Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2x RX's or 2x TX's on one Controller Port

[no6b]

At 11/25/2007 19:50, you wrote:

>The Linker IIa is a 2 port controller with a seperate control receiver input.
>
>The control receiver input has priority over RX1 and RX2, RX1 has priority 
>over
>RX2.Â

Can it mix RX audio from ports 1 & 2?

Bob NO6B

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2x RX's or 2x TX's on one Controller Port

[no6b]

At 11/25/2007 18:51, you wrote:

>The 4066 is an analog switch and works very well. One must bias its inputs 
>somewhere in the middle of the power supply voltage so any audio signal 
>will not work outside its rails.

Very true; I know some who swore off the 4066 as unreliable & poorly 
performing because of their lack of consideration of the above.  Use it 
within its limits & it works great.

The 1 M bias resistors on pins 1 & 4 of U5 were a last-minute addition 
after considering this issue.  There are no blocking caps on the outputs of 
the switches because they're on the controller inputs (at least on all 
controllers I know of).

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeater Antenna Choice

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 25, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Laryn Lohman wrote:

Hi Larry, yeah... reading back through it I transposed 408 and 420.

> Nate, perhaps you could clarify that paragraph...
>
> Anyway, I was just comparing published vertical beamwidth numbers for
> various bands/manufacturers/gains.  Within a degree or so, it doesn't
> matter who makes it, you'll find 14-16 degrees beamwidth for antennas
> rated at 6 dbd, U or V.  And for antennas rated at 9 dbd you'll find
> them at around 7 degrees, U or V.  Makes sense, since everyone starts
> out with the same applied RF, and since no manufacturer has yet to
> modify the laws of physics to their favor (though many try to convince
> you differently hehe), there has to be pretty much the same
> shape/beamwidth of the RF donut for the same gain at the horizon.
> (Omni antennas).

Agreed.  I think what I was trying to say was there were a lot of  
people stating that the narrower vertical beamwidth/higher gain  
antennas would "shoot over the top" of users from a low HAAT site.

I don't think that's true at all.  Even the high-gain antennas have  
6-7 degrees of 3dB vertical beamwidth and in close, I doubt losing 3dB  
(even when multiplied by the ERP) is really going to show up as a  
bunch of close-in holes... if you're standing directly under the  
building perhaps, but once you get that close the loss is nothing.

Doing a quick calculation here...

Assuming 350' HAAT, 0 degrees of downtilt, and a 7 degree vertical  
beamwidth:
Radio Horizon: 26.46 miles
Lower 3dB beamwidth horizon: 1.08 miles
Upper 3dB beamwidth horizon: Over the radio horizon

Same HAAT, 16 degree vertical 3dB beamwidth:
Radio Horizon: 26.46 (same, of course)
Lower 3dB beamwidth horizon: 0.47 miles
Upper 3dB beamwidth horizon: Over the radio horizon

(A difference of .61 miles - covers better in the neighborhood right  
around the structure, maybe... but the signal would be so strong there  
anyway...?)

But -- I'll admit, we don't do much low-level stuff around here.  I'm  
curious why folks think it makes that much of a difference?

> I'm with you on liking the dipole antennas...

Having read Ron's comment about salt water eating them up, I guess  
there are probably places where a fiberglass stick would be wanted...  
but definitely not out here in our dry air at altitude.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: AM interference on long cable run

[George Henry]

I've had Sprint Broadband wireless for several years, and have had a static 
public IP address from day one

George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413


- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: AM interference on long cable run


> Actually it must be pretty common on the wireless
> distribution ISP systems.  I know of one in San
> Antonio that was set up that way, and one in New
> Mexico that had a public IP address for customers till
> they lost a port and it went to private.  The one here
> gave us a public IP address for a couple of years and
> suddenly changed a few months ago.  We had to put the
> new IP address in the radio modem here to connect back
> to the internet but no longer could be reached from
> the internet.
>
> All normal TCP/IP packets work just fine, and EchoLink
> using a proxy works OK, but we can't use direct UDP
> packets to another site.
>
> Still trying to figure out a work around without
> having to set up a dedicated proxy somewhere that
> would allow us to use the IP address of that proxy for
> the UDP I/O.
>
> 73 - Jim  W5ZIT
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: AM interference on long cable run

[Jim Brown]

Actually it must be pretty common on the wireless
distribution ISP systems.  I know of one in San
Antonio that was set up that way, and one in New
Mexico that had a public IP address for customers till
they lost a port and it went to private.  The one here
gave us a public IP address for a couple of years and
suddenly changed a few months ago.  We had to put the
new IP address in the radio modem here to connect back
to the internet but no longer could be reached from
the internet.

All normal TCP/IP packets work just fine, and EchoLink
using a proxy works OK, but we can't use direct UDP
packets to another site.

Still trying to figure out a work around without
having to set up a dedicated proxy somewhere that
would allow us to use the IP address of that proxy for
the UDP I/O.

