RE: [Repeater-Builder] Times Microwave RT142 Cable - UPDATED

[Tony Lelieveld]

Wayne,

That's interesting.  I have some Times Microwave Systems cable that looks
exactly like RG223.  The numbers on the cable state 68999 AA-8338.  I
contacted TMS and got the following information.  The 68999 is a "Code
Identification number" the AA-8338 is the drawing number.  The following
provided specs are stated as.

 

RG142 type with Polyethylene Jacket.

Center Conductor: Solid Silver Plated Copper 0.037".

Dielectric: Solid Polytetrafluoroethylene 0.116"  (try saying that fast 10
times).

First Shield: 36 Ga. Silver Plated Copper 0.139".

Second shield: 36 Ga. Silver Plated Copper 0.162"

Jacket: Black Polyethylene.

Recommended minimum bend radius: 2.5"

Weight per 1000 ft (Nominal) 40 lbs.

Operating Temperature: -40 to +80 C.

Impedance (Nominal): 50 Ohm.

Velocity of Propagation (Nominal): 69.4 %.

Capacity (Nominal): 29.3 pf/ft.

Attenuation @ 400 MHz (Typical): 8.7 dB/100ft.

Power rating @ 400 MHz (Typical): 375 Watts.

Return Loss (50 MHZ - 2 GHz): 20 dB.

73, Tony VE3DWI

*

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon
Sent: May 12, 2008 23:20
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Times Microwave RT142 Cable - UPDATED

 

Wayne,

My contact at Times Microwave Systems advised me that "RT-142" is a triaxial
cable in their "REMIT" specialty product line. The name refers to "Reduced
Electro Magnetic Interference." Although Times does claim that "RT-142 is
manufactured in accordance with the material requirements of MIL-C-17" it is
not a QPL-listed product. Times will not mark the jacket unless specially
requested by the customer. Here are the specs from the REMIT catalog page:

Inner Conductor - 0.039" SCCS
Dielectric OD - 0.116"
Dielectric Material - Not specified
Shield Braids - SC
Shield Coverage - Not specified
Jacket Material - FEP
Jacket OD - 0.215"
Nominal Impedance - 50 ohms
Nominal Capacitance - 29.4 pF/ft
Max Operating Voltage - 1,900 VRMS
Max Attenuation at 400 MHz - 9.0 dB/100 ft
Velocity of Propagation - Not specified

If this cable is used in place of double-shielded coaxial cable such as
RG-400, the insulating barrier should be trimmed back from the connector
clamping or crimping area, so that there is positive metal-to-metal contact
between the shields at both ends of the jumper. Care must be taken to
select connectors that fit the dielectric without slop; otherwise, a
significant "impedance bump" will occur at the cable/connector interface.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY


-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:34 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Best coax for short jumpers in repeater
cabinet?

I have some cable that I cannot find the true information for.
it is labeled as follows:
68999, TIMES MICROWAVE SYSTEMS, RT142
It is not listed, at least not readily seen, on the Times microwave web 
site.
It appears to be a version of RG142.
It is tan outer cover
Double shielded, high density silvered (or tinned) with insulation 
between teh two shields..
clear solid inner insulation, and stiff solid center conductor.
I bought it to use as RG142 for jumpers.
It looks virtually the same as some labeled RG142 that came with a Micor 
UHF duplexer, though less flexible than the RG142 seems to be.
I now wonder if it is interchangeabe or not?
I have never seen any cable labeled RT instead of RG...

Wayne WA2YNE

 

[Repeater-Builder] Times Microwave RT142 Cable - UPDATED

[Eric Lemmon]

Wayne,

My contact at Times Microwave Systems advised me that "RT-142" is a triaxial
cable in their "REMIT" specialty product line.  The name refers to "Reduced
Electro Magnetic Interference."  Although Times does claim that "RT-142 is
manufactured in accordance with the material requirements of MIL-C-17" it is
not a QPL-listed product.  Times will not mark the jacket unless specially
requested by the customer.  Here are the specs from the REMIT catalog page:

Inner Conductor - 0.039" SCCS
Dielectric OD - 0.116"
Dielectric Material - Not specified
Shield Braids - SC
Shield Coverage - Not specified
Jacket Material - FEP
Jacket OD - 0.215"
Nominal Impedance - 50 ohms
Nominal Capacitance - 29.4 pF/ft
Max Operating Voltage - 1,900 VRMS
Max Attenuation at 400 MHz - 9.0 dB/100 ft
Velocity of Propagation - Not specified

If this cable is used in place of double-shielded coaxial cable such as
RG-400, the insulating barrier should be trimmed back from the connector
clamping or crimping area, so that there is positive metal-to-metal contact
between the shields at both ends of the jumper.  Care must be taken to
select connectors that fit the dielectric without slop; otherwise, a
significant "impedance bump" will occur at the cable/connector interface.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:34 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Best coax for short jumpers in repeater
cabinet?

  I have some cable that I cannot find the true information for.
  it is labeled as follows:
68999, TIMES MICROWAVE SYSTEMS, RT142
  It is not listed, at least not readily seen, on the Times microwave web  
site.
  It appears to be a version of RG142.
  It is tan outer cover
  Double shielded, high density silvered (or tinned) with insulation  
between teh two shields..
  clear solid inner insulation, and stiff solid center conductor.
  I bought it to use as RG142 for jumpers.
  It looks virtually the same as some labeled RG142 that came with a Micor  
UHF duplexer, though less flexible than the RG142 seems to be.
  I now wonder if it is interchangeabe or not?
  I have never seen any cable labeled RT instead of RG...

  Wayne WA2YNE

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help

[Rich Summers]

Ron...There will be 2 wires from the board 1 will be
ground and the other will be the one that has to
momentarily connect to the ground to enable the board.
The led can be powered by any source that I will
supply.

Rich

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

> 
> Rich,
> 
> Now you are talking about some power for the light. 
> Best use an LED 
> that draws low current, 5 ma.
> 
> Not knowing what you are connecting to, it might
> have enough current to 
> drive the LED.
> 
> Are you simply grounding an input, appling power to
> an input, etc. Do 
> you have details of what you are connecting to???
> 
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
> 
> 
> Ron Wright, N9EE
> 
> 727-376-6575
> 
> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
> 
> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
> 
> No tone, all are welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at  2:29 PM, Rich Summers
> wrote:
> 
> Ron...That is exactly what I could use as long as it
> had some type of light to let the person know that
> the
> board has been enabled.
> 
> Rich
> 
> --- Ron Wright < [EMAIL PROTECTED] net
>  > 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > One can get push button switches that latch on
> when pushed/latch off 
> > when pushed again.  IF you want just digital mode
> while switch is 
> > pressed then no problem.  If you want to make sure
> the radio stays in 
> > analog until commanded requiring the op to hold
> during digital then a 
> > momentary switch can be used.
> > A "flip flop" or D-Type  latch like the 74LS74, a
> 30 years old part, 
> > can be made to work, but unless you are driving
> with some electronics 
> > to automatically change between digita/analog it
> would be over kill. 
> > Also sounds like the latch is still going to a
> switch to flip the 
> > flip-flop and with switch bounce one would need a
> de-bounce circuit. 
> > A 74LS123 one shot is good for this.  However,
> still over kill.  We 
> > could also do with a CPU like the PIC processors,
> etc.  Fun to work 
> > with and would learn something, but WAY OVER KILL,
> hi.
> > A switch is easy no brainer here unless there are
> othe issues. 
> > Requires no power, just some wiring and about
> every type and size of 
> > switch one can imagine is on the market.
> > 73, ron, n9ee/r
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at  8:22 PM, Rich Summers
> wrote:
> > I can't use a toggle switch because the contact to
> enable the scramble 
> > board needs to be momentary to turn on the board
> and then a momentary 
> > contact to switch off the board. This contact will
> be using an enable 
> > wire from the board and another wire that is a
> ground. I think a flip 
> > flop MAY be the way to go. I was also wondering if
> there is a  push 
> > button switch that has 2 spst contacts? Thanks.
> --- MCH < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> >    > > wrote:
> >> For that matter, why not just a toggle switch?
> Joe M. Rich Summers 
> >> wrote:
> >>> I need to build a simple circuit to enable a
> > voice
> >> scrambler in a radio.
> >>> What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a
> >> button so that the
> >>> activation lead goes to ground and when this
> >> happens I need an led
> >>> indication that the unit has been activated. I
> > also need the led to
> >>> turn off when the button is
> >> pressed again. This
> >>> deactivates the board and the radio returns to
> >> normal mode.
> >>> I need this in a small box. Does anyone have a
> > circuit I could build
> >>> for this
> >> particular application?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Rich
> >>>
> >>>  - - --
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >  _ _ _
> _ _ _ Be a 
> > better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with
> Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it 
> > now. http://mobile.  yahoo.com/
> ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 
> > 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
> < http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR
> 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ 
>

> >
> >
> >
> < http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR
> 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ 
>

> >
> >
> >
> 
>  _ _ _ _
> _ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
> http://mobile. yahoo.com/ 
> ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ 
>

>  
>

> 
> 



  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Duplex coax types

[n9wys]

FSJ1-50A works with N-type connectors, too. IF you get ones that fit the
larger center conductor.

 

Mark - N9WYS

 

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

 

I'm a fan of the andrew 1/4 inch superflex.  You can terminate them with
standard PL259, 

using the UG176 reducer meant for use with rg59, soldering the shield at the
top only.  I've

not swept them but feel sure they would be sufficient for any frequency you
would feel

comfortable using a PL259.  This size superflex isn't real springy and will
stay where it's

put pretty well.

 

Mark n2qt

 

- Original Message - 

From: jimmylpowell

After reading all of the recent post about different types of coax 
that are acceptable in duplex service, I made my self a list. Then, I 
thought that this might be helpful to others. Here's what I came up 
with so far. Please add any that I have missed.

RG-142 Be careful that it will not move around much.
RG-400 
RG-214 Be sure it is the double silver braid stuff.
RG-233
RG-393
Any of the Andrews Superflex/Heliax sizes. 

