[Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers (budget test equipment)
Hi Cort, Just something to keep in mind... You can use a regular radio as a signal generator just as you can use another for your receiver/detector function. Duplexer adjustment is more easily done with some RF-Pads (attenuators) placed on each coax port. I use some 3dB pads fairly easy to purchase off Ebay cheap enough. There are even some very nice low power step and variable attenuators found (on Ebay) for more than fair prices. I've even built basic 1 and 3dB pads from common values found in ARRL and similar Handbooks. Only a few resistors, a proper size box/tube (with connectors) and the time to construct them right... There's also a step attenuator in some ARRL Handbooks and FAR Circuits probably still sells the pc-board kit to make them. So... one might assume your portable radio has a low power output setting, which should be still be more than enough generated signal to see with your receiver. The key to all of this is to at all costs avoid transmitting anything more than a very low (fractional) power signal toward the receiver. Using enough of the right size series placed RF-Pads should be the trick. One days of old when knights were bold trick was to solder a very low value fuse inside with a 3dB constructed RF-Pad. Easy enough to replace a 1/8 or 1/16th amp fuse versus the front end of an early Service Monitor Output Section. Many a smart radio service shop had external RF-Pad boxes (with internal pico fuses) in series with the coax from the Service Monitor Signal Generator Port. One other thought might be to find/buy/borrow a small amplifier for your Service Monitor, which would be something like a Mini Circuits wide-band box. Once again cheap enough if you search Ebay at the right time place. Many things are possible chow for now... s. Cort Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Skipp025! I have an old Lampkin service monitor and I've been tuning the duplexer by using my handheld as a receiver with the Lampkin as the generator. It just doesn't have enough oomph for proper tuning of the reject portion of 2 cans in series So I'm working somewhere in the notch... not good enough. I'll be looking for use of a proper service monitor, and probably keep using the MSR2000 unit -- it fits my installation better than the Wacom.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Hi Keith, Do you have the equipment to check each location for desense and effective sensitivity? It would be very hard to make a notch cavity from Hard-line with enough Q to allow a decent 100KHz split. Even placing a band-pass cavities will help only so much... A DCI Filter would not be the right type of filter with enough of the protection you're hoping to receive. One last thing... what type of 10 meter antenna are you using and what type of match does it provide? The key is probably first listening to the receiver and UHF Link operation without the remote transmitter side on the air. First find out where the gremlins really visit your party so you don't chase your tail and waste time... cheers, s. kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need ideas to cure desense on a 10 meter repeater. Details; 1. 100KHz split, (29.66 out 29.56 in) 2. Maxtracs on both ends, UHF link 3. Several miles of separation 4. Sometimes it works OK with no desense, but usually when the tx comes up, a buzzing type of noise wipes out most signals, even ones that were full quieting before. 5. The buzzing sounds like powerline noise. 6. There is some kind of wireless node nearby. What other types of noise generators could be exagerated by the additon of the 10m transmitter? Is it possible to make a notch filter out of big hardline at 100KHz with acceptable insertion loss? Would a window filter (DCI type) help with that type of noise? ...Keith WE6R
[Repeater-Builder] Re: ten meter desense help
Keith, Some of the local guys here had a similar problem and setup as you on ten meters. It turned out that the transmitter, even though several miles away, was saturating the extender (noise blanker). Turning off the extender on the receiver solved the desense problem. These were not Motorola savvy guys and didn't really know what an extender was or did or how they worked. It may be possible to retune the extender receiver to a different frequency far enough away from the transmit frequency and still be effective but not desense. YMMV. Merry Christmas, Al, K9SI kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need ideas to cure desense on a 10 meter repeater. Details; 1. 100KHz split, (29.66 out 29.56 in) 2. Maxtracs on both ends, UHF link 3. Several miles of separation 4. Sometimes it works OK with no desense, but usually when the tx comes up, a buzzing type of noise wipes out most signals, even ones that were full quieting before. 5. The buzzing sounds like powerline noise. 6. There is some kind of wireless node nearby. What other types of noise generators could be exagerated by the additon of the 10m transmitter? Is it possible to make a notch filter out of big hardline at 100KHz with acceptable insertion loss? Would a window filter (DCI type) help with that type of noise? ...Keith WE6R
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Thanks, yes, the split is too close to do much! I recently had both sites equipment here to check it out, everything looks good and plays (individualy) here with no problems. With the transmitter turned off, weak signals can get in and sound great on the UHF link. I just learned that there is a CAR TYPE BATTERY CHARGER across a battery at the receive site. aAARRRGGHH!! I don't know why the noise appears only when the transmitter (miles away) comes up though, but the first order of business is to pull the plug on that thing and see what happens. (maybe it is playing havok with the Maxtac's noise blanker?) Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Keith, Do you have the equipment to check each location for desense and effective sensitivity? It would be very hard to make a notch cavity from Hard-line with enough Q to allow a decent 100KHz split. Even placing a band-pass cavities will help only so much... A DCI Filter would not be the right type of filter with enough of the protection you're hoping to receive. One last thing... what type of 10 meter antenna are you using and what type of match does it provide? The key is probably first listening to the receiver and UHF Link operation without the remote transmitter side on the air. First find out where the gremlins really visit your party so you don't chase your tail and waste time... cheers, s. kb1we6r capyo670@ wrote: I need ideas to cure desense on a 10 meter repeater. Details; 1. 100KHz split, (29.66 out 29.56 in) 2. Maxtracs on both ends, UHF link 3. Several miles of separation 4. Sometimes it works OK with no desense, but usually when the tx comes up, a buzzing type of noise wipes out most signals, even ones that were full quieting before. 5. The buzzing sounds like powerline noise. 6. There is some kind of wireless node nearby. What other types of noise generators could be exagerated by the additon of the 10m transmitter? Is it possible to make a notch filter out of big hardline at 100KHz with acceptable insertion loss? Would a window filter (DCI type) help with that type of noise? ...Keith WE6R