73 - Jim  W5ZIT

--- Coy Hilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Gee Jim, I don't think that I have ever seen an ISP
> providing a 
> private IP address to a drop. Are you sure that some
> one local 
> hasn't added a router to your set up? try opening a
> web page and 
> type in the first three octets of your IP address
> that you have and 
> for the last Octet use .01 if you get a log on
> screen it should say 
> the name of the router if it is local like DLink or
> Linksys some 
> one may have Hi Jacked your connection...it happens.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> 73
> AC0Y
> 
> 


  

Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2x RX's or 2x TX's on one Controller Port

[Jim Brown]

Not so Ron.  Give it a try - you might be surprised. 
I have been using the 4011 CMOS logic in audio
circuits for 30 years and have not been disapointed in
the audio quality in any of the circuits I have used
them in.  That feedback resistor from the output to
one of the inputs converts it to a standard OP-AMP
circuit and biases the gate into a linear area of
operation.

73 - Jim  W5ZIT

--- Ron Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Although many logic, including NAND gates, operate
> in linear mode, but not for audio.  They simply
> switch from/to logic 0 or 1.
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
>


  

Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

[Repeater-Builder] Re: AM interference on long cable run

[Coy Hilton]

Gee Jim, I don't think that I have ever seen an ISP providing a 
private IP address to a drop. Are you sure that some one local 
hasn't added a router to your set up? try opening a web page and 
type in the first three octets of your IP address that you have and 
for the last Octet use .01 if you get a log on screen it should say 
the name of the router if it is local like DLink or Linksys some 
one may have Hi Jacked your connection...it happens.

Good luck!

73
AC0Y


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jim Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Skip, I did have transformer coupling on the audio
> lines out at the repeater with both sides of the
> twisted pair isolated from ground, but did not try
> putting transformers in the line back at the computer.
>  That would certainly be easy enough to do if I ever
> hook it up again.  One side of the twisted pair was
> hooked to the ground of the computer.  (The repeater
> cabnet is bolted to the side of the tower out in the
> middle of a pasture)
> 
> We have a wireless ISP at this site, and the ISP
> provider decided to take away the public IP address
> and assign us a private IP address, which no one can
> reach from the internet.  We can do everything we need
> to do on the internet, but packets that were not asked
> for cannot find their way back to the router here . 
> UDP packets in particular have no way to reach us.
> 
> 73 - Jim  W5ZIT
> 
> --- skipp025 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I didn't see a post where he actually tried a
> > balanced pair 
> > connection with any type of xmfr, choke or hybrid.
> > If he needs 
> > DC Current signaling we could even show him how to
> > wire up a 
> > basic balanced hybrid with an optional DC Current
> > Loop. 
> > 
> > In a poor mans method one could even use the low
> > cost 
> > audio transformers from Radio Shack. True split
> > winding xmfrs 
> > for hybrid aps are also cheap and easy to find. 
> > 
> > cheers, 
> > s. 
> > 
> > > scomind@ wrote: 
> > > Since the other remedies haven't worked
> > completely, you might 
> > > file  this away in case the situation arises
> > again:
> > >  
> > > You might be experiencing a ground loop even with
> > coupling 
> > > transformers at each end due to the capacitance to
> > ground 
> > > of the transformers. A common mode choke, if it
> > has sufficient 
> > > reactance at the noise frequency, can eliminate
> > the  noise.
> > >  
> > > A common mode choke is an inductor with a single
> > core (toroidal 
> > > is good) and two identical windings connected such
> > that each 
> > > winding is in series with one of the long lines.
> > The choke 
> > > goes at the input end with the phasing dots on the
> > same side, 
> > > i.e., either toward the line or toward the
> > equipment input.
> > >  
> > > The "desired signal" current flows in opposite
> > directions on 
> > > the two lines and creates opposing magnetic fields
> > in the choke, 
> > > which cancel. The  desired signal never sees the
> > choke and its 
> > > waveform is  maintained.
> >  
> > > The "undesired signal" (common mode) current flows
> > in the 
> > > same  direction in both lines and sees a lot of
> > reactance 
> > > in the choke because the two magnetic fields add.
> > Much of 
> > > the noise is eliminated.
> > >  
> > > 73,
> > > Bob  
> > > 
> > > Bob Schmid,  WA9FBO, Member
> > > S-COM, LLC
> > > www.scomcontrollers.com
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > >  
> > > Hi Jim,
> > >  
> > > >The cable I used was armored with a spiral copper
> > > shield over 5  twisted pair lines. I did try
> > grounding
> > > the shield at one end, and at both  ends with no
> > > results. Putting caps across the twisted pair and
> > to
> > > ground  also did not eliminate the problem, but
> > did
> > > reduce it. I used 600:600  isolation transformers
> > in
> > > the audio input and output lines at the  repeater.
> > > 
> > > >It all became a mute point when the cable got
> > mowed  in
> > > two during a grass cutting this last summer, and
> > then
> > > we lost the  public IP address and EchoLink was no
> > > longer usable. So any more trouble  shooting
> > exercises
> > > will await the return (if ever) of the public  IP
> > > address.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>   
_
___
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2x RX's or 2x TX's on one Controller Port

[Brian]

The Linker IIa is a 2 port controller with a seperate control receiver 
input.