I have always used the RG-142 and RG-214 in the past, now I have 
others to look for. There must be others that meet the specs of 
double silver braid or solid outer conductor. This list will help me 
when shopping hamfest, etc.

Jimmy Powell, KS4KX
Roanoke, VA Repeaters
443.675, 443.200, 224.780
Maintain RVARC 146.985 and 442.500

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Nate Duehr]

Ron Wright wrote:
> Hey ole man...how is this??? :)
> 
> Also it is putting my sig just after my reply instead of at the end.
> 
> 73, ron, n9ee/r

For those having font issues... in most mail readers and browsers, 
holding down CTRL and pressing the "+" key on the numerical keypad, will 
take care of the problem.

Press as many times as you like, in direct relationship with however 
blind you are.

In browsers, and SOME mail clients, holding CTRL and scrolling your 
mouse wheel (if you have one, but who doesn't nowadays... not so easy on 
a laptop though) will do the same thing, for most default configurations.

Nate WY0X

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Ron Wright]

Paul,

Yes, going 37.5 kHz would be good and probably better than 25 and 
definitly better than 12.5.

73, ron, n9ee/r


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




On Mon, May 12, 2008 at  4:56 PM, Paul Plack wrote:

 Ron,

I don't think anyone was proposing putting the  control RX 12.5 kHz 
away. I think the intent was not .5 channel away, but at  least 1.5 
channels away, or 37.5 kHz. Some sensitivity could be lost, and  there 
may be a little desense moving off the transmitter side's notch,  but 
may be workable for control.

Depending on who's on your adjacent pair, and how  busy his repeater is, 
might it not be possible to go 25 kHz off, and each use  the other's 
input frequency for control, simply with a different PL and  different 
DTMF command structures?

For that matter, could a very quiet 440 voice  repeater with landline 
control be programmed with macros, accessible by landline  or by DTMF on 
the input, that would spit out control codes for several other  nearby 
repeaters on its output? Just have the control receivers at all the 
other  repeaters listen to that machine's output, which would always be 
plenty strong  enough to blast through marginal control receiver setups, 
intentional QRM, etc.  Like a link hub, only used for control. (Or, 
both!)

That might actually be a great use for some  off-the-wall pair on 902 
MHz or 1.2 GHz, a hub for both linking and  control.

Paul, AE4KR

- Original Message -
 From: Ron Wright
To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:34 AM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:Adding Control Receiver without 
Separate Antenna



I would recommend not using a 12.5 kHz spacing freq in thiscase of a 
control receiever, a receiver that is only 12.5 kHz away from your 
regular repeater input.

With typical good FM analog receivers these would both have 
overlapping passbands and an input signal on the repeater input would 
interferwith the control input.  With som many using IC type DTMF 
decoders anyinterference, just over lapping distorted voice would 
hender the decoderdecoding.

A typical UHF duplexer would have a notch wide enough for afreq 
+/-25 kHz away.  Know this is going to be another repeaters input, 
but with some research could find is close in distance toyou.

I have used control UHF freq that are 6.25 kHz spacing, butthese 
were in the 446 range and on separate antenna.  Just had access to 
this.  I used this freq to give some added security.

73, ron, n9ee/r



Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.






On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Laryn Lohmanwrote:

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups. com, "John Transue" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] .>
wrote:
>
> Laryn K8TVZ,
>   So, if I understand, I should put asplitter after the pre-amp, 
> and the control frequency should be a split channel. Doesthis mean 
> that I use half way between two channels?

Right, one of the 12.5 kc. in-between channels would be lesslikely 
to
have something on them.

>
>   Another question, who makes a goodsplitter, and how can I know I 
> am getting a good splitter?

Well, I've seen 50 ohm splitters quite often athamfests.  I don't
have a good brand name to point you to.  I am, however,using a 75 
ohm
TV splitter.  Purists will hate this, but especially,if you are 
after
a preamp, I don't see this as a big deal.  It worksjust fine here
with no measured loss in repeater receiver sensitivitythrough the
system.  Use quality coax and fittings.  I'vefound that RG142 works
reasonably well with the TV splitters since it has a solidcenter
conductor.

If you are not using a preamp, then you really need to dothings
right, using a proper splitter, and still you may lose some 
sensitivity.

Some of you are saying, where's the quality in that splitterscheme?
Well, experimentally I've found it works well here, so afterinitial
measurements showed me that things were still the same, I'lltend to
stay with what works, but ready to ditch the whole thing ifneeded 
and
go another route.  Sometimes  takes theform of performance,
not looks or perfection.  If system sensitivity hadsuffered it
wouldn't be there for more than 15 minutes.

Laryn K8TVZ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digita

[Nate Duehr]

Ron Wright wrote:
> Nate,
> 
> I should have said a repeater radio cost over $1000, but then again I 
> thought the discussion was about repeaters on D-Star.

Yeah, I knew you were probably talking about the repeaters, especially 
here, but folks do "lurk" and could have gotten the incorrect impression 
that the only option for users was a $1000 rig.

> I paid $400 for the IC91AD.  This is about the cheapest one can do 
> unless they get used like on e-bay.  An equivlant analog is $180...dual 
> band 2m/440 HT.

Yep, analog cell phones are real cheap now too.  (GRIN -- Since there is 
no workable AMPS network anymore.)

The "cheapest" way into D-STAR, but not highly recommended by anyone 
doing it, are the single-band V82 and U82 HTs with the add on D-STAR 
board, at roughly $300.  But it's not the way I would go.  (Just to show 
it can be done on the "cheap" for a brand-new radio.

> Decoding the D-Star data from the controller, not D-Star from radio, can 
> be done without much effort.  Ths is garage tech.  The first thing is to 
> determine the start characters.  I did EDACS over 10 years ago and once 
> you get the data it is often easy to decipher.  Does take time, hardware 
> and software, and a PC won't do it...at least running Windows, etc.  One 
> can buy the chips, just need a controller to assemble/disassemble the data.

Yup.  If it's sending the D-STAR protocol itself over the wire (likely) 
you can even hunt for things in the published protocol spec.  Supposedly 
it wasn't too difficult for the group in California to find out what 
"transmit with no voice/data" packets looked like and they are sending 
some of those and buffering what comes down from the controller and then 
spitting the controller's data off of a circular buffer (after it fills) 
to key the PA longer prior to header transmission.

Don't really know, just heard about this from a friend when we were 
talking about adding PAs to the systems and how to handle it if the PA 
was too slow, so the header wouldn't get missed.

They also implemented "COS" and "PTT" indications by watching the serial 
traffic going back and forth.  Kinda nice to have, I guess, since the 
repeater (annoyingly) doesn't even have a TX LED.

> ICOM made the system pretty much closed...have to use their equipment 
> for most.  Few Hams have the knowledge to do any differently.  From the 
> front end to the back end ICOM pretty much locked up their system.  As 
> time goes on some will be 3rd party, but for the past 4-5 years since 
> D-Star little has been done.  I think ICOM purposely formated it for 
> this.  I would probably have done the same thing.  They want to make 
> money, no problem with that, but Hams want the world for free.  Life 
> don't work that way, hi.

Not really.  There's already working prototypes of using an FT-817 as a 
D-STAR rig.  Nothing locked about that at all.  The protocol's open for 
anyone to copy and build.

One ham from Japan, Satoshi Yasuda (7M3TJZ/AD6GZ) has done it, twice. 
Two different designs to use non-Icom rigs on D-STAR, both worked.

His code is out on the web along with schematics for all to see/use. 
"Real ham radio", there... so they say...

He built a board that has an LCD and human interface to enter callsigns, 
etc... got a vocoder working (the only closed part... he was originally 
using the Icom D-STAR board itself out of convenience, but a number of 
folks are looking at using the raw AMBE Vocoder chip from DVSI in their 
designs), and set up all of it to be driven by a single microcontroller 
from assembly language that he's posted on his website.

Plug his board into discriminator audio from the rig, and unfiltered mic 
audio to the rig... and it works.

He will be visiting Dayton this year, or so I hear.  Would have liked to 
seen his work and met him, but I can't make it this year.

Nate WY0X

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Ron Wright]

Hey ole man...how is this??? :)

Also it is putting my sig just after my reply instead of at the end.

73, ron, n9ee/r






On Mon, May 12, 2008 at  5:56 PM, John J. Riddell wrote:

 Hey Ron,How about  setting your Font back to at least 10 for all 
the

senior citizens who like to read your  stuff   :-))

73 John VE3AMZ
- Original Message -
From: Ron Wright  

To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com 
 

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:34 AM 

Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:Adding Control Receiver without 
Separate Antenna  


 
I would recommend not using a 12.5 kHz spacing freq in thiscase of a 
control receiever, a receiver that is only 12.5 kHz away from your 
regular repeater input.


With typical good FM analog receivers these would both have 
overlapping passbands and an input signal on the repeater input would 
interferwith the control input.  With som many using IC type DTMF 
decoders anyinterference, just over lapping distorted voice would 
hender the decoderdecoding.


A typical UHF duplexer would have a notch wide enough for afreq 
+/-25 kHz away.  Know this is going to be another repeaters input, 
but with some research could find is close in distance toyou.


I have used control UHF freq that are 6.25 kHz spacing, butthese 
were in the 446 range and on separate antenna.  Just had access to 
this.  I used this freq to give some added security.


73, ron, n9ee/r


Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.




On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Laryn Lohmanwrote:

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups. com 
 , "John Transue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
.>

wrote:


Laryn K8TVZ,
  So, if I understand, I should put asplitter after the pre-amp, 
and the control frequency should be a split channel. Doesthis mean 
that I use half way between two channels?


Right, one of the 12.5 kc. in-between channels would be lesslikely 
to

have something on them.



  Another question, who makes a goodsplitter, and how can I know I 
am getting a good splitter?


