Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
On Thu, 15 May 2008, KF4TNP wrote: D STAR DOES NOT NEED ITS OWN PLAN if all communication are done correctly and thing thought out . There is plenty of room if people would work together but too many are stuck on OLD I would be inclined to agree with you, however most existing repeater owners are not likely to give up a repeater location, or coordination. Additionally, there are locations where it does not make simple sense to sacrafice a repeater location for the purposes of securing a digital mode. When I program up the radio I have all the fail soft and , and control channels etc etc are programmed into the radios So if the system fails. And it ends up in failsoft then one trunk channel is now for the police , one for fire, etc etc etc. Of course it is all how you plan the system before you deploy it . Brent Ah, another of our land-mobile guys speaks up. Brent, in your experience of commercial trunking radio, and analyzing the D-star protocol documents, wouldn't you agree that a common channel, similar to the APRS frequency, is needed for D-star to be truly effective? You do make a succinct point about the nature of systems planning, however one must remember that this is amateur radio, and not all amateurs have experience with trunking radio, or intend to build a large system. Much as those in the data and computer networking worlds have learned (and often the hard way), it takes a lot of work and learning and making the wrong decision a few times to discover the most reliable and the most effective way to solve a problem. Also correct me if I am wrong there is no way to turn off the dstar system as in remote control? Maybe on the newer systems there might be. I have also not heard a good sounding D system yet. Just my opnion I am not familiar with the ICOM products enough to be able to answer that question -- I would think it unwise to throw that into the conversation without having a supporting reason. I will relate this: I have seen numerous commercial stations and repeaters that did not implement a remote control facility for allowing a control operator to shut the repeater down. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Collin, I had time to sit with the manual last night and learned a lot about what the CAT-1000 will do. It offers Control Receiver, Link, and Remote Base modes for the 2nd radio port, (DIP switch selectable) each with varying degrees of DTMF control allowed. (The CAT-1000 manual claims to be easy to read/understand, but I beg to differ with that statement to a certain degree! Actually, it’s a great manual, but the CAT-1000 does a lot of stuff and it takes a lot of reading to put it all together.) Anyway, I think I’ve got the physical interface part figured out… pretty simple actually. (I had a career in electronics in the Air Force, so the electronics part isn’t hard to understand.) As I read Part 97, it sound like we’re talking about an Auxiliary Station, regardless of whether it’s a control link or a backbone for a group of linked systems, so (if I’m reading it right) I think my light-bulb is starting to burn a little brighter! I probably need to talk with our coordinating body (SERA) to see what the deal with link frequencies is… if they even care. Ultimately, we want to have the capability (if they allow us) to link with the system up near Macon, which selectively links repeaters during severe weather. We’re only in the ‘can we do this, how do we do this, how much does it cost phase. Unfortunately, we don’t have any real repeater-dudes in the club… just a couple of us who’ve been hams for a very long time with careers in electronics. I guess this proves one thing about ham radio… you can be an extra class ham and STILL not know much about a lot of things! I appreciate the answer… I know a lot of guys from this group are up at Dayton right now… sure wish I was one of them! 73, Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:39 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Mike, No you are not too stupid to do this. On my Basic controller it is called control receiver. It is there only to control the repeater functions. It can be locked up under several layers of control access. In other words with one DTMF password you could access limited functions and with another DTMF password you could access all functions. This is with a simple controller like I use the ICS basic controller. I am sure you will have alot more control with the CAT. The connections should be similar to what you would have for the repeater receiver. With the basic the control receiver will take priority over the repeater receiver. Your CAT book should give you plain instructions for a control receiver. Hope this helps. Good Luck, Collin -Original Message- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:mwbesemer%40cox.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 15 May 2008 8:08 pm Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector I’d prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have ‘been-there/done-that’, rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! I’m considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but it’d be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I can just use the port for the 2nd radio (need to do some more reading in the manual to see what functions are allowed with that setup). Am I barking up the right tree? Any downside to this? Do I need to coordinate the link frequency through our coordinating body (SERA)? Can I eventually use this link to link two repeaters? Am I too stupid to attempt this? Again, pardon me asking prior to doing the research myself, but this place is a wealth of knowledge and with WAY too little time to do everything I’d like to do I sure appreciate everybody’s assistance. Mike WM4B image001.jpgimage002.jpg
RE: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
_ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kris Kirby Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 2:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital On Thu, 15 May 2008, KF4TNP wrote: D STAR DOES NOT NEED ITS OWN PLAN if all communication are done correctly and thing thought out . There is plenty of room if people would work together but too many are stuck on OLD I would be inclined to agree with you, however most existing repeater owners are not likely to give up a repeater location, or coordination. Additionally, there are locations where it does not make simple sense to sacrafice a repeater location for the purposes of securing a digital mode. OK I agree When I program up the radio I have all the fail soft and , and control channels etc etc are programmed into the radios So if the system fails. And it ends up in failsoft then one trunk channel is now for the police , one for fire, etc etc etc. Of course it is all how you plan the system before you deploy it . Brent Ah, another of our land-mobile guys speaks up. Brent, in your experience of commercial trunking radio, and analyzing the D-star protocol documents, wouldn't you agree that a common channel, similar to the APRS frequency, is needed for D-star to be truly effective? Now if you look at it that way. I would say I would give that a try, it would be interesting You do make a succinct point about the nature of systems planning, however one must remember that this is amateur radio, and not all amateurs have experience with trunking radio, or intend to build a large system. Much as those in the data and computer networking worlds have learned (and often the hard way), it takes a lot of work and learning and making the wrong decision a few times to discover the most reliable and the most effective way to solve a problem. True Also correct me if I am wrong there is no way to turn off the dstar system as in remote control? Maybe on the newer systems there might be. I have also not heard a good sounding D system yet. Just my opnion I am not familiar with the ICOM products enough to be able to answer that question -- I would think it unwise to throw that into the conversation without having a supporting reason. I will relate this: I have seen numerous commercial stations and repeaters that did not implement a remote control facility for allowing a control operator to shut the repeater down. Guilty, I have one at this time that I can not shut off. Well I can shut the whole site off That would not be nice. Kris , you make great points as describe above Where do you get the superpowers :-)- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:kris%40catonic.us us But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly
RE: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
For D* there is the one issue of less bandwidth. D* occupies about 6 kHz, about 1/3rd that of analog allowing for putting 2 D* in same space as 1 analog. This is not including what can be done with digital such as putting more than one set of users on one repeater using TDMA or some sort of multiplexing like is now being done I think with P25 in the Comercial world. These are starting to show up from the Comercial world to Ham Radio, but much more can be done. It has been done by the cel phone industry for over 15 years...it is old to them. I think we as hams who have among us some very experienced people who have dealt with digital comm for years in the Comercial world (2m/440, etc analog came from Comercial world, just we Hams wanted more than get input/key repeater and added all kinds of bells a farts) we can put together systems that can be squeezed into the existing freq allocation. Digital is going to revolution voice comm at least on VHF and above. A well engineered open Internet interface will be an added feature that will also revolution voice and data. We can go to CA or VA or IL and using a local repeater there comm with our home repeater just as if we were there and this will route things automatically. A feature the comm world has been working on and doing for a number of years although from my understanding has had slow progress. However, there are draw backs with digital and I'm not talking about the high cost we see now. Experience will lead to these draw backs and solutions. Can't fix a problem if one does not know it exist or what is a problem. What I'm trying to say D* offers opportunities that will allow it to come into the analog world and make better use of spectrum allowing it to better and more efficiently use what spectrum we have now. The main obstacle are the ones wanting to stand still. 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 Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:25 AM, KF4TNP wrote: ___ From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Kris Kirby Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 2:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital On Thu, 15 May 2008, KF4TNP wrote: D STAR DOES NOT NEED ITS OWN PLAN if all communication are done correctly and thing thought out . There is plenty of room if people would work together but too many are stuck on OLD I would be inclined to agree with you, however most existing repeater owners are not likely to give up a repeater location, or coordination. Additionally, there are locations where it does not make simple sense to sacrafice a repeater location for the purposes of securing a digital mode. OK I agree When I program up the radio I have all the fail soft and , and control channels etc etc are programmed into the radios So if the system fails. And it ends up in failsoft then one trunk channel is now for the police , one for fire, etc etc etc. Of course it is all how you plan the system before you deploy it . Brent Ah, another of our land-mobile guys speaks up. Brent, in your experience of commercial trunking radio, and analyzing the D-star protocol documents, wouldn't you agree that a common channel, similar to the APRS frequency, is needed for D-star to be truly effective? Now if you look at it that way. I would say I would give that a try, it would be interesting You do make a succinct point about the nature of systems planning , however one must remember that this is amateur radio, and not all amateurs have experience with trunking radio, or intend to build a large system. Much as those in the data and computer networking worlds have learned (and often the hard way), it takes a lot of work and learning and making the wrong decision a few times to discover the most reliable and the most effective way to solve a problem. True Also correct me if I am wrong there is no way to turn off the dstar system as in remote control? Maybe on the newer systems there might be. I have also not heard a good sounding D system yet. Just my opnion I am not familiar with the ICOM products enough to be able to answer that question -- I would think it unwise to throw that into the conversation without having a supporting reason. I will relate this: I have seen numerous commercial stations and repeaters that did not implement a remote control facility for allowing a control operator to shut the repeater down. Guilty, I have one at this time that I can not shut off. Well I can shut the whole site off That would not be nice. Kris , you make great points as describe above Where do you get the superpowers J - Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] us mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
SERA does require that you co-ordinate your control frequency. It will be an unpublished frequency. Also suggest that you use a sub tone. They will probably request that anyway. Howard K2IMO
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Home-made ressonant cavities?