The control receiver input has priority over RX1 and RX2, RX1 has 
priority over
RX2. 

The COS inputs can be programmed for + or - polarity as well as trigger 
levels.


I am not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for but you might 
want to take

a look.

www.ics-ctrl.com

Thanks
Brian
ka9pmm

Ron Wright wrote:

Although many logic, including NAND gates, operate in linear mode, but 
not for audio. They simply switch from/to logic 0 or 1.


The 4066 is an analog switch and works very well. One must bias its 
inputs somewhere in the middle of the power supply voltage so any 
audio signal will not work outside its rails.


73, ron, n9ee/r

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Date: 2007/11/23 Fri AM 10:35:18 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 


>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2x RX's or 2x TX's on one Controller Port

>
>At 11/23/2007 03:12, you wrote:
>
>>Kevin, here is a circuit that I have used several
>>times to combine a control receiver with the main
>>receiver in a repeater controller. It can be used to
>>provide a second frequency port to a repeater system
>>with one port having precidence over the other, ie
>>when one port has a signal, the other port is
>>inhibited.
>
>How much distortion do you get using those 4011 NAND gates as audio amps?
>
>Bob NO6B
>
>

Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.

 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeater Antenna Choice

[Laryn Lohman]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I don't think the comments about where you want to put your signal  
> apply as much as some folks would have you believe.  Even though the  
> 408 pushes more gain to the horizon, it still is rated for something  
> like 7 degrees of vertical beamwidth to the 3 dB down points.


Ummm Nate maybe you got the numbers mixed up.  The 420 would be
the one with more gain to the horizon.  And it's the one with the 7
degrees of vertical beamwidth.  The 408 has a 14 degree vertical
beamwidth.


 
> During a local discussion here recently someone also pointed out that  
> the 408 and that other one with 10 dipoles (sheesh!) that they make  
> now, have a lot of really odd-ball types of coax in their harnesses  
> for the phasing, and there's a LOT of it.  How much energy is really  
> making it to the dipoles in a 408, and how much is just radiated from  
> all that relatively lossy coax in the phasing harness itself?  We'll  
> all never know, I guess.  But there *has* to be some loss there.  

Sure there's loss in that there *sometimes* wierd coax.  And a few
minutes with a calculator one could take a good stab at the amount of
loss in the harness.  But we're seeing the published gain figures in
the face of these losses, so I feel compelled to not concern myself
about that too much.

 
> Other's experiences with the 408 and other high-gain antennas not  
> reaching close-in stations very well make me wonder if something else  
> was going on.  Multipath and various forms of fading can really be a  
> bear in urban or hilly environments.

Again, I think you meant to say 420, no?

> 
> 7 degrees down with 3 dB of difference in signal, right in close,  
> shouldn't make that much of a difference, since you're closer to the  
> repeater.  I'll admit though, again, that the Sinclair 4-bay's numbers  
> for vertical beamwidth sure look a lot nicer for a building-top system  
> than the DB's... it has something like 9 more degrees of vertical  
> beamwidth to it's 3dB points.  Yeah, that means some of our signal is  
> going up, where it's not needed... but with gain numbers similar to  
> the DB's and a wider beamwidth, doesn't that say something about the  
> antenna itself?  Just my opinion...
> 
> (That 7 degree number for the 408 is from memory, but you can get the  
> specs and do the triangle math yourself, pretty easily... fire up the  
> old pythagorean theorem and do some engineering... then decide.  I ran  
> the numbers for the Sinclair 4-bay at our 11,440' MSL site that's over  
> 5000' HAAT, to see if down-tilt was needed.  It had a MUCH larger  
> vertical beamwidth over the DB's, and the answer was, "not needed at  
> all".  1 degree of electrical down-tilt would have been nice,  
> perhaps... to push just a tiny bit more signal into Denver... but not  
> really necessary at all.)

Nate, perhaps you could clarify that paragraph...  

Anyway, I was just comparing published vertical beamwidth numbers for
various bands/manufacturers/gains.  Within a degree or so, it doesn't
matter who makes it, you'll find 14-16 degrees beamwidth for antennas
rated at 6 dbd, U or V.  And for antennas rated at 9 dbd you'll find
them at around 7 degrees, U or V.  Makes sense, since everyone starts
out with the same applied RF, and since no manufacturer has yet to
modify the laws of physics to their favor (though many try to convince
you differently hehe), there has to be pretty much the same
shape/beamwidth of the RF donut for the same gain at the horizon. 
(Omni antennas).

I'm with you on liking the dipole antennas...

Laryn K8TVZ

[Repeater-Builder] OT- Battery Deal!

[WA Brown]

400 AA and 100 AAA batteries for $56.99!


http://www.batteries.com/productprofile.asp?appid=407612 

Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2x RX's or 2x TX's on one Controller Port

[Ron Wright]

Although many logic, including NAND gates, operate in linear mode, but not for 
audio.  They simply switch from/to logic 0 or 1.

The 4066 is an analog switch and works very well.  One must bias its inputs 
somewhere in the middle of the power supply voltage so any audio signal will 
not work outside its rails.