[Repeater-Builder] Re: ten meter desense help
I believe the Maxtrac noise blanker is a pulse type vs one that is tuned to a nearby freq, but we can certainly disable it and give it a try (push and hold monitor button until 3 beeps). ...Keith --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Al Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith, Some of the local guys here had a similar problem and setup as you on ten meters. It turned out that the transmitter, even though several miles away, was saturating the extender (noise blanker). Turning off the extender on the receiver solved the desense problem. These were not Motorola savvy guys and didn't really know what an extender was or did or how they worked. It may be possible to retune the extender receiver to a different frequency far enough away from the transmit frequency and still be effective but not desense. YMMV. Merry Christmas, Al, K9SI kb1we6r capyo670@ wrote: I need ideas to cure desense on a 10 meter repeater. Details; 1. 100KHz split, (29.66 out 29.56 in) 2. Maxtracs on both ends, UHF link 3. Several miles of separation 4. Sometimes it works OK with no desense, but usually when the tx comes up, a buzzing type of noise wipes out most signals, even ones that were full quieting before. 5. The buzzing sounds like powerline noise. 6. There is some kind of wireless node nearby. What other types of noise generators could be exagerated by the additon of the 10m transmitter? Is it possible to make a notch filter out of big hardline at 100KHz with acceptable insertion loss? Would a window filter (DCI type) help with that type of noise? ...Keith WE6R
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers (budget test equipment)
I have found that the main problem in using a talkie as the receiver for tuning the notch in a duplexer is the possible leakage of RF between the signal source directly into the talkie. Most talkies are not shielded at all, and any leakage will cause you to tune a combination of the signal through the duplexer and the direct signal leaking into the talkie. Years ago when tuning the old Prog Line tube type radios I came up with a 'poor boy' signal source using a hand held Bearcat scanner. It had a 10.8 meg IF and by calculating the offset frequency a high level synthesized signal source (the LO) was available. Here again, signal leakage could be a problem and I solved that by putting a BNC feedthrough in a metal cake pan and making an aluminum cover to slide over the cake pan once the scanner was set on frequency. External 10 and 20 dB BNC pads were used to bring the signal level down to a usable level for tuning a radio. The signal from the scanner inside the cake pan was coupled from the antenna connection to the feedthrough. I now have a knock-off of a Wavetek service monitor, and it does great in all areas except for tuning duplexers. Signal leakage direct from the service monitor makes the notch tuning inaccurate. You can test for this condition by putting your hand around the verious cables in your test lash-up and watching the signal on the talkie. If you see any variation, you have a multipath signal at the talkie, and only one of those paths is going through the duplexer. I solved that problem by using an old Motorola analog signal generator for my signal source. Using double shielded cables from the Motorola to the 6 dB pads in series with the input and output of the duplexer shows no signal leakage as touching the cables has no effect on the signal at the talkie. I do have a 50 ohm load on the unused port of the duplexer when it is being tuned. The ultimate isolation I have seen is my old scanner-in -the-cakepan lash up, but it does not have enough output level to tune a notch accurately. With a few clothes line pins around the two ends (to clamp the ends of the aluminum cover) and a 50 ohm load on the feedthrough, the internal signal cannot be heard on a talkie with its antenna held around the outside of the cake pan. The Motorola sig gen has an attenuatior on a track that slides in and out of the oscillator cavity (a large round brass housing) which makes an arm stretcher out of it, but it has very low exteral leakage. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Cort, Just something to keep in mind... You can use a regular radio as a signal generator just as you can use another for your receiver/detector function. Duplexer adjustment is more easily done with some RF-Pads (attenuators) placed on each coax port. I use some 3dB pads fairly easy to purchase off Ebay cheap enough. There are even some very nice low power step and variable attenuators found (on Ebay) for more than fair prices. I've even built basic 1 and 3dB pads from common values found in ARRL and similar Handbooks. Only a few resistors, a proper size box/tube (with connectors) and the time to construct them right... There's also a step attenuator in some ARRL Handbooks and FAR Circuits probably still sells the pc-board kit to make them. So... one might assume your portable radio has a low power output setting, which should be still be more than enough generated signal to see with your receiver. The key to all of this is to at all costs avoid transmitting anything more than a very low (fractional) power signal toward the receiver. Using enough of the right size series placed RF-Pads should be the trick. One days of old when knights were bold trick was to solder a very low value fuse inside with a 3dB constructed RF-Pad. Easy enough to replace a 1/8 or 1/16th amp fuse versus the front end of an early Service Monitor Output Section. Many a smart radio service shop had external RF-Pad boxes (with internal pico fuses) in series with the coax from the Service Monitor Signal Generator Port. One other thought might be to find/buy/borrow a small amplifier for your Service Monitor, which would be something like a Mini Circuits wide-band box. Once again cheap enough if you search Ebay at the right time place. Many things are possible chow for now... s. Cort Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Skipp025! I have an old Lampkin service monitor and I've been tuning the duplexer by using my handheld as a receiver with the Lampkin as the generator. It just doesn't have enough oomph for proper tuning of the reject portion of 2 cans in series So I'm working somewhere in the notch... not good enough. I'll be looking for use of a proper service monitor, and probably keep using the MSR2000 unit -- it fits my installation better than the Wacom.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers (budget test equipment)