Well, I've seen 50 ohm splitters quite often athamfests.  I don't
have a good brand name to point you to.  I am, however,using a 75 
ohm
TV splitter.  Purists will hate this, but especially,if you are 
after

a preamp, I don't see this as a big deal.  It worksjust fine here
with no measured loss in repeater receiver sensitivitythrough the
system.  Use quality coax and fittings.  I'vefound that RG142 works
reasonably well with the TV splitters since it has a solidcenter
conductor.

If you are not using a preamp, then you really need to dothings
right, using a proper splitter, and still you may lose some 
sensitivity.


Some of you are saying, where's the quality in that splitterscheme?
Well, experimentally I've found it works well here, so afterinitial
measurements showed me that things were still the same, I'lltend to
stay with what works, but ready to ditch the whole thing ifneeded 
and

go another route.  Sometimes  takes theform of performance,
not looks or perfection.  If system sensitivity hadsuffered it
wouldn't be there for more than 15 minutes.

Laryn K8TVZ

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

At 06:34 AM 05/12/08, you wrote:
>I would recommend not using a 12.5 kHz spacing freq in this case of 
>a control receiever, a receiver that is only 12.5 kHz away from your 
>regular repeater input.
>
>With typical good FM analog receivers these would both have 
>overlapping passbands and an input signal on the repeater input 
>would interfer with the control input.  With som many using IC type 
>DTMF decoders any interference, just over lapping distorted voice 
>would hender the decoder decoding.
>
>A typical UHF duplexer would have a notch wide enough for a freq 
>+/-25 kHz away.  Know this is going to be another repeaters input, 
>but with some research could find is close in distance to you.

We did this years ago - and we just chatted with the adjacent channel systems
owner at a coordination meeting, and made sure he didn't have a 
problem with it.
He said "just use a different PL tone that I do, no problem, I won't even know
you are there"

So we DPL'd the control receiver.

In fact it helped clean out the junk box - we had a cheap receive crystal that
by the time it settled down (the new crystal "aging" problem) had drifted too
far to bring back on channel, so we used it in the control receiver, on the
adjacent channel... no, it wasn't Sentry or International... (anybody
remember Cal Crystal, better known as Cal Driftal ?)

Mike WA6ILQ  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Ron Wright]

Good idea, my provider gave me a new brouser or format and think things 
got changed.


I'll look into this, but I really don't like messing with the Gates 
junk, but guess sometimes one has to, hi.


73, ron, n9ee/r


Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.




On Mon, May 12, 2008 at  5:56 PM, John J. Riddell wrote:

 Hey Ron,How about  setting your Font back to at least 10 for all 
the

senior citizens who like to read your  stuff   :-))

73 John VE3AMZ
- Original Message -
From: Ron Wright  

To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com 
 

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:34 AM 

Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:Adding Control Receiver without 
Separate Antenna  


 
I would recommend not using a 12.5 kHz spacing freq in thiscase of a 
control receiever, a receiver that is only 12.5 kHz away from your 
regular repeater input.


With typical good FM analog receivers these would both have 
overlapping passbands and an input signal on the repeater input would 
interferwith the control input.  With som many using IC type DTMF 
decoders anyinterference, just over lapping distorted voice would 
hender the decoderdecoding.


A typical UHF duplexer would have a notch wide enough for afreq 
+/-25 kHz away.  Know this is going to be another repeaters input, 
but with some research could find is close in distance toyou.


I have used control UHF freq that are 6.25 kHz spacing, butthese 
were in the 446 range and on separate antenna.  Just had access to 
this.  I used this freq to give some added security.


73, ron, n9ee/r


Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.




On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Laryn Lohmanwrote:

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups. com 
 , "John Transue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
.>

wrote:


Laryn K8TVZ,
  So, if I understand, I should put asplitter after the pre-amp, 
and the control frequency should be a split channel. Doesthis mean 
that I use half way between two channels?


Right, one of the 12.5 kc. in-between channels would be lesslikely 
to

have something on them.



  Another question, who makes a goodsplitter, and how can I know I 
am getting a good splitter?


Well, I've seen 50 ohm splitters quite often athamfests.  I don't
have a good brand name to point you to.  I am, however,using a 75 
ohm
TV splitter.  Purists will hate this, but especially,if you are 
after

a preamp, I don't see this as a big deal.  It worksjust fine here
with no measured loss in repeater receiver sensitivitythrough the
system.  Use quality coax and fittings.  I'vefound that RG142 works
reasonably well with the TV splitters since it has a solidcenter
conductor.

If you are not using a preamp, then you really need to dothings
right, using a proper splitter, and still you may lose some 
sensitivity.


Some of you are saying, where's the quality in that splitterscheme?
Well, experimentally I've found it works well here, so afterinitial
measurements showed me that things were still the same, I'lltend to
stay with what works, but ready to ditch the whole thing ifneeded 
and

go another route.  Sometimes  takes theform of performance,
not looks or perfection.  If system sensitivity hadsuffered it
wouldn't be there for more than 15 minutes.

Laryn K8TVZ

[Repeater-Builder] Power Supply Caps for Motorola R-1200 Service Monitor

[Bob]

I've exhausted the "usual suspects" (DigiKey, Mouser, Newark, etc.),
so I'm turning to the world-wide bank of experts here for advice.

I'm refurbishing my service monitor and need to replace one of the
power supply electrolytics that "squirted"...actually, I'd like to
replace all four, but I'm having a heckuva time finding suitable
replacements.

I need:

(2) 3 MFD 15VDC capacitors
2" diameter X 2" long, 7/8" (0.875") spacing on the screw terminals
No Motorola part # available (parts shown on schematic, but not listed)

and,

(2) 4500 MFD 40VDC capacitors
1-3/8" diameter X 2" long, 1/2' spacing on the screw terminals
Motorola part # 23-80321A34

Yes, I could cook up some sort of work-around, but I would like to--if
at all possible--stick to caps of the same physical size as the
originals because the diode bridge circuit board mounts TO two of the
caps and everything fits nicely in its little "cage".

Anybody got any bright ideas?  Thoughts?

Tnx & 73 de K5IQ
Bob

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[John J. Riddell]

Hey Ron,How about setting your Font back to at least 10 for all the 
senior citizens who like to read your stuff   :-))

73 John VE3AMZ
  - Original Message - 
  From: Ron Wright 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:34 AM
  Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate 
Antenna


  I would recommend not using a 12.5 kHz spacing freq in this case of a control 
receiever, a receiver that is only 12.5 kHz away from your regular repeater 
input.


  With typical good FM analog receivers these would both have overlapping 
passbands and an input signal on the repeater input would interfer with the 
control input.  With som many using IC type DTMF decoders any interference, 
just over lapping distorted voice would hender the decoder decoding.


  A typical UHF duplexer would have a notch wide enough for a freq +/-25 kHz 
away.  Know this is going to be another repeaters input, but with some research 
could find is close in distance to you.


  I have used control UHF freq that are 6.25 kHz spacing, but these were in the 
446 range and on separate antenna.  Just had access to this.  I used this freq 
to give some added security.


  73, ron, n9ee/r




  Ron Wright, N9EE


  727-376-6575


  MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS


  Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL


  No tone, all are welcome.








  On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Laryn Lohman wrote:


  --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com, "John Transue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
.> 
  wrote: 
  > 
  > Laryn K8TVZ, 
  > 
  >   So, if I understand, I should put a splitter after the pre-amp, and 
  > the control frequency should be a split channel. Does this mean that I 
  > use half way between two channels? 


  Right, one of the 12.5 kc. in-between channels would be less likely to 
  have something on them. 


  > 
  >   Another question, who makes a good splitter, and how can I know I am 
  > getting a good splitter? 


  Well, I've seen 50 ohm splitters quite often at hamfests.  I don't 
  have a good brand name to point you to.  I am, however, using a 75 ohm 
  TV splitter.  Purists will hate this, but especially, if you are after 
  a preamp, I don't see this as a big deal.  It works just fine here 
  with no measured loss in repeater receiver sensitivity through the 
  system.  Use quality coax and fittings.  I've found that RG142 works 
  reasonably well with the TV splitters since it has a solid center 
  conductor. 


  If you are not using a preamp, then you really need to do things 
  right, using a proper splitter, and still you may lose some sensitivity. 


  Some of you are saying, where's the quality in that splitter scheme? 
  Well, experimentally I've found it works well here, so after initial 
  measurements showed me that things were still the same, I'll tend to 
  stay with what works, but ready to ditch the whole thing if needed and 
  go another route.  Sometimes  takes the form of performance, 
  not looks or perfection.  If system sensitivity had suffered it 
  wouldn't be there for more than 15 minutes. 


  Laryn K8TVZ 


   

[Repeater-Builder] TAPR Spring 2008 PSR Journal Available

[Mark Thompson]

TAPR Spring 2008 PSR Journal 

 ftp://ftp.tapr.org/psr/psr105.pdf
D-STAR Digital Voice Sensitivity vs. Analog FM Sensitivity article on pages 4 - 
5 


  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Paul Plack]

Ron,

I don't think anyone was proposing putting the control RX 12.5 kHz away. I 
think the intent was not .5 channel away, but at least 1.5 channels away, or 
37.5 kHz. Some sensitivity could be lost, and there may be a little desense 
moving off the transmitter side's notch, but may be workable for control.

Depending on who's on your adjacent pair, and how busy his repeater is, might 
it not be possible to go 25 kHz off, and each use the other's input frequency 
for control, simply with a different PL and different DTMF command structures?

For that matter, could a very quiet 440 voice repeater with landline control be 
programmed with macros, accessible by landline or by DTMF on the input, that 
would spit out control codes for several other nearby repeaters on its output? 
Just have the control receivers at all the other repeaters listen to that 
machine's output, which would always be plenty strong enough to blast through 
marginal control receiver setups, intentional QRM, etc. Like a link hub, only 
used for control. (Or, both!)

That might actually be a great use for some off-the-wall pair on 902 MHz or 1.2 
GHz, a hub for both linking and control.

Paul, AE4KR

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ron Wright 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:34 AM
  Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate 
Antenna



  I would recommend not using a 12.5 kHz spacing freq in this case of a control 
receiever, a receiver that is only 12.5 kHz away from your regular repeater 
input.