73, ron, n9ee/r


>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 2007/11/23 Fri AM 10:35:18 CST
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2x RX's or 2x TX's on one Controller  Port

>  
>At 11/23/2007 03:12, you wrote:
>
>>Kevin, here is a circuit that I have used several
>>times to combine a control receiver with the main
>>receiver in a repeater controller. It can be used to
>>provide a second frequency port to a repeater system
>>with one port having precidence over the other, ie
>>when one port has a signal, the other port is
>>inhibited.
>
>How much distortion do you get using those 4011 NAND gates as audio amps?
>
>Bob NO6B
>
>


Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: MTR2000

[scomind]

 
Hi Eric,
 
>I make no secret of my disdain for "bells and whistles" like clever  courtesy
tones, autopatch, and voice announcements. I work primarily in  commercial
and public-safety radio systems where such "features" have no  place.  



That's certainly an understandable take, but keep in mind most of that  stuff 
can be turned off. Frankly, in newer designs (like our 7330),  you aren't 
paying much for the bells and whistles because those kinds  of features are 
implemented either in a chip that has to be there  anyway (the FPGA) or in 
firmware. The "personality" of the repeater is pretty  much up to the control 
op/owner.
 
Without an external controller, it's fairly difficult to be able to  link and 
unlink a group of co-sited repeaters and transfer commands among  them, for 
example. Granted, that kind of activity may be more ham-oriented than  
commercial.
 
>In my limited experience (40+ years) the majority of  equipment failures 
have been
in the add-ons, not in the commercial equipment. 
 
Add-on equipment often uses very low voltages (especially in the logic  
section) and is perhaps more susceptible to lightning than RF equipment  that 
runs 
on nothing lower than 13.8 V or 24 V. But today's repeaters  have internal 
CPUs and other logic, so perhaps they are no longer more  bulletproof than the 
external controllers.
 
My own 22+ years in the biz leads me to think that controllers have  two 
natural enemies, lightning and customers with screwdrivers. And the  lightning 
issue decreases hugely when you delete the autopatch.
 
A lot of controller failures can be traced to weaknesses in  the design, both 
hardware and software. Maybe mostly software. I don't  see the inherent 
problem with using an external controller other than  a small loss of 
reliability 
from the extra components.
 
73,
Bob  

Bob Schmid,  WA9FBO, Member
S-COM, LLC
PO Box 1546
LaPorte CO  80535-1546
970-416-6505 voice
970-419-3222  fax
www.scomcontrollers.com




**Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301)

Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeater Antenna Choice

[Ron Wright]

Here in Florida near a beach we have found exposed dipoles like the DB224 are 
destroyed by the salt air.  They last 6-10 years.  This is most often withing a 
couple miles of a beach although I've seen a number die when mounted at longer 
distances.

I prefer the fiberglass larger ones like the Super Station Master or Celwave 
200.  They last forever.  Understand lightning is a problem due to their 
construction using soldered connections.

Fiberglass enclosed antennas such as the Diamonds and Comets do not last...look 
at their flimsy construction and one can see why.

73, ron, n9ee/r



>From: gervais fillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/11/24 Sat AM 08:06:27 CST
>To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeater Antenna Choice

>  
>Hi all
>we have been using here 
>Sinclair SRL-210 a4 for many years ,they are well built,4 dipoles .
>they have been cloned by many telecom compagny as Comprod too
> 
>we have tested Fiberglass antenna,after a time the coating of the fibreglass 
>dissapear and the fiber of the fiberglass broke 
>due to salted winds,we prefer metal antenna since then
> 
>to bad i have one in my garage,srl210,which i dont used for many years
> 
>73/s all
>gervais
>
>
>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:13:12 +
>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Repeater Antenna Choice
>> 
>> Derek,
>> 
>> Going to the higher gain antenna may cause shadowing in some areas
>> close in to the repeater site if its up real high. I also like the
>> DB-408 antennas and am using them on my systems. The fiberglass
>> antennas are OK also, But if they take a lightning hit they are gone.
>> I had an ASP copy of a DB813 on a water tower and it took a direct hit
>> and it still worked great. I had a big burn mark on one of the loops.
>> It also had a red plastic cap on the top and it was burned and
>> blackened. To me the loop style antennas are the way to go for
>> antennas in areas the there is a good chance of being hit by
>> lightning. If you are going to sidemount a fiberglass antenna you need
>> to be 3 to 6 feet out from the side of the tower as the fiberglass
>> antennas need room to flex. An arm out to the upper part of the
>> fiberglass antenna is a good idea. With the
>> antenna manufactures going overseas to build antennas the quality is not
>> like the ones we got years ago. You may want to look at COMPROD
>> antennas. There web site is www.comprodcom.com they build great antennas. 
>> 
>> 73 from Paul W9DWP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>Envoie un sourire, fais rire, amuse-toi! Employez-le maintenant!


Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: MTR2000

[Eric Lemmon]

The MTR2000 contains a very capable controller which includes the
power-reduction feature when on battery backup, along with an optional alarm
tone to advise users of the condition.  The programming software package
contains a fairly good tutorial about how to program the station.  I will
gladly answer any specific questions.