Jim I have used double shielded coax and haven't had too much problem with leakage. 73 Brian Jim Brown wrote: I have found that the main problem in using a talkie as the receiver for tuning the notch in a duplexer is the possible leakage of RF between the signal source directly into the talkie. Most talkies are not shielded at all, and any leakage will cause you to tune a combination of the signal through the duplexer and the direct signal leaking into the talkie. Years ago when tuning the old Prog Line tube type radios I came up with a 'poor boy' signal source using a hand held Bearcat scanner. It had a 10.8 meg IF and by calculating the offset frequency a high level synthesized signal source (the LO) was available. Here again, signal leakage could be a problem and I solved that by putting a BNC feedthrough in a metal cake pan and making an aluminum cover to slide over the cake pan once the scanner was set on frequency. External 10 and 20 dB BNC pads were used to bring the signal level down to a usable level for tuning a radio. The signal from the scanner inside the cake pan was coupled from the antenna connection to the feedthrough. I now have a knock-off of a Wavetek service monitor, and it does great in all areas except for tuning duplexers. Signal leakage direct from the service monitor makes the notch tuning inaccurate. You can test for this condition by putting your hand around the verious cables in your test lash-up and watching the signal on the talkie. If you see any variation, you have a multipath signal at the talkie, and only one of those paths is going through the duplexer. I solved that problem by using an old Motorola analog signal generator for my signal source. Using double shielded cables from the Motorola to the 6 dB pads in series with the input and output of the duplexer shows no signal leakage as touching the cables has no effect on the signal at the talkie. I do have a 50 ohm load on the unused port of the duplexer when it is being tuned. The ultimate isolation I have seen is my old scanner-in -the-cakepan lash up, but it does not have enough output level to tune a notch accurately. With a few clothes line pins around the two ends (to clamp the ends of the aluminum cover) and a 50 ohm load on the feedthrough, the internal signal cannot be heard on a talkie with its antenna held around the outside of the cake pan. The Motorola sig gen has an attenuatior on a track that slides in and out of the oscillator cavity (a large round brass housing) which makes an arm stretcher out of it, but it has very low exteral leakage. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- skipp025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:skipp025%40yahoo.com wrote: Hi Cort, Just something to keep in mind... You can use a regular radio as a signal generator just as you can use another for your receiver/detector function. Duplexer adjustment is more easily done with some RF-Pads (attenuators) placed on each coax port. I use some 3dB pads fairly easy to purchase off Ebay cheap enough. There are even some very nice low power step and variable attenuators found (on Ebay) for more than fair prices. I've even built basic 1 and 3dB pads from common values found in ARRL and similar Handbooks. Only a few resistors, a proper size box/tube (with connectors) and the time to construct them right... There's also a step attenuator in some ARRL Handbooks and FAR Circuits probably still sells the pc-board kit to make them. So... one might assume your portable radio has a low power output setting, which should be still be more than enough generated signal to see with your receiver. The key to all of this is to at all costs avoid transmitting anything more than a very low (fractional) power signal toward the receiver. Using enough of the right size series placed RF-Pads should be the trick. One days of old when knights were bold trick was to solder a very low value fuse inside with a 3dB constructed RF-Pad. Easy enough to replace a 1/8 or 1/16th amp fuse versus the front end of an early Service Monitor Output Section. Many a smart radio service shop had external RF-Pad boxes (with internal pico fuses) in series with the coax from the Service Monitor Signal Generator Port. One other thought might be to find/buy/borrow a small amplifier for your Service Monitor, which would be something like a Mini Circuits wide-band box. Once again cheap enough if you search Ebay at the right time place. Many things are possible chow for now... s. Cort Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Skipp025! I have an old Lampkin service monitor and I've been tuning the duplexer by using my handheld as a receiver with the Lampkin as the generator. It just doesn't have enough oomph for proper tuning of the reject portion of 2 cans in series So I'm working somewhere in the notch... not good enough. I'll be looking for use of a proper service monitor, and probably keep using the
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers (budget test equipment)
This has me thinking in new ways handheld has an ultra-low 50mw output... On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:34 AM, skipp025 wrote: Hi Cort, Just something to keep in mind... You can use a regular radio as a signal generator just as you can use another for your receiver/detector function. Duplexer adjustment is more easily done with some RF-Pads (attenuators) placed on each coax port. I use some 3dB pads fairly easy to purchase off Ebay cheap enough. There are even some very nice low power step and variable attenuators found (on Ebay) for more than fair prices. I've even built basic 1 and 3dB pads from common values found in ARRL and similar Handbooks. Only a few resistors, a proper size box/tube (with connectors) and the time to construct them right... There's also a step attenuator in some ARRL Handbooks and FAR Circuits probably still sells the pc-board kit to make them. So... one might assume your portable radio has a low power output setting, which should be still be more than enough generated signal to see with your receiver. The key to all of this is to at all costs avoid transmitting anything more than a very low (fractional) power signal toward the receiver. Using enough of the right size series placed RF-Pads should be the