjust on your repeater - 1s and 0s

We have it within reach to re-farm present spectrum for a 2 for 1 or
better yield in recovering spectrum by fostering digital technologies,
be it P25 or DSTAR, or other means not to market at present. 

First - voluntary negotiated agreements - ie.  Hey Joe, that repeater
you have, you know, the one on the North side of town with the bad
antenna - our group would like to share the channel and put up a new
digital repeater and would like to partner with you - what do you think ?

Second - Dear Coordinator - Old Joe has an unused repeater pair on the
North side of town.  We respectfully request you re-consider
coordination because we the undersigned (hand full of folks) have
monitored this frequency for the last XX days and find little or no
activity - well beyond the alloted 90 days allowed for repair /
replacement, and respectfully request Old Joe's coordination be waived
to the extent we may construct and operate a digital repeater using part
of the spectrum alloted to Joe while at the same time offering to share
this spectrum with Joe.  (Sharing a frequency is not interference).

Third - Dear Coordinator - We have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate
with Old Joe to share his un-used / underutilized repeater pair, and
while we concede the station to be constructed and operational, we also
note a lack of activity as documented herein and propose our group would
better serve the purpose of amateur radio by being allowed to share this
coordination.

Maybe the wording is not so great, but the idea is to work within the
existing rules to promote more spectrally efficient frequency use to the
end that there is more spectrum for everyone.  I do not believe DSTAR
repeaters to be anything other than repeaters, and unless there is a
proper waiver of the FCC rules, should not be placed in any part of the
band where repeaters are not permitted.

Again, thanks to the volunteer coordinators who do their best to make
things fit for the betterment of our hobby and service,  Steve NU5D 
moderator dstar_digital yahoo group.


MCH wrote:
> I know, but in many areas there are a lot of unused frequencies.
>
> Still, I would never seriously tell someone to operate there. I would
> also not recommend operating repeaters in the parts of the band where
> repeaters are prohibited. Others don't see this prohibition as a
> deterrent, however. The reason? "The repeater bands are full" and there
> is a desire to put more repeaters on the air.
>   
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF band opening

[MCH]

I know, but in many areas there are a lot of unused frequencies.

Still, I would never seriously tell someone to operate there. I would
also not recommend operating repeaters in the parts of the band where
repeaters are prohibited. Others don't see this prohibition as a
deterrent, however. The reason? "The repeater bands are full" and there
is a desire to put more repeaters on the air.

This goes back to a comment I made before. IF you can justify putting
repeaters in all parts of the band based solely on lack of 'repeater
spectrum', what is to keep you from being able to justify extending
beyond the ham bands? Illegal is illegal no matter how illegal it is. We
all know there is lots of underutilized spectrum just above and below 2M
and 220. Is that a reason to put ham repeaters there? (rhetorical
question)

Joe M.

Mark Stennett wrote:
> 
> Broadcasters use 450 to 451 for telemetry and remote pickup. You don't
> want to mess with them there. I know this first hand.
> 
> 73 de na6m
> 
> MCH wrote:
> > The same ones that are legal inside the ham bands but choose to operate
> > in spectrum probibited under Part 97. Illegal is illegal no matter where
> > it operates.
> >
> > Joe M.
> >
> > Bob Dengler wrote:
> >> At 9/19/2007 01:52 PM, you wrote:
> >>> Maybe they can move up to 450-451 as long as they don't cause
> >>> interference to users there... (a dig on the D-STAR repeaters operating
> >>> in non-repeater bands due to 'no repeater band spectrum left and
> >>> non-interference where they are operating'). ;->
> >> What amateur modes are legal outside the amateur bands?
> >>
> >> Bob NO6B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>