I make no secret of my disdain for "bells and whistles" like clever courtesy
tones, autopatch, and voice announcements.  I work primarily in commercial
and public-safety radio systems where such "features" have no place.  In my
limited experience (40+ years) the majority of equipment failures have been
in the add-ons, not in the commercial equipment.  However, as Patrick Swayze
said in the movie "Roadhouse", opinions vary.  That was a great movie, by
the way.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY


-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of barrypal
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 5:19 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: MTR2000

Thanks Eric. Can you refer me to anywhere on this site that might
contain all the features of the internal controller? Screen shots or
text.. If using an external controller on the MTR2000 one might not
have ability to reduce the power setting under battery operation
unless the external could do that or is that inherent in the system
regardless of controller? We have ordered from HCI our vhf MTR2000
along with the Argus battery revert.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: MTR2000

[barrypal]

Thanks Eric.  Can you refer me to anywhere on this site that might
contain all the features of the internal controller?  Screen shots or
text.. If using an external controller on the MTR2000 one might not
have ability to reduce the power setting under battery operation
unless the external could do that or is that inherent in the system
regardless of controller?  We have ordered from HCI our vhf MTR2000
along with the Argus battery revert. 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorala Model Number TA9KM+067W

[Bob M.]

Well, since you obviously know about the
repeater-builder Yahoo Group, have you ever visited
the www.repeater-builder.com web site? I bet if you
looked in the Motorola section - the company that
makes the radios, you'd find some info on Spectras,
and, wonder of wonders, maybe even an itsy-bitsy,
teeny-weeny bit of information about a programming
cable.

All it takes is a little button-pressing.

And, that model number matches one for sale on eBay;
the photo confirms it IS a high-power radio.

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

> Hi Bob,
>   Thanks for the information this will help a great
> deal. I have the rss and I'm getting the rib box I
> just have to find a diagram for the cable then I'm
> set
>   
>Thanks again 
>   Roger KG6TZT
> 
> "Bob M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   
>Sounds like a Spectra model number.
> You'd need the
>  Spectra RSS, a RIB, and associated cables. The A9
>  tells me it has an A9 control head and is
> trunk-mount,
>  high-power.
>  
>  There should also be an ID number that's 12
> characters
>  long; this will let you find a lot more info.
>  
>  Bob M.
>  ==
>  --- roger_morrison2002
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  wrote:
>  
>  > Hello 
>  >   I would loke to know what type of radio this is
>  > and how do I program 
>  > this unit. Thanks 
>  > 
>  >Roger KG6TZT


  

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. 
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Motorala Model Number TA9KM+067W

[KA9QJG]

Roger, You can find the diagram of the cables here
http://www.batlabs.com/speccbl.html  And probably on this Group ,  I was not
brave enough to try and make one and smoke My radio  So I Bought one on
E-Bay . 

 

Good Luck

 

Don KA9QJG 

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorala Model Number TA9KM+067W

[Roger Morrison]

Hi Bob,
  Thanks for the information this will help a great deal. I have the rss and 
I'm getting the rib box I just have to find a diagram for the cable then I'm 
set
  
   Thanks again 
  Roger KG6TZT

"Bob M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   Sounds like a 
Spectra model number. You'd need the
 Spectra RSS, a RIB, and associated cables. The A9
 tells me it has an A9 control head and is trunk-mount,
 high-power.
 
 There should also be an ID number that's 12 characters
 long; this will let you find a lot more info.
 
 Bob M.
 ==
 --- roger_morrison2002 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 wrote:
 
 > Hello 
 >   I would loke to know what type of radio this is
 > and how do I program 
 > this unit. Thanks 
 > 
 >Roger KG6TZT
 
 __
 Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
 http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
 
 
   

RE: [Repeater-Builder] MTR2000

[Eric Lemmon]

That is partly correct.  The presence of fans does indicate that the station
is in the 75-100 watt class, but it tells you nothing about the frequency of
operation.  Here is a list of fan-equipped MTR2000 power amplifiers:

CLN1224/TTD1791  132-154 MHz
CLN1225/TTD1792  150-174 MHz
CLN1228/TTX1010  403-435 MHz
CLN1229/TTX1020  435-470 MHz
CLN1232/TTF1601  850-870 MHz
CLF1260/TTF1602  935-941 MHz

One or both of the above numbers will appear on a label visible from the
front of the station.  It is not possible to operate any of the above PAs
outside of the stated band edges.  More information is here:



73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of barrypal
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:44 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] MTR2000

I have been told that if there are cooling fans on both sides of the
repeaters heat sinks it's the 25-100 unit(uhf). Is this correct. No
cooling fans would indicate 40 watt units or just remote receivers.

[Repeater-Builder] MTR2000

[barrypal]

I have been told that if there are cooling fans on both sides of the
repeaters heat sinks it's the 25-100 unit(uhf).  Is this correct.  No
cooling fans would indicate 40 watt units or just remote receivers. 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder

[Jim Brown]

As has been pointed out by a couple of folks now,
change the part number for the IC from CA4011 to
CD4011.  It is a CMOS quad two input NAND gate.  Also
I have uploaded a much more readable version of the
schematic along with the free download site of the
viewer for the schematic.