trick. One days of old when knights were bold trick was to solder a very low value fuse inside with a 3dB constructed RF-Pad. Easy enough to replace a 1/8 or 1/16th amp fuse versus the front end of an early Service Monitor Output Section. Many a smart radio service shop had external RF-Pad boxes (with internal pico fuses) in series with the coax from the Service Monitor Signal Generator Port. One other thought might be to find/buy/borrow a small amplifier for your Service Monitor, which would be something like a Mini Circuits wide-band box. Once again cheap enough if you search Ebay at the right time place. Many things are possible chow for now... s. Cort Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Skipp025! I have an old Lampkin service monitor and I've been tuning the duplexer by using my handheld as a receiver with the Lampkin as the generator. It just doesn't have enough oomph for proper tuning of the reject portion of 2 cans in series So I'm working somewhere in the notch... not good enough. I'll be looking for use of a proper service monitor, and probably keep using the MSR2000 unit -- it fits my installation better than the Wacom. 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] Re: Duplexers (budget test equipment)
At 12/22/2007 08:19, you wrote: Jim I have used double shielded coax and haven't had too much problem with leakage. 73 Brian The problem with HTs is that the radio itself is not well shielded. Of course some are better than others but I haven't found any that are good enough to use for tuning a duplexer where 80 dB of isolation is required. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
Do an Ebay search for this item number 28018586872 Such a deal!! Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
Ken, Can you verify the auction number? I don't get anything to come up. Whatever it is, at this price, I may want to get 2 or 3 of them! Dennis Bridgeman KCØFWN Bridgeman Communications 202 Seventh Street Carmi, IL 62821 http://bridgemancommunications.com - Original Message - From: Ken Arck To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:56 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449 Do an Ebay search for this item number 28018586872 Such a deal!! Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
Nothing found. Ken Arck wrote: Do an Ebay search for this item number 28018586872 Such a deal!! Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em! -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5
[Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
Ooops, dropped a 2 from the Ebay item number. Here's the correct one 280185868722 Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: ten meter desense help
The advice always is to turn off the extender/noise blanker in repeater service, or find a receiver that does not have an extender/noise blanker. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:48:44 AM CST From: Al Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: ten meter desense help Keith, Some of the local guys here had a similar problem and setup as you on ten meters. It turned out that the transmitter, even though several miles away, was saturating the extender (noise blanker). Turning off the extender on the receiver solved the desense problem. These were not Motorola savvy guys and didn't really know what an extender was or did or how they worked. It may be possible to retune the extender receiver to a different frequency far enough away from the transmit frequency and still be effective but not desense. YMMV. Merry Christmas, Al, K9SI kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need ideas to cure desense on a 10 meter repeater. Details; 1. 100KHz split, (29.66 out 29.56 in) 2. Maxtracs on both ends, UHF link 3. Several miles of separation 4. Sometimes it works OK with no desense, but usually when the tx comes up, a buzzing type of noise wipes out most signals, even ones that were full quieting before. 5. The buzzing sounds like powerline noise. 6. There is some kind of wireless node nearby. What other types of noise generators could be exagerated by the additon of the 10m transmitter? Is it possible to make a notch filter out of big hardline at 100KHz with acceptable insertion loss? Would a window filter (DCI type) help with that type of noise? ...Keith WE6R
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers (budget test equipment)
Oops. I forgot to mention double shielded cable for ALL interconnects is an absolute MUST, at least with my duplexer - it has notches in excess of 120 dB deep after refurbishing. It doesn't take much leakage cause problems when you're dealing with notches like that. Paul N1BUG Paul N1BUG wrote: Jim Brown wrote: I have found that the main problem in using a talkie as the receiver for tuning the notch in a duplexer is the possible leakage of RF between the signal source directly into the talkie. Most talkies are not shielded at all, and any leakage will cause you to tune a combination of the signal through the duplexer and the direct signal leaking into the talkie. Yes, I had that problem as well. When I built my last 2 meter repeater (a semi-homebrew using custom re-packaged GE modules, mostly) I crystalled the receiver for both the repeater receive and transmit frequencies with a service switch to select the second frequency. I also built a simple op amp DC amplifier sampling second limiter voltage at a metering point in the receiver and use it to drive a signal strength meter on the repeater front panel. Of course my custom chassis is very well shielded. The receiver is peaked for the repeater input frequency, so it isn't as sensitive on the other frequency; but it is good enough to see the depth of my duplexer notches. I use an old (cheap!) Boonton 202E generator as a signal source, and put 3 dB pads on the duplexer ports (and a 50 ohm termination on whatever port is not used at any specific point in the tune up process). The Boonton is surprisingly stable once it has warmed up for a couple of hours. I've had good luck with this simple setup. But adding the signal strength meter to many commercial repeaters (or worse yet mobiles converted to repeater) could be more of a challenge. Paul N1BUG
[Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo
Probably more off topic, but refreshing none the less.. Looks like the NFCC has adopted a code of ethics.. I think this has been a long time coming. http://www.theNFCC.org -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo
So what happens if a coordinator or coordination body violates the code of ethics? I've seen the Oregon Region Relay Council violate these ethics many times. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:14:30 PM CST From: Jay Urish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo Probably more off topic, but refreshing none the less.. Looks like the NFCC has adopted a code of ethics.. I think this has been a long time coming. http://www.theNFCC.org