  With typical good FM analog receivers these would both have overlapping 
passbands and an input signal on the repeater input would interfer with the 
control input.  With som many using IC type DTMF decoders any interference, 
just over lapping distorted voice would hender the decoder decoding.


  A typical UHF duplexer would have a notch wide enough for a freq +/-25 kHz 
away.  Know this is going to be another repeaters input, but with some research 
could find is close in distance to you.


  I have used control UHF freq that are 6.25 kHz spacing, but these were in the 
446 range and on separate antenna.  Just had access to this.  I used this freq 
to give some added security.


  73, ron, n9ee/r




  Ron Wright, N9EE


  727-376-6575


  MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS


  Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL


  No tone, all are welcome.








  On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Laryn Lohman wrote:


  --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com, "John Transue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
.> 
  wrote: 
  > 
  > Laryn K8TVZ, 
  > 
  >   So, if I understand, I should put a splitter after the pre-amp, and 
  > the control frequency should be a split channel. Does this mean that I 
  > use half way between two channels? 


  Right, one of the 12.5 kc. in-between channels would be less likely to 
  have something on them. 


  > 
  >   Another question, who makes a good splitter, and how can I know I am 
  > getting a good splitter? 


  Well, I've seen 50 ohm splitters quite often at hamfests.  I don't 
  have a good brand name to point you to.  I am, however, using a 75 ohm 
  TV splitter.  Purists will hate this, but especially, if you are after 
  a preamp, I don't see this as a big deal.  It works just fine here 
  with no measured loss in repeater receiver sensitivity through the 
  system.  Use quality coax and fittings.  I've found that RG142 works 
  reasonably well with the TV splitters since it has a solid center 
  conductor. 


  If you are not using a preamp, then you really need to do things 
  right, using a proper splitter, and still you may lose some sensitivity. 


  Some of you are saying, where's the quality in that splitter scheme? 
  Well, experimentally I've found it works well here, so after initial 
  measurements showed me that things were still the same, I'll tend to 
  stay with what works, but ready to ditch the whole thing if needed and 
  go another route.  Sometimes  takes the form of performance, 
  not looks or perfection.  If system sensitivity had suffered it 
  wouldn't be there for more than 15 minutes. 


  Laryn K8TVZ 



   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Ron Wright]

Wayne,

If your repeater situation is like most, antenna not on 5000 ft 
mountain, a repeater 165 miles away would not be a problem for you.  The 
users of it would be the interferring parties, but at 165 miles don't 
think a problem.

I would simply chose a freq 25 kHz away for the control receiver, T off 
the receive side of the duplexer, CTCSS or PL the control rcvr and 
connects its output to the control input of the controller.

Things on the ground are typically cheap and easy to come by.  Things in 
the air is what gets you.

If you have a 2 meter repeater at same site could also use this same UHF 
receiver for its control also.

73, ron, n9ee/r



Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.






On Mon, May 12, 2008 at  2:29 PM, Wayne wrote:

> While that might work okay, here they have frequencies close to the 
> repeater RX frequencies I might use marked as one way links or 
> repeater  inputs.
>   My thought would be using a diplexer of some kind.
>   Of course, I also thought of a diplexer to use the antenna for a low 
> level 2 meter repeater as well as for 70 centimers (repeater and 
> control  rx).
>   I have a GE Phoenix with the RR split (It doesn't like coming up 
> much  above 44 or 441 MHz) that could work as a control RX
>   440 repeaters here are on a 25 KHz split, and the only band plan 
> shown  does not include 420 to 440 MHz. My other option would be 25 
> KHz up, and  there is a repeater on that frequecy about 165 miles 
> north.
>   OTOH, a separate RX antenna would not be a real problem, and I could 
> put  a filter on it.
>
>   Wayne WA2YNE
>
>
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:39:55 -0500, Laryn Lohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>
>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "John Transue" 
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to add a control receiver to a UHF (446 MHz) repeater.
>>
>> If you can use a frequency for control that is within several 
>> channels
>> of your input, you can split the receive coax from your duplexer to
>> each receiver.  Use a split channel for control if possible.  If you
>> use a preamp and split the output properly you'll experience no loss
>> in sensitivity to your repeater receiver.  It works great here.
>>
>> Laryn K8TVZ
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help

[Ron Wright]

Rich,

Now you are talking about some power for the light.  Best use an LED 
that draws low current, 5 ma.


Not knowing what you are connecting to, it might have enough current to 
drive the LED.


Are you simply grounding an input, appling power to an input, etc. Do 
you have details of what you are connecting to???


73, ron, n9ee/r


Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.




On Mon, May 12, 2008 at  2:29 PM, Rich Summers wrote:

Ron...That is exactly what I could use as long as it
had some type of light to let the person know that the
board has been enabled.

Rich

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




One can get push button switches that latch on when pushed/latch off 
when pushed again.  IF you want just digital mode while switch is 
pressed then no problem.  If you want to make sure the radio stays in 
analog until commanded requiring the op to hold during digital then a 
momentary switch can be used.
A "flip flop" or D-Type  latch like the 74LS74, a 30 years old part, 
can be made to work, but unless you are driving with some electronics 
to automatically change between digita/analog it would be over kill. 
Also sounds like the latch is still going to a switch to flip the 
flip-flop and with switch bounce one would need a de-bounce circuit. 
A 74LS123 one shot is good for this.  However, still over kill.  We 
could also do with a CPU like the PIC processors, etc.  Fun to work 
with and would learn something, but WAY OVER KILL, hi.
A switch is easy no brainer here unless there are othe issues. 
Requires no power, just some wiring and about every type and size of 
switch one can imagine is on the market.

73, ron, n9ee/r



On Sun, May 11, 2008 at  8:22 PM, Rich Summers wrote:
I can't use a toggle switch because the contact to enable the scramble 
board needs to be momentary to turn on the board and then a momentary 
contact to switch off the board. This contact will be using an enable 
wire from the board and another wire that is a ground. I think a flip 
flop MAY be the way to go. I was also wondering if there is a  push 
button switch that has 2 spst contacts? Thanks. --- MCH < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote:
For that matter, why not just a toggle switch? Joe M. Rich Summers 
wrote:

I need to build a simple circuit to enable a

voice

scrambler in a radio.

What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a

button so that the

activation lead goes to ground and when this

happens I need an led

indication that the unit has been activated. I

also need the led to

turn off when the button is

pressed again. This

deactivates the board and the radio returns to

normal mode.

I need this in a small box. Does anyone have a

circuit I could build

for this

particular application?


Thanks, Rich

 - - --

Yahoo! Groups Links







 _ _ _ _ _ _ Be a 
better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it 
now. http://mobile.  yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 
8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
< http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ 
 >



< http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ 
 >





 _ _ _ _ _ _
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ 
;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ 


 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplex coax types

[Mark]

I'm a fan of the andrew 1/4 inch superflex.  You can terminate them with 
standard PL259, 
using the UG176 reducer meant for use with rg59, soldering the shield at the 
top only.  I've
not swept them but feel sure they would be sufficient for any frequency you 
would feel
comfortable using a PL259.  This size superflex isn't real springy and will 
stay where it's
put pretty well.

Mark n2qt
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: jimmylpowell 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:59 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Duplex coax types


  After reading all of the recent post about different types of coax 
  that are acceptable in duplex service, I made my self a list. Then, I 
  thought that this might be helpful to others. Here's what I came up 
  with so far. Please add any that I have missed.

  RG-142 Be careful that it will not move around much.
  RG-400 
  RG-214 Be sure it is the double silver braid stuff.
  RG-233
  RG-393
  Any of the Andrews Superflex/Heliax sizes. 

  I have always used the RG-142 and RG-214 in the past, now I have 
  others to look for. There must be others that meet the specs of 
  double silver braid or solid outer conductor. This list will help me 
  when shopping hamfest, etc.

  Jimmy Powell, KS4KX
  Roanoke, VA Repeaters
  443.675, 443.200, 224.780
  Maintain RVARC 146.985 and 442.500



   

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help

[n9wys]

There must be some point on the device that will show power when enabled?
Maybe pick off that point and either attach an LED, or maybe a relay
connected to an LED... or maybe a DPDT switch, one side connected for your
indicator.

Just "thinking out loud."

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Rich Summers

Yes I could but, I would need some sort of indicator
light to let the person know that the board had been
enabled.

Rich

--- n9wys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Couldn't you use a toggle/push-button switch if it
> was momentary
> (spring-loaded)?  
> (i.e. "push-on, push-off")
> 
> Mark - N9WYS
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Rich Summers
> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:23 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help
> 
> I can't use a toggle switch because the contact to
> enable the scramble board needs to be momentary to
> turn on the board and then a momentary contact to
> switch off the board. This contact will be using an
> enable wire from the board and another wire that is
> a
> ground. I think a flip flop MAY be the way to go. I
> was also wondering if there is a  push button switch
> that has 2 spst contacts?
> Thanks. 
> --- MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > For that matter, why not just a toggle switch?
> > 
> > Joe M.
> > 
> > Rich Summers wrote:
> > > I need to build a simple circuit to enable a
> voice
> > scrambler in a radio.
> > > What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a
> > button so that the
> > > activation lead goes to ground and when this
> > happens I need an led
> > > indication that the unit has been activated. 
> > > I also need the led to turn off when the button
> is
> > pressed again. This
> > > deactivates the board and the radio returns to
> > normal mode.
> > > I need this in a small box.
> > > Does anyone have a circuit I could build for
> this
> > particular application?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Rich
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>

> 
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
>
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 -
> Release Date: 5/11/2008
> 1:08 PM
> 
> 



 


Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ





Yahoo! Groups Links



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1428 - Release Date: 5/12/2008
7:44 AM

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help

[Rich Summers]

Ron...That is exactly what I could use as long as it
had some type of light to let the person know that the
board has been enabled.