73 - Jim  W5ZIT

--- Jeff Kincaid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks!
> 
> 'JK
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com,
> Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This email message is a notification to let you
> know that
> > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the
> Repeater-Builder 
> > group.
> > 
> >   File: /Combiner.jpg 
> >   Uploaded by : w5zit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> >   Description : Combine two audio signals to one
> input port 
> > 
> > You can access this file at the URL:
> >
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Combiner.jpg
> 
> > 
> > To learn more about file sharing for your group,
> please visit:
> > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > w5zit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> 
> 
> 



  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Repeater-Builder] New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder

[Repeater-Builder]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Repeater-Builder 
group.

  File: /2 RX selector schematic.png 
  Uploaded by : no6b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  Description : 2 RX combiner with controllable priority/disable 

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/2%20RX%20selector%20schematic.png
 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

no6b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder

[Jeff Kincaid]

Thanks!

'JK

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com,
Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Repeater-Builder 
> group.
> 
>   File: /Combiner.jpg 
>   Uploaded by : w5zit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>   Description : Combine two audio signals to one input port 
> 
> You can access this file at the URL:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Combiner.jpg 
> 
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
> 
> Regards,
> 
> w5zit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Usage of Linked Repeater Systems vs. Stand Alone Repeaters

[Naber, Benjamin L. SPC]

Tony, et al
 
I read through many of the comments everyone has posted, all equally 
reasonable, and justifiable. I would like to comment on this.
 
Back in 2004, June QST or somewhere around that time, a Correspondence article 
was published by the ARRL entitled "Use what we have." To this day, I will make 
the stand that by going off that statement is what saved my club from getting 
disbanded. I don't remember all what I wrote, but I do remember that my point 
was to do just exactly that - use what we have.
 
In my home area in the Black Hills of South Dakota we have three VHF repeaters, 
now all linked together and a South Dakota State Link that ties users from the 
west side of the state tying in several repeaters making to someplace in 
Minnesota. The local repeaters got more use and the link was active when my 
voice was on it making some noise or the area's special ham that likes to throw 
his call out at 3AM or... kerchunck them. Everyone does it, although not very 
often so there's no reason to make a huge fuss.
 
The guys around the area have an evening weather net around 2100hrs on the 
state link and on the local repeaters in the areas to help keep activity on the 
machines and let be known the system does exist.
 
The state link is a wonderful but under used system because of statements that 
have already been said, and at the same time reverse has been said. The other 
side was said as well, is that there could be too many machines in the local 
area.
 
Not everyone will have their radios on scan as I do, most seem to have a 
favorite spot for their group of friends and be happy with it.
 
We had a small ordeal a few years back about the VHF repeaters and the possible 
complete removal of them and came to quite the bit of controversy. It was 
mentioned there were too many repeaters for the area, given the local ham 
populous of about 200 and it may have been the reason for little activity.
 
>From what I see, it all boils down to this. Everyone is going to have whatever 
>they like, repeaters and stuff will come and go, but the two main things are 
>these, and these only - Let us use what we have and always be encouraging 
>others to get on the air - new comers, soon to be licensed and those that 
>haven't keyed the mic in a while. Ask them to press the button and make some 
>noise. That's what we came to do in the first place.
 
~Benjamin, KB9LFZ



From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Tony L.
Sent: Wed 21-Nov-07 18:59
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Usage of Linked Repeater Systems vs. Stand Alone 
Repeaters



Our club operates a RF full-time linked repeater system in metro New 
York City, currently comprised of four (4) repeaters. We've observed 
that the addition of a new repeater into the system doesn't always 
equate to added usage. In fact, we've noticed that many of the linked 
systems in metro NYC typically aren't as busy as local area stand alone 
systems.

We're puzzled as to why people seem to shy away from most, but not all, 
of the very wide coverage area systems. The busiest repeaters in our 
area seem to be the "no frills" stand alones. Are voice IDs, courtesy 
tones, and coverage footprints beyond a 25-mile radius just more than 
people can handle nowadays?

Comments anyone?



 
<>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] HLN3948 Schematic

[Eric Lemmon]

Eric,

The HLN3948 is the basic repeater controller that is in the HLN R*I*C*K
(Repeater Communications Interface Kit), which is used to connect two GM300
mobile radios and create a GR300 Repeater.  Other radios can be used with
the appropriate cables and changes in jumpers and I/O functions.  It does
not contain an ID function, so that needs to be added.

The complete service manual is available from Motorola Parts as part number
6880901Z79, for about $5.  Additional information that is very useful is
found in the GR300 Service Manual 6880902Z73, for about $19.

For more information, including the schematic diagram of the R*I*C*K, go
here:



73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 3:59 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] HLN3948 Schematic

I am looking for a schematic for a Motorola HLN 3948 repeater 
controller. This is a small controller that can be placed between two 
radios in order to make a repeater.