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
You know what is interesting about that Old Motorola,You could probably just plug it in and it would still Work, As You can tell I am Biased Motorola Rocks. I always like the Tax payers who Paid for the Maintenance Contract for a Old Motorola Micor in the Trunk of a FD Or PD Veh that never needed to be touched for 20 Yrs . Just jerk them out and throw them in a trunk of a New Vehicle. Happy Holidays to All Don KA9QJG
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
Had 2 of them that I had the trash man take after I could not even give them away. John - Original Message - From: Ken Arck To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449 Ooops, dropped a 2 from the Ebay item number. Here's the correct one 280185868722 Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo
At 12:22 PM 12/22/2007, you wrote: So what happens if a coordinator or coordination body violates the code of ethics? I've seen the Oregon Region Relay Council violate these ethics many times. ---Well in all fairness, only certain individuals who were Board members (or Chairman) of the ORRC were less than ethical. Ok, some were downright crooked. Then again, it ain't exactly rocket science that politics plays a big part in the operations of many ham coordination groups. Ken
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo
Ken- You are correct. It was/is not the ENTIRE ORRC board that is less than ethical, but certainly several of the board members have been what you call downright crooked!! -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:31:35 PM CST From: Ken Arck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo At 12:22 PM 12/22/2007, you wrote: So what happens if a coordinator or coordination body violates the code of ethics? I've seen the Oregon Region Relay Council violate these ethics many times. ---Well in all fairness, only certain individuals who were Board members (or Chairman) of the ORRC were less than ethical. Ok, some were downright crooked. Then again, it ain't exactly rocket science that politics plays a big part in the operations of many ham coordination groups. Ken
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa. Johnny Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Remote power monitoring
On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: This is why I wish more repeater controllers had a user-accessible DVR track (even if it was only 10 seconds), and macros to record, play and erase it. I saw a web page a while back on how to build one using a Hallmark record/playback greeting card, but I can't find it now. Another reason to add IRLP... the PC can do this easily. It's come in handy a number of times already around here. :-) As far as I know the CAT-1000 does not have any analog inputs, and no way to add them. This means that even if you had a device to create analog DC voltages from the forward and reverse power (i.e. the forward/reverse power monitoring module from EMR or Telewave that Eric was referring to), you couldn't read the voltage, set thresholds and speak alerts based on those thresholds much less take those voltages, scale them to useful numbers, and speak the numbers back to you. The S-Com 7330 will eventually have support for its external A/D inputs. Should be very useful for such toys! An arbitrarily scaled RSSI monitor could be another useful use for them. Or fake the guys out... set up a DTMF command that when triggered says 97 watts forward, 1.5 watts reverse Unless you really do lose your antenna, or have a power amplifier deck flake out on you the average user will never know the difference. Knowing my luck I'd trigger that thing when it was really broken. :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Remote power monitoring
On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: This is why I wish more repeater controllers had a user-accessible DVR track (even if it was only 10 seconds), and macros to record, play and erase it Sh, don't tell anyone but both our RC210 and RC810 provide this functionality. Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo
Ken, now you've gone and done it...that metallic clank was the sound of the lid from the can of worms hitting the floor! Well...let's start with the premise that any coordination board is probably going to attract primarily existing repeater ops as members, and hand them a sort of monarchy. Is there a bigger conflict of interest than that? It ticks me off to see a coordinator hoarding unbuilt paper repeaters while others with real machines and sites ready to go are kept off the air. The whole premise of assigning a 15- or 20kHz-wide chunk of spectrum to one individual who's using it less than 1% of the time violates the spirit of the amateur service, IMHO. The FCC doesn't allow a local volunteer coordinator to reserve 3885 kHz SSB for you, or a VHF simplex frequency for that matter. This isn't like commercial services where you have to be assigned a frequency to have a practical system. The public interest would be best served by allowing as many hams as possible the experience of building, maintaining and operating a repeater, not by saving a seat in a crowded theater. There should never be a waiting list for repeater coordination in the amateur service. Utah has a 440 frequency which is designated as shared with no protection, and it's occupied by five repeaters. Some other states have backyard/test pairs, as well. There could be a compromise position between the two extremes. Sharing a frequency pair by day of the week would be easy with modern controllers with schedulers. If the two repeaters had vastly different coverage areas, make them user selectable, and revert to that day's default repeater on a 10-minute end of activity timer. You know someone would do this...get together 7 guys to share one pair, and build a central computer system to automate control of which machine of the 7 came up based on time of day, which receiver voted, PL tone, etc. Other guys would build synchronous transmitters with voting receivers, so both could be on at once. This wouldn't be as hard to introduce as it sounds. All you'd have to do is accept applications from licensees who proposed to share a frequency pair, and give shared applications preference over single applicants. Require applicants to spell out the terms under which they propose to share the frequency, so the coordinator would have a documented set of rules should issues arise. Immediately, applicants