Rich

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

> 
> One can get push button switches that latch on when
> pushed/latch off 
> when pushed again.  IF you want just digital mode
> while switch is 
> pressed then no problem.  If you want to make sure
> the radio stays in 
> analog until commanded requiring the op to hold
> during digital then a 
> momentary switch can be used.
> 
> A "flip flop" or D-Type  latch like the 74LS74, a 30
> years old part, can 
> be made to work, but unless you are driving with
> some electronics to 
> automatically change between digita/analog it would
> be over kill.  Also 
> sounds like the latch is still going to a switch to
> flip the flip-flop 
> and with switch bounce one would need a de-bounce
> circuit.  A 74LS123 
> one shot is good for this.  However, still over
> kill.  We could also do 
> with a CPU like the PIC processors, etc.  Fun to
> work with and would 
> learn something, but WAY OVER KILL, hi.
> 
> A switch is easy no brainer here unless there are
> othe issues.  Requires 
> no power, just some wiring and about every type and
> size of switch one 
> can imagine is on the market.
> 
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at  8:22 PM, Rich Summers
> wrote:
> 
> I can't use a toggle switch because the contact to
> enable the scramble board needs to be momentary to
> turn on the board and then a momentary contact to
> switch off the board. This contact will be using an
> enable wire from the board and another wire that is
> a
> ground. I think a flip flop MAY be the way to go. I
> was also wondering if there is a  push button switch
> that has 2 spst contacts?
> Thanks.
> --- MCH < [EMAIL PROTECTED]  > wrote:
> 
> > For that matter, why not just a toggle switch?
> > Joe M.
> > Rich Summers wrote:
> >> I need to build a simple circuit to enable a
> voice
> > scrambler in a radio.
> >> What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a
> > button so that the
> >> activation lead goes to ground and when this
> > happens I need an led
> >> indication that the unit has been activated. I
> also need the led to 
> >> turn off when the button is
> > pressed again. This
> >> deactivates the board and the radio returns to
> > normal mode.
> >> I need this in a small box. Does anyone have a
> circuit I could build 
> >> for this
> > particular application?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>
> >>  - - --
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>  _ _ _ _
> _ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
> http://mobile. yahoo.com/ 
> ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ 
>

>  
>

> 
> 



  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Wayne]

  While that might work okay, here they have frequencies close to the  
repeater RX frequencies I might use marked as one way links or repeater  
inputs.
  My thought would be using a diplexer of some kind.
  Of course, I also thought of a diplexer to use the antenna for a low  
level 2 meter repeater as well as for 70 centimers (repeater and control  
rx).
  I have a GE Phoenix with the RR split (It doesn't like coming up much  
above 44 or 441 MHz) that could work as a control RX
  440 repeaters here are on a 25 KHz split, and the only band plan shown  
does not include 420 to 440 MHz. My other option would be 25 KHz up, and  
there is a repeater on that frequecy about 165 miles north.
  OTOH, a separate RX antenna would not be a real problem, and I could put  
a filter on it.

  Wayne WA2YNE


On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:39:55 -0500, Laryn Lohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "John Transue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to add a control receiver to a UHF (446 MHz) repeater.
>
> If you can use a frequency for control that is within several channels
> of your input, you can split the receive coax from your duplexer to
> each receiver.  Use a split channel for control if possible.  If you
> use a preamp and split the output properly you'll experience no loss
> in sensitivity to your repeater receiver.  It works great here.
>
> Laryn K8TVZ
>
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/





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] Need some help

[Rich Summers]

Yes I could but, I would need some sort of indicator
light to let the person know that the board had been
enabled.

Rich

--- n9wys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Couldn't you use a toggle/push-button switch if it
> was momentary
> (spring-loaded)?  
> (i.e. "push-on, push-off")
> 
> Mark - N9WYS
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Rich Summers
> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:23 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help
> 
> I can't use a toggle switch because the contact to
> enable the scramble board needs to be momentary to
> turn on the board and then a momentary contact to
> switch off the board. This contact will be using an
> enable wire from the board and another wire that is
> a
> ground. I think a flip flop MAY be the way to go. I
> was also wondering if there is a  push button switch
> that has 2 spst contacts?
> Thanks. 
> --- MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > For that matter, why not just a toggle switch?
> > 
> > Joe M.
> > 
> > Rich Summers wrote:
> > > I need to build a simple circuit to enable a
> voice
> > scrambler in a radio.
> > > What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a
> > button so that the
> > > activation lead goes to ground and when this
> > happens I need an led
> > > indication that the unit has been activated. 
> > > I also need the led to turn off when the button
> is
> > pressed again. This
> > > deactivates the board and the radio returns to
> > normal mode.
> > > I need this in a small box.
> > > Does anyone have a circuit I could build for
> this
> > particular application?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Rich
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>

> 
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
>
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 -
> Release Date: 5/11/2008
> 1:08 PM
> 
> 



  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[John Transue]

Thanks to all who have responded to my control-receiver question and my
through-the-cabinet question. This includes at least Laryn, Ron, Bob,
Adam, Paul, and Al.

 

I think I know how to proceed now. I'll start looking for the proper
connectors and cables. 

 

Thanks again,

John AF4PD

 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:35 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without
Separate Antenna

 

I would recommend not using a 12.5 kHz spacing freq in this case of a
control receiever, a receiver that is only 12.5 kHz away from your
regular repeater input.

 

With typical good FM analog receivers these would both have overlapping
passbands and an input signal on the repeater input would interfer with
the control input.  With som many using IC type DTMF decoders any
interference, just over lapping distorted voice would hender the decoder
decoding.

 

A typical UHF duplexer would have a notch wide enough for a freq +/-25
kHz away.  Know this is going to be another repeaters input, but with
some research could find is close in distance to you.

 

I have used control UHF freq that are 6.25 kHz spacing, but these were
in the 446 range and on separate antenna.  Just had access to this.  I
used this freq to give some added security.

 

73, ron, n9ee/r






Ron Wright, N9EE

 

727-376-6575

 

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

 

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

 

No tone, all are welcome.






 





On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Laryn Lohman wrote:

 

--- In Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups. com, "John Transue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> 

wrote: 

> 

> Laryn K8TVZ, 

> 

>   So, if I understand, I should put a splitter after the pre-amp, and 

> the control frequency should be a split channel. Does this mean that I


> use half way between two channels? 

 

Right, one of the 12.5 kc. in-between channels would be less likely to 

have something on them. 

 

> 

>   Another question, who makes a good splitter, and how can I know I am


> getting a good splitter? 

 

Well, I've seen 50 ohm splitters quite often at hamfests.  I don't 

have a good brand name to point you to.  I am, however, using a 75 ohm 

TV splitter.  Purists will hate this, but especially, if you are after 

a preamp, I don't see this as a big deal.  It works just fine here 

with no measured loss in repeater receiver sensitivity through the 

system.  Use quality coax and fittings.  I've found that RG142 works 

reasonably well with the TV splitters since it has a solid center 

conductor. 

 

If you are not using a preamp, then you really need to do things 

right, using a proper splitter, and still you may lose some sensitivity.


 

Some of you are saying, where's the quality in that splitter scheme? 

Well, experimentally I've found it works well here, so after initial 

measurements showed me that things were still the same, I'll tend to 

stay with what works, but ready to ditch the whole thing if needed and 

go another route.  Sometimes  takes the form of performance, 

not looks or perfection.  If system sensitivity had suffered it 

wouldn't be there for more than 15 minutes. 

 

Laryn K8TVZ 

 

  

 

__ NOD32 2918 (20080303) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom Duplexer Desense Problem - Mystery

[skipp025]

Yeah but folks should also keep in mind the problem source doesn't 
have to be specific to the duplexer coax harness. The mentioned last  
LMR-400 grunge generator was a section of cable from the circulator 
to the duplexer tx port. 

s. 

> Ron Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> s>
> 
> A number ask the question if it was LMR400 or 9913 or any double 
> shielded dissimilar metals shield.
> 
> Sounds as if this was not an issue.
> 
> Your statements are worth saying again.
> 
> WACOMs I've worked with did use RG214 for cavity-to-cavity cables.
> 
> 73, ron, n9ee/r

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Best coax for short jumpers in repeater cabinet?

[skipp025]

Sometimes "skipper-don't" type so well... yes I meant RG-223 
and the Ebay Auction Example I listed in that post should clearly 
indicate the coax to be RG-223.  Great and thanks for catching 
the typo. 

cheers, 
s. 

> "Adam T. Cately" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 04:50 PM 5/11/08 -, you wrote:
> 
>Are you sure you don't mean 'RG-223' there, Skipper-doo?
> 
>I use a lot of this on my bench and home equipment, for the same
> reasons the Skipp points out - it's cheap and effective.
> 
>It's the same size (approximately) as RG-58, and uses mostly the same
> connectors (occasionally I'll get a crimp connector collar that's a
> little snug...)
> 
> 
> >One doesn't have to go high dollar overkill spec all the time. 
> >I'm also a fairly big fan of RG-233 Coax for many repeater 
> >system/equipment applications.  RG-233 seems to be the ignored 
> >step child of the coax family, which means it's not instant shark 
> >bait every time it pops up on Ebay and the surplus radio world 
> >market. 
> >
> >I found a fairly decent price on some pre-made RG-233 Coax runs 
> >on Ebay: 
> >
> >Cable Assembly RF Coax 7 ft RG-223/U N-Fe to SMA Male
> >Ebay Item number: 190175957842
> >
> >My offer to the seller for 2/3 the asking amount was accepted and 
> >I now have a fair number of those lines in my collection at a 
> >much better than the $3.10 (Tessco) list price per foot. 
> >
> >Not a bad deal if you want to take the plunge... 
> >
> >cheers, 
> >skipp 
> >skipp025 at yahoo.com 
> >www.radiowrench.com 
> >
> >
> >
> >"See you at Dayton! I'm the short chubby guy with red hair."
> >
> >
> >> k7pfj@ wrote:
> >> Hi Brent,
> >> I agree with Skipp, the LMR is not the cable i would recommend 
> >> in a duplex repeater install. If you want jumper coax, I only 
> >> use RG400 and it is a plenum rated silver plated with double 
> >> shield braid silver. Both Motorola and Kenwood systems use 
> >> this coax for there internal cableing inside the cabinet. I 
> >> yet have seen them use LMR coax. Spend the little extra for 
> >> good coax and you will find yourself much happier and not 
> >> searching for weird site problems. For the main feed line, you 
> >> can't get any better then Andrew's LDF coax for repeater installs. 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>- Adam -
>

[Repeater-Builder] Lot's of repeater "Stuff"

[Paul Finch]

Hello,
 
I will be at Dayton early Thursday morning with a lot of stuff for sale,
need to finance the trip some way.  $4.50 diesel is not helping matters.
 