The repeaterbuilder website has a old QST article on building a set of 2 meter duplexers. Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Alexandre Souza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:40 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject:Re: [Repeater-Builder] Home-made ressonant cavities? EBAY is a great place to start. Transport something as big as a duplexer to Brazil and fight the customs? Nah...better build it here, it cannot be so esoteric that I cannot build here :o) Since 1974, the award-winning Alpert JFCS has helped families of all faiths throughout most of Palm Beach County, FL, via counseling, seniors services, residences for the disabled, mentoring children, support groups and a lot more. SOLUTIONS FOR LIVING www.JFCSonline.com Please take note of our new website and E-Mail Addresses. Please update your contacts ASAP. NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and please delete it from your computer.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
Paul, Maybe we are intermixing comments talking about 2 different issues. My comments were to say you can be the trustee and licensee with my call on a repeater. I am the trustee and my call is on the repeater, both. I was responding you saying If your callsign is on the repeater, you are the licensee, not the trustee. This is not always the case, but now think your statement was in reference to most club calls and repeaters. Yes in this case you can be the trustee because your name is on the license, but the call is the clubs call or the other way arround...your call is on the repeater and the licensee, but not the trustee. Think this is what your were refering to. However, one can be the licensee and trustee. This was my comment. I am the trustee of our local club call, WA4T, but the call is under the Suncoast ARC and the WA4T call is on the repeater. Although the call is the club's call I see me as the trustee of the repeater, but the club as the licensee. 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 Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Ron, not in any legal sense. You're the licensee. If, by trustee, you mean the guy into whose care the club entrusts the repeater, that's OK, but not an FCC definition. - Original Message - From: Ron Wright mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:13 PM mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder]coordination? mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Paul, I would think it would more correct to say the call on arepeater or other station is not necessarily the trustee. My call is onmy repeater and I am also the trustee. 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 Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Paul Plackwrote: Guys, a trustee in FCC licensing termsis someone other than the licensee who agrees to be responsible for thelegal operation of a transmitter. Back in the days when the FCC required a repeater tobe licensed separately with its own callsign, the person responsible forits operation was a trustee, because a club or other party was the licensee. When they did away with separate repeater licenses, there was no more need for trustees. If your callsign is on the repeater, you are the licensee, not the trustee. Similarly, on Field Day, if a bunch of guys get together and use the callsign of the group's only extra-class licenseeas the station callsign for everyone operating, the guy who holds thatcallsign is the station licensee, not a trustee. If it's a club with aclub callsign separate from any of the individuals, then someone must be a trustee for it. Are there any repeaters left using club callsigns? Ifso, those would be the only repeaters which still have trustees. Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Ron Wright mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination? Huh? ALL repeaters MUST have a license trustee!!!Whatever callsign it ID's with is the trustee, whether club or not. I agree each license has a trustee and only a person canbea trustee. A club can own I guess one can say acallsign and a designated officer of the club can desingatethe trustee. However, I thought we were talking about repeatersandstations, not callsigns. The station or repeaterdoes not have to usethe trustee's callsign. Maybe Ireading it wrong. 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 Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM, wd8chl wrote: Ron Wright wrote: I'm not sure the callsign of the repeater isthetrustee. I as a trustee of my ham station can have another ham usemystation using their callsign. If operating outsidetheirlicense, but within mine they must include my call with theirs, but ifrepeater is operating within say a Tech's license freq, but I am thetrustee then the repeater can ID with their call. All Ham Stations must have a trustee, butnotnecessarily ID with it. If a violation is sited both the trustee and thecallbeing used can be held responsible. Same with control ops. As with a club call there is a trustee, but the callisof the club. Just the trustee has agreed to allow use
[Repeater-Builder] GE 100W 850-894 Amplifier Question