on the waiting list would be on the phone with one another, lining up partners. Make continued sharing by those who originally filed that way a requirement to hold the coordination. If you're left alone on a pair, you contact the coordinator for a new partner, and maybe you get one who's been in a three-way sharing arrangement on another pair. If you have an agreement with someone to share a pair, and he doesn't honor it, call the coordinator and forfeit the coordination for both of you, and go back into the pool. You'd have partners striving to maintain good references, so they could easily find partners, and bad partners would be left filing singly, waiting at the back of the list. Grandfathered one-per-pair coordinations would open up to the shared system whenever there was a change in licensee/callsign. Anyone unwilling to partner (or unable due to bad references from screwing over previous partners) could build a repeater on a band with no waiting list. We'd end up with redundant hardware backing up every pair on 2m and many on 440, (probably 1.2 in parts of CA,) and everyone with a repeater would have an incentive to work together. The downside is...what? Used duplexers would go up in price? The licensee would not longer be able to show up at club meetings with a name tag that read simply, .76? If we find a way to get rid of the waiting list, the coordinator's position changes dramatically, and the corrupting influences are greatly reduced. No more sucking up for years, having to join the right club, or pay a coordinator thousand of dollars for one of his paper repeaters to get yours on the air. Other than that, I think the current system works fine. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo Ken- You are correct. It was/is not the ENTIRE ORRC board that is less than ethical, but certainly several of the board members have been what you call downright crooked!! -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:31:35 PM CST From: Ken Arck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo At 12:22 PM 12/22/2007, you wrote: So what happens if a coordinator or coordination body violates the code of ethics? I've seen the Oregon Region Relay Council violate these ethics many times. ---Well in all fairness, only certain
[Repeater-Builder] HAPPY HOLIDAYS
TOO ALL OF YOU WHERE EVER YOU ARE WE WISH A HAPPY, SAFE,AND PEACEFUL HOLIDAY. SINCERELY TED BLEIMAN K9MDM Ted Bleiman K9MDM MDM Radio If its in stock...we've got it! P O Box 31353 Chicago, IL 60631-0353 773.631.5130 fax 773.775.8096 web http://www.mdmradio.com - email - [EMAIL PROTECTED] DIRECT ALL EMAIL Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Which 440 Synthesized radio to use with IRLP?
Certainly, my suggestion here isn't going to be a solution for your immediate project but thought it might be useful for future applications for others wanting to do the same thing. As many may know Kenwood has a 2m monoband radio that is of commercial quality - the TM-271A. I use many for APRS digipeaters and packet links with excellent results. What's interesting is Kenwood (Japan) also makes a 70cm version - the TM-471. However, Kenwood USA made a decision not to import and sell the 70cm version due to history of low sales for any monoband mobile other than 2m. I recently spoke with Phil Parton of Kenwood USA regarding the TM-471 and he indicated that if he received emails indicating an interest in the TM-471 70cm monoband mobile that he'd try to get Kenwood USA management to let him bring in the radio. So, if you would like to have an option other than Alinco for a 70cm monoband mobile radio drop Phil an email - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately, I doubt Kenwood will develop a 222MHz version so Alinco will continue to be the only source for that band. 73, Richard KQ4KX
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
Yes,it's a tad expensive, but it is remote control...! Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449 It doesn't even have the Extender version receiver! A necessity on low-band. -Original Message- From: Maire-Radios Sent: Dec 22, 2007 12:27 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449 Had 2 of them that I had the trash man take after I could not even give them away. John - Original Message - From: Ken Arck To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449 Ooops, dropped a 2 from the Ebay item number. Here's the correct one 280185868722 Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers (budget test equipment)
A friend of mine gave me some surplus RG-400 from the place he worked a few years ago. I got sold on the stuff, and with 50-75 feet of 5 foot pieces, I've been fortunate enough to use it with reckless abandon for some time :) On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Paul N1BUG wrote: Oops. I forgot to mention double shielded cable for ALL interconnects is an absolute MUST, at least with my duplexer - it has notches in excess of 120 dB deep after refurbishing. It doesn't take much leakage cause problems when you're dealing with notches like that. Paul N1BUG Paul N1BUG wrote: Jim Brown wrote: I have found that the main problem in using a talkie as the receiver for tuning the notch in a duplexer is the possible leakage of RF between the signal source directly into the talkie. Most talkies are not shielded at all, and any leakage will cause you to tune a combination of the signal through the duplexer and the direct signal leaking into the talkie. Yes, I had that problem as well. When I built my last 2 meter repeater (a semi-homebrew using custom re-packaged GE modules, mostly) I crystalled the receiver for both the repeater receive and transmit frequencies with a service switch to select the second frequency. I also built a simple op amp DC amplifier sampling second limiter voltage at a metering point in the receiver and use it to drive a signal strength meter on the repeater front panel. Of course my custom chassis is very well shielded. The receiver is peaked for the repeater input frequency, so it isn't as sensitive on the other frequency; but it is good enough to see the depth of my duplexer notches. I use an old (cheap!) Boonton 202E generator as a signal source, and put 3 dB pads on the duplexer ports (and a 50 ohm termination on whatever port is not used at any specific point in the tune up process). The Boonton is surprisingly stable once it has warmed up for a couple of hours. I've had good luck with this simple setup. But adding the signal strength meter to many commercial repeaters (or worse yet mobiles converted to repeater) could be more of a challenge. Paul N1BUG 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] Re: Which 440 Synthesized radio to use with IRLP?