Eric.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: AM interference on long cable run

[Jim Brown]

There is a simular feature available in EchoLink Nate.
 They call it a 'Proxy server' and it allows you to
use regular TCP/IP packets to travel from the user to
a proxy site and be translated to UDP packets for the
rest of the world.  It then appears that your IP
address is the address of the proxy server and not the
ISP who has assigned you a private IP address.

There are quite a few proxy server sites that are
continuously on line and available for
limited/intermittant use and I can use one of them for
short periods of time.  But it would take a dedicated
site that only accepts proxy inputs from a particular
remote user to work halfway decent.  Another problem
that is interduced is the packet loss incurred when
using the proxy.  I have used them quite a bit and
find the connection is never as good as the direct UDP
to UDP route.

One fellow who has a public IP address at his home
converts his EchoLink node to a proxy when he hits the
road and dedicates it to his own callsign with a
password so he can access it through the wifi ports he
finds while away from home.

I did find one interesting thing in a situation where
the user did not have a public IP address, and that
was that he could connect to the EchoLink test server
and packets would flow to and from the test server
just fine, but he could not connect to any other
EchoLink node.  I think the EchoLink folks must be
tinkering with some kind of work around and it is
implemented between a recent download of EchoLink and
their test server. (The EchoLink test server is a
parrot that repeats everything you send to it back to
you)

The real solution for us is to obtain a public IP
address, which we had until the ISP changed us over a
couple of months ago.  We lost the Winlink FTP mode
also, since no unsolicited packets can reach us from
the internet.  (My son runs a Winlink station at this
same site)

Thanks for the input - 

73 - Jim  W5ZIT

--- Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 23, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> 
> > We have a wireless ISP at this site, and the ISP
> > provider decided to take away the public IP
> address
> > and assign us a private IP address, which no one
> can
> > reach from the internet.  We can do everything we
> need
> > to do on the internet, but packets that were not
> asked
> > for cannot find their way back to the router here
> .
> > UDP packets in particular have no way to reach us.
> 
> 
> This could be fixed with a VPN tunnel.  Are you
> familiar with that  
> technology?
> 
> VoIP doesn't "like" riding over TCP as much as UDP,
> but it works if  
> the bandwidth and latency numbers are right.
> 
> For low-bandwidth ham radio type applications, I've
> yet to see it "not  
> work".
> 
> In a nutshell, you build up an encrypted VPN tunnel
> between the  
> machine on the odd-ball non-public network and a
> machine that has a  
> real-public network address, and have the rest of
> the world "think"  
> you're over at that other address.
> 
> For IRLP, Dave Cameron was even offering it as a
> service once, for a  
> small donation.  He had access to a large block of
> public IP's in a  
> data center environment that was very well connected
> to the Net, and  
> he's used a VPN tunnel for years to hop on to
> whatever WiFi was around  
> and pop out of that data center with a real public
> IP address that the  
> world would see for demos and things.  Both at the
> IRLP conventions  
> and at Dayton, for example.
> 
> He had done all the homework (but none of it is
> particularly hard to  
> do) to write the scripts to continually set up a
> tunnel from an IRLP  
> machine to another site, where public addresses were
> available.
> 
> Tools like OpenVPN and similar with a little
> homework can do this for  
> free.  You can set it up on a mini network to
> simulate the odd-ball  
> ISP at home, get it working, and then take it back
> up to the site,  
> pretty easily too.
> 
> --
> Nate Duehr, WY0X
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 



  

Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorala Model Number TA9KM+067W

[Bob M.]

Sounds like a Spectra model number. You'd need the
Spectra RSS, a RIB, and associated cables. The A9
tells me it has an A9 control head and is trunk-mount,
high-power.

There should also be an ID number that's 12 characters
long; this will let you find a lot more info.

Bob M.
==
--- roger_morrison2002 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Hello 
>   I would loke to know what type of radio this is
> and how do I program 
> this unit. Thanks 
> 
>Roger KG6TZT


  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Repeater-Builder] HLN3948 Schematic

[Eric M.]

I am looking for a schematic for a Motorola HLN 3948 repeater 
controller.  This is a small controller that can be placed between to 
radios in order to make a repeater.

Eric.

[Repeater-Builder] Motorala Model Number TA9KM+067W

[roger_morrison2002]

Hello 
  I would loke to know what type of radio this is and how do I program 
this unit. Thanks 

   Roger KG6TZT

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: AM interference on long cable run

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 23, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> We have a wireless ISP at this site, and the ISP
> provider decided to take away the public IP address
> and assign us a private IP address, which no one can
> reach from the internet.  We can do everything we need
> to do on the internet, but packets that were not asked
> for cannot find their way back to the router here .
> UDP packets in particular have no way to reach us.


This could be fixed with a VPN tunnel.  Are you familiar with that  
technology?

VoIP doesn't "like" riding over TCP as much as UDP, but it works if  
the bandwidth and latency numbers are right.

For low-bandwidth ham radio type applications, I've yet to see it "not  
work".

In a nutshell, you build up an encrypted VPN tunnel between the  
machine on the odd-ball non-public network and a machine that has a  
real-public network address, and have the rest of the world "think"  
you're over at that other address.