I have in my possession a GE Mark V? 850-870Mhz 100Watt PA Wacom 987 Duplex/Notch Cavity. Does anybody have any experience in using this PA for the 902-927 Mhz Band Plan? It has a Circulator in it for 850-874 (Which I know will need to removed or replace), I know the PA Chips are rated for 850- 960Mhz, but wondering if there is anything needed to retune this amp for the higher frequency? And does anybody know if the Wacom 987 can be modified to do a 25mhz split, as the specs says 30-45Mhz? I tried the AR902 Group, and got one response, nothing more, and nobody is approving me in the 900mhz Group. Thanks, William Stillwell KI4SWY KJ4BYI D* Repeater
[Repeater-Builder] GE 100W 850-874 Amplifier Question
I have in my possession a GE Mark V? 850-870Mhz 100Watt PA Wacom 987 Duplex/Notch Cavity. Does anybody have any experience in using this PA for the 902-927 Mhz Band Plan? It has a Circulator in it for 850-874 (Which I know will need to removed or replace), I know the PA Chips are rated for 850-960Mhz, but wondering if there is anything needed to retune this amp for the higher frequency? And does anybody know if the Wacom 987 can be modified to do a 25mhz split, as the specs says 30-45Mhz? I tried the AR902 Group, and got one response, nothing more, and nobody is approving me in the 900mhz Group. Thanks, William Stillwell - KI4SWY KJ4BYI D* Repeater
[Repeater-Builder] Motorola - Quantar
Dear Quantar expert, We have this annoying problem where the receiver squelch opens up on the Quantars and is retransmitted. It can happen to each repeater individually, or both can fire up at the same time. Generally, only white noise can be heard. At times, the system can lock up and only way to regain the airwaves is to power the repeaters down, then repower after about 30 seconds. The interesting thing is that both repeaters have ctcss enabled, so in theory, the receivers should not open the gate without the correct tones. I have slowly increased the squelch threshold, which is now sitting at around 20%. This has had some success in that the receiver can open with the white noise up on the Quantar, but the threshold is no reached to open the gate and fire up the transmitter I can continue to experiment with the squelch gate threshold by setting it to to higher levels, but I do not want to continue and impeede on the radio range performance. Thanks Holben Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email. Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email. __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
[Repeater-Builder] Motorola - Quantar
Dear Quantar expert, We have this annoying problem where the receiver squelch opens up on the Quantars and is retransmitted. It can happen to each repeater individually, or both can fire up at the same time. Generally, only white noise can be heard. At times, the system can lock up and only way to regain the airwaves is to power the repeaters down, then repower after about 30 seconds. The interesting thing is that both repeaters have ctcss enabled, so in theory, the receivers should not open the gate without the correct tones. I have slowly increased the squelch threshold, which is now sitting at around 20%. This has had some success in that the receiver can open with the white noise up on the Quantar, but the threshold is no reached to open the gate and fire up the transmitter I can continue to experiment with the squelch gate threshold by setting it to to higher levels, but I do not want to continue and impeede on the radio range performance. Thanks Holben __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Re: [Repeater-Builder] GE MASTR II cards and modules
let me check with the two guys I know who two Mastr II work before you deep-6 them. On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM, twoway_tech [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a bunch of GE Mastr II boards and modules. Repeater control, 10V cards, and more. Some of them are standard cards and some are for the Marc stuff. I don't really know much about this stuff, but Let me know if you are looking for something and I can look for it. Otherwise this stuff is getting scrapped out. Thanks, Jordan -- = Charles L. Mills Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Collins, Well how stupid do you think Mike is??? :) Your comment No you are not too stupid to do this caught my eye, hi. Got my first laugh of the day. Seems I don't get those much anymore. 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 Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, No you are not too stupid to do this. On my Basic controller it is called control receiver. It is there only to control the repeater functions. It can be locked up under several layers of control access. In other words with one DTMF password you could access limited functions and with another DTMF password you could access all functions. This is with a simple controller like I use the ICS basic controller. I am sure you will have alot more control with the CAT. The connections should be similar to what you would have for the repeater receiver. With the basic the control receiver will take priority over the repeater receiver. Your CAT book should give you plain instructions for a control receiver. Hope this helps. Good Luck, Collin -Original Message- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] net mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 15 May 2008 8:08 pm Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector I’d prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have ‘been-there/done- that’, rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! I’m considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but it’d be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I can just use the port for the 2nd radio (need to do some more reading in the manual to see what functions are allowed with that setup). Am I barking up the right tree? Any downside to this? Do I need to coordinate the link frequency through our coordinating body (SERA)? Can I eventually use this link to link two repeaters? Am I too stupid to attempt this? Again, pardon me asking prior to doing the research myself, but this place is a wealth of knowledge and with WAY too little time to do everything I’d like to do I sure appreciate everybody’s assistance. Mike WM4B mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