Just sent an e-mail as suggested. I would absolutely LOVE to see a good, commercial grade amateur 70cm rig. On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Richard Sharp, KQ4KX wrote: Certainly, my suggestion here isn’t going to be a solution for your immediate project but thought it might be useful for future applications for others wanting to do the same thing. As many may know Kenwood has a 2m monoband radio that is of commercial quality – the TM-271A. I use many for APRS digipeaters and packet links with excellent results. What’s interesting is Kenwood (Japan) also makes a 70cm version – the TM-471. However, Kenwood USA made a decision not to import and sell the 70cm version due to history of low sales for any monoband mobile other than 2m. I recently spoke with Phil Parton of Kenwood USA regarding the TM-471 and he indicated that if he received emails indicating an interest in the TM-471 70cm monoband mobile that he’d try to get Kenwood USA management to let him bring in the radio. So, if you would like to have an option other than Alinco for a 70cm monoband mobile radio drop Phil an email – [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately, I doubt Kenwood will develop a 222MHz version so Alinco will continue to be the only source for that band. 73, Richard KQ4KX 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] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
I shouldn't get terribly excited http://tinyurl.com/2ey9y2 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:10:46 -0600 Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449 Nothing found. Ken Arck wrote: Do an Ebay search for this item number 28018586872 Such a deal!! Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of repeater controllers and accessories. http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/ Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net http://www.irlp.net We don't just make 'em. We use 'em! -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5 _ Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%3Fs%5Fcid%3D595810_t=766724125_r=Hotmail_Email_Tagline_MyCareer_Oct07_m=EXT
[Repeater-Builder] Re: NFCC cordination foo
OK, what is the difference in them and; http://www.arrl.org/nfcc/ ? ...Keith WE6R --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jay Urish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably more off topic, but refreshing none the less.. Looks like the NFCC has adopted a code of ethics.. I think this has been a long time coming. http://www.theNFCC.org -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life Member Denton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo
This is NOT the official NFCC this is a group who claims that the original NFCC was disbanded, and they have declared themselves the NEW official NFCC http://www.thenfcc.org/press_release_12_18_07.pdf Be interesting to see what the ARRL or the real NFCC has to say about this George - Original Message - From: Jay Urish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:14 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo Probably more off topic, but refreshing none the less.. Looks like the NFCC has adopted a code of ethics.. I think this has been a long time coming. http://www.theNFCC.org -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life Member Denton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: NFCC cordination foo
The one you quoted is supported nationally. The other one is not despite their claims otherwise. As for leadership, don't hold your breath. Most members are content with the NFCC doing nothing. Joe M. OK, what is the difference in them and; http://www.arrl.org/nfcc/ ? ...Keith WE6R --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jay Urish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably more off topic, but refreshing none the less.. Looks like the NFCC has adopted a code of ethics.. I think this has been a long time coming. http://www.theNFCC.org -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life Member Denton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5 Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Which 440 Synthesized radio to use with IRLP?