444.850 +5MHz offset CTCSS of 110.9 Hz
 
Spaces 903 and 904
 
Paul
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date: 5/11/2008
1:08 PM
 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Seperate Antenna

[Al Wolfe]

John,
Ebay is your friend here. Look for "Mini Circuits" there and you will 
find dozens of suitable units. I've gotten several two-way splitters there. 
Typical and theoretical loss is 3 db, not usually a problem following a 
preamp.

The TV type splitters do work as well but can be a bear to find decent 
connectors for. I'd rather have a spatter made by a reputable company 
designed for the application.

73,
Al, K9SI


 . Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna
Posted by: "John Transue" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jtransue2000
Date: Sun May 11, 2008 4:09 pm ((PDT))


  Another question, who makes a good splitter, and how can I know I am
getting a good splitter?


John AF4PD

 

[Repeater-Builder] Available: 900MHz. MII Repeater + /\/\ Maxtrac Mobiles

[Robin]

Greetings,
I have a GE MASTRII repeater which was removed from service in the
upper 800 MHz. band available; perfect for moving to 900 amateur
service available. It is in a 4' GE cabinet, with a base station
power supply. I can test and deliver to Dayton Hamvention. I will
sell the repeater alone if you're not interested in the cabinet or
power supply.

Also availalbe are four 900 MHz. Motorola Maxtrac mobiles which can
be modified to the ham band. Several friends and I invested in this
equipment a few years ago...the project isn't making progress so we'd
like to liquidate it.

Make an offer; this stuff needs to go. Since I don't know where I'll
land in the flea market at Dayton, please contact me directly via
email in advance if you're interested.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Feedlines In and Out of Repeater Cabinet

[no6b]

At 5/12/2008 06:27, you wrote:

>Bob,
>
>A PL259 or SO239, a good one, is good to 500 Mhz although at UHF, 440, I 
>would recommend N connectors as you suggested.
>
>One problem with UHF connectors, PL259, etc, so many are made for CB.  The 
>cheap 10/$10.  Good for HF, but that is about it.  Guess ok on 
>6.  Motorola and GE used UHF connectors for VHF and UHF for years, but 
>they used the good ones.
>
>An Anphenol is good.  Just another case one gets what one pays for, hi.

I have yet to find an SO-239 bulkhead barrel or elbow that's good @ 440 MHz.

Bob NO6B

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Best coax for short jumpers in repeater cabinet?

[n9wys]

Nate,

I first became "enlightened" when someone gave me several lengths of RG-393
with type-N connectors already on it.  I used them in my first homebrew 900
machine, and then in my converted 900 MHz MSF5000 (although photos of the
station show RG-400 - taken during testing).  Once I did some research about
the cable, I decided this was the stuff I wanted in all my applications.
I'll spend the extra bucks to get the lengths I need made up for me.

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Nate Duehr

On May 11, 2008, at 9:52 AM, n9wys wrote:

> Looks like you and I are in the minority, Brent.  I mentioned this  
> same cable about a week ago, and it went virtually "unnoticed".  :-(
>
> Mark - N9WYS
>
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of KF4TNP
>
> RG-393/U
> M17/127
> I use this cable in most runs in the transmitter buildings to and  
> from each station since it has the dual silver shields, I don't have  
> dissimilar metals to worry about.
> And can handle 1.8kw @950Mhz it works out great.
> Brent KF4TNP

I noticed, and want to get my hands on some for a future project...  
(GRIN).  Just had nothing to say about it... other than perhaps,  
"Thanks for sharing!"

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help

[n9wys]

Couldn't you use a toggle/push-button switch if it was momentary
(spring-loaded)?  
(i.e. "push-on, push-off")

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Summers
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:23 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help

I can't use a toggle switch because the contact to
enable the scramble board needs to be momentary to
turn on the board and then a momentary contact to
switch off the board. This contact will be using an
enable wire from the board and another wire that is a
ground. I think a flip flop MAY be the way to go. I
was also wondering if there is a  push button switch
that has 2 spst contacts?
Thanks. 
--- MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> For that matter, why not just a toggle switch?
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> Rich Summers wrote:
> > I need to build a simple circuit to enable a voice
> scrambler in a radio.
> > What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a
> button so that the
> > activation lead goes to ground and when this
> happens I need an led
> > indication that the unit has been activated. 
> > I also need the led to turn off when the button is
> pressed again. This
> > deactivates the board and the radio returns to
> normal mode.
> > I need this in a small box.
> > Does anyone have a circuit I could build for this
> particular application?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Rich
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 



 


Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ





Yahoo! Groups Links



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date: 5/11/2008
1:08 PM

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Paul Holm]

> At 5/11/2008 14:33, you wrote:
>
>>I would like to add a control receiver to a UHF (446 MHz) repeater.  So, 
>>is there a
>>way that I can use the repeater antenna for both the repeater and the
>>control receiver?
>>
>>John AF4PD
>
> Sure, if your input & control RX freqs. are close enough.  I have 2 sites
> where the input & link RXs are only ~600 kHz apart.
>
> Bob NO6B
>

>>> Not having done this before, I'm wondering if a control receiver 
>>> operating close to the repeater's input as described could be a problem 
>>> if in the case of a jammer or a stuck microphone.  If the two rx's are 
>>> operating that close, would the control rx be able to hear and provide 
>>> capability to shut down the repeater if the input freq. was being jammed 
>>> with a strong signal?

73  Paul - KC0HST 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] MSF5000 Error Code L06

[Bob M.]

According to my info, there is no set of error codes
beginning with "L". There's "A", "d", "E", "o", and
"U". The only 06 code is A06.

When the station powers up, does it display 8.8.8.?
This would be the way it does an LED test. Perhaps one
or more segments are missing from the display. I
suspect it's really trying to show a different code.

There are some known bugs with the V4.xx firmware that
could cause it to just lock up after several weeks. If
you're not running V5.xx, you might want to consider
upgrading the station's firmware.

Bob M.
==
--- wb0vhb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I have a digital MSF5000 that normally works OK. 
> From time to time it
> stops working and L06 is displayed.
> 
> Resetting the station brings it back to operation.
> 
> My service manual does not list error code L06. 
> Does anyone know what
> it means?
> 
> Randy
> WB0VHB


  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Need some help

[Ron Wright]

One can get push button switches that latch on when pushed/latch off 
when pushed again.  IF you want just digital mode while switch is 
pressed then no problem.  If you want to make sure the radio stays in 
analog until commanded requiring the op to hold during digital then a 
momentary switch can be used.


A "flip flop" or D-Type  latch like the 74LS74, a 30 years old part, can 
be made to work, but unless you are driving with some electronics to 
automatically change between digita/analog it would be over kill.  Also 
sounds like the latch is still going to a switch to flip the flip-flop 
and with switch bounce one would need a de-bounce circuit.  A 74LS123 
one shot is good for this.  However, still over kill.  We could also do 
with a CPU like the PIC processors, etc.  Fun to work with and would 
learn something, but WAY OVER KILL, hi.


A switch is easy no brainer here unless there are othe issues.  Requires 
no power, just some wiring and about every type and size of switch one 
can imagine is on the market.


73, ron, n9ee/r




On Sun, May 11, 2008 at  8:22 PM, Rich Summers wrote:

I can't use a toggle switch because the contact to
enable the scramble board needs to be momentary to
turn on the board and then a momentary contact to
switch off the board. This contact will be using an
enable wire from the board and another wire that is a
ground. I think a flip flop MAY be the way to go. I
was also wondering if there is a  push button switch
that has 2 spst contacts?
Thanks.
--- MCH < [EMAIL PROTECTED]  > wrote:


For that matter, why not just a toggle switch?
Joe M.
Rich Summers wrote:

I need to build a simple circuit to enable a voice

scrambler in a radio.

What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a

button so that the

activation lead goes to ground and when this

happens I need an led
indication that the unit has been activated. I also need the led to 
turn off when the button is

pressed again. This

deactivates the board and the radio returns to

normal mode.
I need this in a small box. Does anyone have a circuit I could build 
for this

particular application?


Thanks,
Rich


 - - --


Yahoo! Groups Links








 _ _ _ _ _ _
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ 
;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ 


 

[Repeater-Builder] MSF5000 Error Code L06

[wb0vhb]

I have a digital MSF5000 that normally works OK.  From time to time it
stops working and L06 is displayed.

Resetting the station brings it back to operation.

My service manual does not list error code L06.  Does anyone know what
it means?

Randy
WB0VHB

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Adding Control Receiver without Separate Antenna

[Ron Wright]

I would recommend not using a 12.5 kHz spacing freq in this case of a 
control receiever, a receiver that is only 12.5 kHz away from your 
regular repeater input.


With typical good FM analog receivers these would both have overlapping 
passbands and an input signal on the repeater input would interfer with 
the control input.  With som many using IC type DTMF decoders any 
interference, just over lapping distorted voice would hender the decoder 
decoding.


A typical UHF duplexer would have a notch wide enough for a freq +/-25 
kHz away.  Know this is going to be another repeaters input, but with 
some research could find is close in distance to you.


I have used control UHF freq that are 6.25 kHz spacing, but these were 
in the 446 range and on separate antenna.  Just had access to this.  I 
used this freq to give some added security.


73, ron, n9ee/r


Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.




On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Laryn Lohman wrote:

--- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com 
 , "John Transue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
.>

wrote:


Laryn K8TVZ,
  So, if I understand, I should put a splitter after the pre-amp, and 
the control frequency should be a split channel. Does this mean that I 
use half way between two channels?