For IRLP, Dave Cameron was even offering it as a service once, for a  
small donation.  He had access to a large block of public IP's in a  
data center environment that was very well connected to the Net, and  
he's used a VPN tunnel for years to hop on to whatever WiFi was around  
and pop out of that data center with a real public IP address that the  
world would see for demos and things.  Both at the IRLP conventions  
and at Dayton, for example.

He had done all the homework (but none of it is particularly hard to  
do) to write the scripts to continually set up a tunnel from an IRLP  
machine to another site, where public addresses were available.

Tools like OpenVPN and similar with a little homework can do this for  
free.  You can set it up on a mini network to simulate the odd-ball  
ISP at home, get it working, and then take it back up to the site,  
pretty easily too.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Repeater Antenna Choice

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 23, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Derek wrote:

> I've used the DB-408 antenna and am happy with it's performance, but  
> am
> wondering about significant difference in using a DB-420 for future
> repeaters.  Also considering the RFS 1151 (Tessco # 435830) fiberglass
> antenna.  It is tuned for 440-450 MHz and has 8dB gain, but I've heard
> some say fiberglass is not the way to go for repeaters.


In reality, "whatever works" is the answer for you.

But in my *opinion*:

I won't use fiberglass sticks (unless I get them for free)... too much  
lightning out here, and what's left of them after a direct strike will  
"fill a hefty bag nicely", as one local repeater builder type said  
about his that he found scattered all over a mountain-top.

If I do use them, they're always side-mounted and always with a top  
stay arm to keep them from destroying themselves with vibration in the  
wind, and we try to make a good guess at what the side mounting will  
do to the pattern and adjust for it accordingly.

Obviously I'm a fan of the folded-dipole style antennas.  They  
massively broad-banded when the element size is nice and fat, and  
therefore, I really like the Sinclair stuff.  The harness is inside  
the mast on the good models, out of the elements where it belongs, not  
out in the sunlight (UV rays up here will eat a harness alive, since  
the sites are always above 9000' MSL), and even the "regular" ones are  
very heavy-duty.  I've seen idiots climbing towers step on them,  
putting their feet in the wrong place, and they don't give.  Those  
same folks wouldn't think of stepping on a 420 or 408, it wouldn't  
hold them, and they'd know it.

Sinclair also makes "heavy duty" ones that are even more beefy.  They  
also make low IMD ones for sites where passive intermod and mixing are  
a problem.  You can at least claim you've done all you can to not add  
to the insanity.

With that said, and with Sinclairs on almost all of our systems now --  
I have heard systems that sounded great on both the DB-420 and the  
DB-408.  I won't deny that.

But...

I don't think the comments about where you want to put your signal  
apply as much as some folks would have you believe.  Even though the  
408 pushes more gain to the horizon, it still is rated for something  
like 7 degrees of vertical beamwidth to the 3 dB down points.

During a local discussion here recently someone also pointed out that  
the 408 and that other one with 10 dipoles (sheesh!) that they make  
now, have a lot of really odd-ball types of coax in their harnesses  
for the phasing, and there's a LOT of it.  How much energy is really  
making it to the dipoles in a 408, and how much is just radiated from  
all that relatively lossy coax in the phasing harness itself?  We'll  
all never know, I guess.  But there *has* to be some loss there.  I'd  
be curious what others think about that, since it was just a local  
discussion over a beer after hanging another Sinclair.  (GRIN)

Back to the angle of the dangle question -- unless trigonometry has  
suddenly failed or the manufacturer's specifications aren't really  
that accurate, I'd say the signal is going to cover both close-in and  
far away just fine for any repeater below about 5000' above average  
terrain.  Up that high, a degree or two of electrical down-tilt would  
be nice to cover in close.

Other's experiences with the 408 and other high-gain antennas not  
reaching close-in stations very well make me wonder if something else  
was going on.  Multipath and various forms of fading can really be a  
bear in urban or hilly environments.

7 degrees down with 3 dB of difference in signal, right in close,  
shouldn't make that much of a difference, since you're closer to the  
repeater.  I'll admit though, again, that the Sinclair 4-bay's numbers  
for vertical beamwidth sure look a lot nicer for a building-top system  
than the DB's... it has something like 9 more degrees of vertical  
beamwidth to it's 3dB points.  Yeah, that means some of our signal is  
going up, where it's not needed... but with gain numbers similar to  
the DB's and a wider beamwidth, doesn't that say something about the  
antenna itself?  Just my opinion...

(That 7 degree number for the 408 is from memory, but you can get the  
specs and do the triangle math yourself, pretty easily... fire up the  
old pythagorean theorem and do some engineering... then decide.  I ran  
the numbers for the Sinclair 4-bay at our 11,440' MSL site that's over  
5000' HAAT, to see if down-tilt was needed.  It had a MUCH larger  
vertical beamwidth over the DB's, and the answer was, "not needed at  
all".  1 degree of electrical down-tilt would have been nice,  
perhaps... to push just a tiny bit more signal into Denver... but not  
really necessary at all.)

The one time I saw a 408 smoke everything else, the repeater was about  
1500' HAAT and it was set up to push all of its signal to one side.   
It was mounted upside-down under a platfor