While I agree that the Kenwood TM-271A is a fine radio, it is still designed for the Amateur Radio market, and it lacks many of the features and adjustments that are found in a true commercial-grade radio. When compared to a Kenwood TK-760GK2, a 128-channel 25W radio that is designed for 136-162 MHz operation, the TM-271A pales in comparison. For those Hams who want more power, the TK-760HGK2 offers 50W with the same features. The brochure is here: www.island-communications.com/760g.pdf I have both the TK-760GK2 and the TK-860GK for mobile use, and I have had zero problems with them. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Which 440 Synthesized radio to use with IRLP? Just sent an e-mail as suggested. I would absolutely LOVE to see a good, commercial grade amateur 70cm rig. On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Richard Sharp, KQ4KX wrote: Certainly, my suggestion here isn't going to be a solution for your immediate project but thought it might be useful for future applications for others wanting to do the same thing. As many may know Kenwood has a 2m monoband radio that is of commercial quality - the TM-271A. I use many for APRS digipeaters and packet links with excellent results. What's interesting is Kenwood (Japan) also makes a 70cm version - the TM-471. However, Kenwood USA made a decision not to import and sell the 70cm version due to history of low sales for any monoband mobile other than 2m. I recently spoke with Phil Parton of Kenwood USA regarding the TM-471 and he indicated that if he received emails indicating an interest in the TM-471 70cm monoband mobile that he'd try to get Kenwood USA management to let him bring in the radio. So, if you would like to have an option other than Alinco for a 70cm monoband mobile radio drop Phil an email - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately, I doubt Kenwood will develop a 222MHz version so Alinco will continue to be the only source for that band. 73, Richard KQ4KX Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Uhhh... because the FCC only allows repeater operation between 29.5 and 29.7 MHz? [see 97.205(b)] When you aren't given a choice, the decision is pretty easy. Joe M. Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
Feel free to petition the FCC to allow this. ;- Joe M. Johnny wrote: I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa. Johnny Jeff Kincaid wrote: The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to use in a 200 kHz wide band? Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, kb1we6r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room for a better repeater plan). Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo
Should be easy to do. All you need to do is get rid of the politics in all the existing clubs. Good luck with that, BTW. Joe M. Paul Plack wrote: Ken, now you've gone and done it...that metallic clank was the sound of the lid from the can of worms hitting the floor! Well...let's start with the premise that any coordination board is probably going to attract primarily existing repeater ops as members, and hand them a sort of monarchy. Is there a bigger conflict of interest than that? It ticks me off to see a coordinator hoarding unbuilt paper repeaters while others with real machines and sites ready to go are kept off the air. The whole premise of assigning a 15- or 20kHz-wide chunk of spectrum to one individual who's using it less than 1% of the time violates the spirit of the amateur service, IMHO. The FCC doesn't allow a local volunteer coordinator to reserve 3885 kHz SSB for you, or a VHF simplex frequency for that matter. This isn't like commercial services where you have to be assigned a frequency to have a practical system. The public interest would be best served by allowing as many hams as possible the experience of building, maintaining and operating a repeater, not by saving a seat in a crowded theater. There should never be a waiting list for repeater coordination in the amateur service. Utah has a 440 frequency which is designated as shared with no protection, and it's occupied by five repeaters. Some other states have backyard/test pairs, as well. There could be a compromise position between the two extremes. Sharing a frequency pair by day of the week would be easy with modern controllers with schedulers. If the two repeaters had vastly different coverage areas, make them user selectable, and revert to that day's default repeater on a 10-minute end of activity timer. You know someone would do this...get together 7 guys to share one pair, and build a central computer system to automate control of which machine of the 7 came up based on time of day, which receiver voted, PL tone, etc. Other guys would build synchronous transmitters with voting receivers, so both could be on at once. This wouldn't be as hard to introduce as it sounds. All you'd have to do is accept applications from licensees who proposed to share a frequency pair, and give shared applications preference over single applicants. Require applicants to spell out the terms under which they propose to share the frequency, so the coordinator would have a documented set of rules should issues arise. Immediately, applicants on the waiting list would be on the phone with one another, lining up partners. Make continued sharing by those who originally filed that way a requirement to hold the coordination. If you're left alone on a pair, you contact the coordinator for a new partner, and maybe you get one who's been in a three-way sharing arrangement on another pair. If you have an agreement with someone to share a pair, and he doesn't honor it, call the coordinator and forfeit the coordination for both of you, and go back into the pool. You'd have partners striving to maintain good references, so they could easily find partners, and bad partners would be left filing singly, waiting at the back of the list. Grandfathered one-per-pair coordinations would open up to the shared system whenever there was a change in licensee/callsign. Anyone unwilling to partner (or unable due to bad references from screwing over previous partners) could build a repeater on a band with no waiting list. We'd end up with redundant hardware backing up every pair on 2m and many on 440, (probably 1.2 in parts of CA,) and everyone with a repeater would have an incentive to work together. The downside is...what? Used duplexers would go up in price? The licensee would not longer be able to show up at club meetings with a name tag that read simply, .76? If we find a way to get rid of the waiting list, the coordinator's position changes dramatically, and the corrupting influences are greatly reduced. No more sucking up for years, having to join the right club, or pay a coordinator thousand of dollars for one of his paper repeaters to get yours on the air. Other than that, I think the current system works fine. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo Ken- You are correct. It was/is not the ENTIRE ORRC board that is less than ethical, but certainly several of the board members have been what you call downright crooked!! -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:31:35 PM CST From: Ken Arck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 10 meter desense help, split site, high noise floor.
At 12/22/2007 20:40, you wrote: It's been tried many times since the 1970's. LJ The Commission has been a lot more flexible lately, so a petition for rulemaking that asks for more 10 meter repeater spectrum may be a worthwhile effort now. IMO, in order to have a reasonable chance of success any such petition needs to clearly demonstrate that the expansion would have minimal impact on other non-repeater 10 meter activities. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wow!!! only $449!!!!
At 12/22/2007 11:10, you wrote: Ooops, dropped a 2 from the Ebay item number. Here's the correct one 280185868722 Ken Yup, looks like the kind of stuff that ends up in the Dayton dumpster Sunday afternoon. Bob NO6B