Right, one of the 12.5 kc. in-between channels would be less likely to
have something on them.



  Another question, who makes a good splitter, and how can I know I am 
getting a good splitter?


Well, I've seen 50 ohm splitters quite often at hamfests.  I don't
have a good brand name to point you to.  I am, however, using a 75 ohm
TV splitter.  Purists will hate this, but especially, if you are after
a preamp, I don't see this as a big deal.  It works just fine here
with no measured loss in repeater receiver sensitivity through the
system.  Use quality coax and fittings.  I've found that RG142 works
reasonably well with the TV splitters since it has a solid center
conductor.

If you are not using a preamp, then you really need to do things
right, using a proper splitter, and still you may lose some sensitivity.

Some of you are saying, where's the quality in that splitter scheme?
Well, experimentally I've found it works well here, so after initial
measurements showed me that things were still the same, I'll tend to
stay with what works, but ready to ditch the whole thing if needed and
go another route.  Sometimes  takes the form of performance,
not looks or perfection.  If system sensitivity had suffered it
wouldn't be there for more than 15 minutes.

Laryn K8TVZ

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Feedlines In and Out of Repeater Cabinet

[Ron Wright]

Bob,

A PL259 or SO239, a good one, is good to 500 Mhz although at UHF, 440, I 
would recommend N connectors as you suggested.


One problem with UHF connectors, PL259, etc, so many are made for CB. 
The cheap 10/$10.  Good for HF, but that is about it.  Guess ok on 6. 
Motorola and GE used UHF connectors for VHF and UHF for years, but they 
used the good ones.


An Anphenol is good.  Just another case one gets what one pays for, hi.

73, ron, n9ee/r


Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.




On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

At 5/11/2008 14:39, you wrote:

I have followed with interest the thread treating feed line to use to 
connect repeater/duplexer/ antenna, and I think I should replace the 
cables that are now in use on my 2-m repeater. But now the repeater TX 
and RX and a remote base use short cables to a feedthrough on the top 
of the cabinet. There are 90 degree elbows on the feedthroughs. Would 
it be better to eliminate these feedthroughs and elbows by just 
cutting a hole in the cabinet and routing the cables directly to the 
radios? What is common practice?


Feedthroughs are always better, provided they're N connectors.  Among 
other
things, they help keep the rodents out of the cabinet.  N elbows are 
good
up to a least a couple GHz, so they should work fine @ 440 & lower. 
SO-239
feedthroughs are all bad @ 440, as are PL-259 elbows.  I even had one 
cause
desense @ 146 MHz (nothing but a dummy load on the other side; remove 
the

elbow, desense gone!).

Bob NO6B

[Repeater-Builder] Duplex coax types

[jimmylpowell]

After reading all of the recent post about different types of coax 
that are acceptable in duplex service, I made my self a list. Then, I 
thought that this might be helpful to others. Here's what I came up 
with so far. Please add any that I have missed.

RG-142  Be careful that it will not move around much.
RG-400  
RG-214 Be sure it is the double silver braid stuff.
RG-233
RG-393
Any of the Andrews Superflex/Heliax sizes. 

I have always used the RG-142 and RG-214 in the past, now I have 
others to look for. There must be others that meet the specs of 
double silver braid or solid outer conductor. This list will help me 
when shopping hamfest, etc.

Jimmy Powell, KS4KX
Roanoke, VA Repeaters
443.675, 443.200, 224.780
Maintain RVARC 146.985 and 442.500

Re: [Repeater-Builder] MSF5000 Service Manual For Sale

[wjpcolorado]

Givan,

If you wouldn't mind replying to me off list- I am interested. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks,

Bill


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-Original Message-
From: "Givan George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 08:57:53 
To:
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] MSF5000 Service Manual For Sale


Hi Guys, 
I do have a service manual for Motorola VHF MSF5000 (68P81092E75-O)Digital 
Capable And Analog Plus Stations. 
This manual is surplus to my needs. 
Any body interested? Just make an offer. 
Cash or trades will be entertained. Will be at Dayton. 
 
Regards 
 
Givan   

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Wacom Duplexer Desense Problem - Mystery

[Ron Wright]

s>

A number ask the question if it was LMR400 or 9913 or any double 
shielded dissimilar metals shield.


Sounds as if this was not an issue.

Your statements are worth saying again.

WACOMs I've worked with did use RG214 for cavity-to-cavity cables.

73, ron, n9ee/r


Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.




On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:18 AM, skipp025 wrote:

One of the things I never saw asked... are any of your
Jumpers the LMR-400 type coax?  One of my LMR-400 train
wreck stories started with a Wacom Duplexer and a jumper
of the mentioned.  The story ended when I replaced the
jumper with rg-214

just curious...
s.


 "blisswheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really appreciate all of the comments on my duplexer mystery.
I made sure everything was tuned properly and took it back to my 
friends home location.  We put it back on the air and experienced <2db 
of signal desense with an output of 15 watts. That still doesn't 
duplicate the results of the dummy load test, but that's a far cry 
from the 30db I was experiencing here at my home shop. Some of the 
things I did learn from the experience was that:
1. Though an antenna may only have a 1.5 SWR doesn't mean that the 
antenna is a 50 ohm match. Using my MFJ ("Mighty Fine Junk" which, by 
the way work pretty darned good, but not in a high RF environment) 
antenna analyzer, the antenna that gave me the most difficulty 
presented an 80 ohm load.  The SWR was 1.5.  A discone antenna worked 
the best and it presented a 55 ohm load with a 1.2 SWR.
2. Double shielded coax is a must in repeater operation.  I 
experienced this first hand.  I had one short jumper I thought was 
double shielded and was not which caused an intermittent such that one 
time it worked into a dummy load and the next it went flaky.  Moving 
the coax with the repeater transmitter keyed revealed the culprit.

Use hardline or double shielded coax.  Hardline to the antenna is very

important.
3.  Bench testing duplexers into a dummy load may not duplicate the 
results experienced with the antenna.
4. In theory isn't necessarily the same as reality.  I suppose if you 
know all the variables the problem can be calculated and identified, 
but there are a lot of unknown variables when working with RF.
5. The environment your repeater is in can cause you to loose your 
hair. Yes it is related to the rf generated, no not because of the 
health effects but because it makes you tear your hear out trying to 
identify a problem.
6. I learned about whiskers in GE Mastr II receivers...  I experienced 
their effects and how to fix the problem, though maybe for only a year 
or two, but I learned to to disassemble and retune the receiver.
7. Your experienced Techie RF friends are a great help.  I have three 
good friends that gave me a lot of ideas and helped me trouble shoot 
this problem. The folks here on Repeater-Builder gave me some good 
tips which pointed in the right direction as well, for that I thank 
you all.

Respectfully, Bliss

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digita

[Ron Wright]

Nate,

I should have said a repeater radio cost over $1000, but then again I 
thought the discussion was about repeaters on D-Star.


I paid $400 for the IC91AD.  This is about the cheapest one can do 
unless they get used like on e-bay.  An equivlant analog is $180...dual 
band 2m/440 HT.


Decoding the D-Star data from the controller, not D-Star from radio, can 
be done without much effort.  Ths is garage tech.  The first thing is to 
determine the start characters.  I did EDACS over 10 years ago and once 
you get the data it is often easy to decipher.  Does take time, hardware 
and software, and a PC won't do it...at least running Windows, etc.  One 
can buy the chips, just need a controller to assemble/disassemble the 
data.


ICOM made the system pretty much closed...have to use their equipment 
for most.  Few Hams have the knowledge to do any differently.  From the 
front end to the back end ICOM pretty much locked up their system.  As 
time goes on some will be 3rd party, but for the past 4-5 years since 
D-Star little has been done.  I think ICOM purposely formated it for 
this.  I would probably have done the same thing.  They want to make 
money, no problem with that, but Hams want the world for free.  Life 
don't work that way, hi.


73, ron, n9ee/r


Ron Wright, N9EE

727-376-6575

MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS

Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL

No tone, all are welcome.




On Mon, May 12, 2008 at  4:46 AM, Nate Duehr wrote:

On May 11, 2008, at 9:40 PM, wd8chl wrote:


Ron Wright wrote:

Jim,
I tend to agree more spectrum is not needed on 2 meters just to 
accommodate D-Star or any other mode, digital or analog.  Many analog 
boys are also starving for space for their repeaters.
D-Star does look for the proper D-Star format to "unsquelch" as one 
might say.  It does not simply turn on with signal like many analog 
rigs do.  The repeaters and rigs do this.


Right. I'm looking at provisions to monitor the frequency for NON D* 
activity before transmitting. Most P25 radios can be set up in 
"dual-mode" where it will also respond to analog FM with or without a 
CTCSS/DCS code, as programmed. D* should have that, or a commercial- 
type hangup clip arrangement, or a busy-lockout that keeps the radio 
from transmitting if there is other activity...or the choice to 
program one of the above.


If the D-STAR repeater is receiving a signal, it's going to be sending
serial data up from itself through the serial cable to the
controller.  I haven't (and probably won't) looked at that data on the
serial cable (unless I buy my own D-STAR repeater... I don't feel good
hacking on the club system like that) but I hear some folks in
California have.  It would be an indication of whether or not there's
*receivable* D-STAR signal on any module.

This is why, as you very well know, we use CTCSS...to unsquelch the 
rcvr when the proper tone rcv'd.
The petition to the FCC was an attempt to gain more repeater pairs 
mainly for D-Star.  I am sure the petitioners would have wanted the 
expansion to go for digital only.  I am sure the FCC saw thru this.


Yeah...nope- they're just gonna have to live alongside the rest of us 
that can't spend $1000 on a radio...|cP


The repeaters are far over $1000 for the band module and the
controller, but the user radios (other than the ID-1) are all quite a
bit below $1000, unless you have your heart set on the IC-2820.

You can buy TWO IC-800H's for just over the price of the signal 2820
with D-STAR/GPS board (the D-STAR board is included in the price of
the IC-800H) and have true dual-digital receive.  Just stack 'em.  :-)

The comment makes it sounds like USERS can't get into D-STAR for less
than $1000, which just isn't true.  And the rigs will do analog too,
so they're still quite usable for other purposes, generally.

The Kenwood D-710 with all the APRS features costs a LOT more than an
IC-800H, and all Gateway-equipped D-STAR systems should have the DPRS/
APRS gateway software installed by default these days, or the Gateway
admin can add it with three commands and answering a few simple
questions on-screen... so... a cheap $60 GPS plugged into the ID-800H
will handle the "APRS-like" chores... kinda.  It's different, but it's
a "reasonable" comparison.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED] com 

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Best coax for short jumpers in repeater cabinet?

[Adam T. Cately]

At 04:50 PM 5/11/08 -, you wrote:

   Are you sure you don't mean 'RG-223' there, Skipper-doo?

   I use a lot of this on my bench and home equipment, for the same
reasons the Skipp points out - it's cheap and effective.

   It's the same size (approximately) as RG-58, and uses mostly the same
connectors (occasionally I'll get a crimp connector collar that's a
little snug...)


>One doesn't have to go high dollar overkill spec all the time. 
>I'm also a fairly big fan of RG-233 Coax for many repeater 
>system/equipment applications.  RG-233 seems to be the ignored 
>step child of the coax family, which means it's not instant shark 
>bait every time it pops up on Ebay and the surplus radio world 
>market. 
>
>I found a fairly decent price on some pre-made RG-233 Coax runs 
>on Ebay: 
>
>Cable Assembly RF Coax 7 ft RG-223/U N-Fe to SMA Male
>Ebay Item number: 190175957842
>
>My offer to the seller for 2/3 the asking amount was accepted and 
>I now have a fair number of those lines in my collection at a 
>much better than the $3.10 (Tessco) list price per foot. 
>
>Not a bad deal if you want to take the plunge... 
>
>cheers, 
>skipp 
>skipp025 at yahoo.com 
>www.radiowrench.com 
>
>
>
>"See you at Dayton! I'm the short chubby guy with red hair."
>
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hi Brent,
>> I agree with Skipp, the LMR is not the cable i would recommend 
>> in a duplex repeater install. If you want jumper coax, I only 
>> use RG400 and it is a plenum rated silver plated with double 
>> shield braid silver. Both Motorola and Kenwood systems use 
>> this coax for there internal cableing inside the cabinet. I 
>> yet have seen them use LMR coax. Spend the little extra for 
>> good coax and you will find yourself much happier and not 
>> searching for weird site problems. For the main feed line, you 
>> can't get any better then Andrew's LDF coax for repeater installs. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

   - Adam - 

   

  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digit

[Nate Duehr]

On May 10, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Dan Blasberg wrote:

> Since in some instances D-Star is an add on board, I wonder why ICOM
> wouldn't do the same thing for a P25 add on board?

Because they already make P25-specific rigs that are priced at roughly  
4x the price (or more, your mileage may vary depending on who you are  
and what they quote you) of the D-STAR Amateur gear, and the Amateur  
gear isn't certified for commercial use, but people would use it as  
"cheap" public safety gear, which causes Icom and the users all sorts  
of problems...

You won't ever see "Amateur grade" P-25 gear from any of the  
manufacturers making "Commercial grade" P-25 gear.  The only way  
you'll see that is an Amateur-only manufacturer who can hide behind  
the shield of "We label it Amateur only!" when someone dies because  
their gear used by some cheap public safety person, contributes to  
someone's death.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital Repeater Operation

[Nate Duehr]

On May 11, 2008, at 10:13 PM, wd8chl wrote:

> That's what I was headed towards. The original post of the FCC answer
> (the part I quoted) seemed to lead that the petitioners were  
> requesting
> additional repeater spectrum partially based on D-Star users not being
> able to determine if a frequency was in use by another mode. That is
> decidedly NOT a legitimate concern! There needs to be means to  
> determine
> that there is other traffic on the frequency, somehow.


No there doesn't... unless analog systems are going to start doing it  
also.  Coordination is key.  (And if that means there are no suitable  
pairs, then there are no suitable pairs.  I have no problem with that.)

And the analog systems are also monitoring their outputs in carrier  
squelch too?

>> Your assertion that ALL P25 rigs do busy channel lockout, is flat out
>> wrong.
>
> I never said that. I said that they all have some means of monitoring
> the channel for activity. Most have the 'dual-mode' feature I  
> mentioned,
> most DO have BCL (but MOST don't have it programmed), and all at least
> have either a hangup clip function for mobiles, or a monitor button  
> next
> to the PTT for handhelds.


Ahh, okay.

I guess that's where we're disagreeing, or missing each other.   Even  
if the repeaters, rigs, and what-have you... HAVE a busy-channel- 
lockout feature, no one is using them.  So there's really no need to  
add it to D-STAR rigs, if no one else using the spectrum needs the  
feature.

So the whole thing is a moot point, and it was a misguided way for the  
petitioners to argue their case.  (One of the many reasons it went  
down in flames, I'm sure.)  I think we both definitely agree on THAT!   
(GRIN)

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digita

[Nate Duehr]

On May 11, 2008, at 9:40 PM, wd8chl wrote:

> Ron Wright wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> I tend to agree more spectrum is not needed on 2 meters just to
>> accommodate D-Star or any other mode, digital or analog.  Many analog
>> boys are also starving for space for their repeaters.
>>
>> D-Star does look for the proper D-Star format to "unsquelch" as one
>> might say.  It does not simply turn on with signal like many analog
>> rigs do.  The repeaters and rigs do this.
>
> Right. I'm looking at provisions to monitor the frequency for NON D*
> activity before transmitting. Most P25 radios can be set up in
> "dual-mode" where it will also respond to analog FM with or without a
> CTCSS/DCS code, as programmed. D* should have that, or a commercial- 
> type
> hangup clip arrangement, or a busy-lockout that keeps the radio from
> transmitting if there is other activity...or the choice to program one
> of the above.


If the D-STAR repeater is receiving a signal, it's going to be sending  
serial data up from itself through the serial cable to the  
controller.  I haven't (and probably won't) looked at that data on the  
serial cable (unless I buy my own D-STAR repeater... I don't feel good  
hacking on the club system like that) but I hear some folks in  
California have.  It would be an indication of whether or not there's  
*receivable* D-STAR signal on any module.


>> This is why, as you very well know, we use CTCSS...to unsquelch the
>> rcvr when the proper tone rcv'd.
>>
>> The petition to the FCC was an attempt to gain more repeater pairs
>> mainly for D-Star.  I am sure the petitioners would have wanted the
>> expansion to go for digital only.  I am sure the FCC saw thru this.
>
> Yeah...nope-they're just gonna have to live alongside the rest of us
> that can't spend $1000 on a radio...|cP

The repeaters are far over $1000 for the band module and the  
controller, but the user radios (other than the ID-1) are all quite a  
bit below $1000, unless you have your heart set on the IC-2820.

You can buy TWO IC-800H's for just over the price of the signal 2820  
with D-STAR/GPS board (the D-STAR board is included in the price of  
the IC-800H) and have true dual-digital receive.  Just stack 'em.  :-)

The comment makes it sounds like USERS can't get into D-STAR for less  
than $1000, which just isn't true.  And the rigs will do analog too,  
so they're still quite usable for other purposes, generally.

The Kenwood D-710 with all the APRS features costs a LOT more than an  
IC-800H, and all Gateway-equipped D-STAR systems should have the DPRS/ 
APRS gateway software installed by default these days, or the Gateway  
admin can add it with three commands and answering a few simple  
questions on-screen... so... a cheap $60 GPS plugged into the ID-800H  
will handle the "APRS-like" chores... kinda.  It's different, but it's  
a "reasonable" comparison.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Best coax for short jumpers in repeater cabinet?

[Nate Duehr]

On May 11, 2008, at 9:52 AM, n9wys wrote:

> Looks like you and I are in the minority, Brent.  I mentioned this  
> same cable about a week ago, and it went virtually “unnoticed”…  :-(
>
> Mark – N9WYS
>
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of KF4TNP
>
> RG-393/U
> M17/127
> I use this cable in most runs in the transmitter buildings to and  
> from each station since it has the dual silver shields, I don’t have  
> dissimilar metals to worry about.
> And can handle 1.8kw @950Mhz it works out great.
> Brent KF4TNP

I noticed, and want to get my hands on some for a future project...  
(GRIN).  Just had nothing to say about it... other than perhaps,  
"Thanks for sharing!"

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]








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: Antenna Gain (WAS antenna question - Dip It and Scotch Kote)

[Nate Duehr]

On May 10, 2008, at 5:44 PM, wb8art wrote:

> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Steve Bosshard wrote:
>>> Aluminum gives directivity and pattern - GAIN comes from EIMAC.
>>
>> Now THIS guy knows his stuff.
>>
>> 4CX250R (Eimac) and 2 metersYea!
>>
> Yeah 8877 Now your talking


5000' HAAT and I'll be at home with a cold 807 instead.  :-)

Of course, "gain" on an antenna should be "gain to the horizon" versus  
other directions, for most omnidirectional antennas (if you mount them  
properly... grin)... just ask the satellite guys if they always want  
the antenna "gain" pointed at the horizon.  (BIG GRIN)

(Hmmm... MIC-E packets from all the repeater's user radios with GPS  
lat/long data embedded in them, a way to decode that at the mountain  
and point the antennas az/el rotor and medium-sized yagis, mounted  
vertically... hahaha now that I've said it, some nut will TRY it.)

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Antenna Gain (WAS antenna question - Dip It and Scotch Kote)

[Nate Duehr]

On May 10, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Eric Lemmon wrote:

> The international communications engineering organizations have  
> decreed that
> dBd shall be used for antennas below 1 GHz, and dBi shall be used for
> antennas 1 GHz and above.

And why would the Marketing/Sales department care about what the  
communications engineering standards people want?

:-)

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]