RE: [Repeater-Builder] GE MASTR II cards and modules
Jordan would you have 2 or 4 channel elements of Master 2,Vhf low split 73/s Gevrais ve2ckn To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thu, 15 May 2008 08:39:23 -0400Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] GE MASTR II cards and modules let me check with the two guys I know who two Mastr II work before you deep-6 them. On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM, twoway_tech [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a bunch of GE Mastr II boards and modules. Repeater control,10V cards, and more. Some of them are standard cards and some are forthe Marc stuff. I don't really know much about this stuff, but Let meknow if you are looking for something and I can look for it. Otherwisethis stuff is getting scrapped out.Thanks,Jordan-- =Charles L. MillsEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola - Quantar
Ok, now that I stripped all the darn yahoo HTML crap ... here is my answer to the reply. 1) If you have old firmware .. buy an upgrade! 2) (the simple solution) - Check your programming on your channel information screen. Make sure repeater activation and repeater hold in are set to Carrier and PL. If hold in is set to Carrier, that means that anything that may false the decoder (even momentarily) can hold the repeater open. In the RSS alignment system, set the system squelch up high enough so that it is not constantly open (most of my experience with Quantars between 150 and 800 MHz states that you will see a minimum signal strength of around -120 to -124 dBm on most properly tuned Quantars). Hope this helps! James Holben SINAGA wrote: Dear Quantar expert, We have this annoying problem where the receiver squelch opens up on the Quantars and is retransmitted. It can happen to each repeater individually, or both can fire up at the same time. Generally, only white noise can be heard. At times, the system can lock up and only way to regain the airwaves is to power the repeaters down, then repower after about 30 seconds. The interesting thing is that both repeaters have ctcss enabled, so in theory, the receivers should not open the gate without the correct tones. I have slowly increased the squelch threshold, which is now sitting at around 20%. This has had some success in that the receiver can open with the white noise up on the Quantar, but the threshold is no reached to open the gate and fire up the transmitter I can continue to experiment with the squelch gate threshold by setting it to to higher levels, but I do not want to continue and impeede on the radio range performance. Thanks Holben
[Repeater-Builder] Motorola R1100A and R1150E
anyone have any information they care to share about operating these units?
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
Many repeater coordinators want to know control freqs so they can advise if maybe a repeater input/output they want to protect. This way someone not so familiar with the band plans does not put something on that will lead to problems for both another repeater or to ones self. Also the coordinator can keep up iwith where control is and away from other services. 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 Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Howard Klino wrote: SERA does require that you co-ordinate your control frequency. It will be an unpublished frequency. Also suggest that you use a sub tone. They will probably request that anyway. Howard K2IMO
[Repeater-Builder] Preamp Info Wanted
Hello to all and thanks for reading. I am in the market for a preamp for my 2 Meter repeater. I am not looking to invite intermod so am asking for suggestions on what to buy. I am only looking to compensate for losses in feedline-cavities so huge gain is not required. As a matter of fact, I am assuming I will have to use an attenuator in front of the preamp. Anyway, any advice on a brand/model of preamp you have used successfully greatly appreciated. 73 de W2AFD Howard
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Preamp Info Wanted
we use a lot of TX RX products John - Original Message - From: Howard To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:56 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Preamp Info Wanted Hello to all and thanks for reading. I am in the market for a preamp for my 2 Meter repeater. I am not looking to invite intermod so am asking for suggestions on what to buy. I am only looking to compensate for losses in feedline-cavities so huge gain is not required. As a matter of fact, I am assuming I will have to use an attenuator in front of the preamp. Anyway, any advice on a brand/model of preamp you have used successfully greatly appreciated. 73 de W2AFD Howard
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Preamp Info Wanted
Howard, there are a couple of things to keep in mind on installing a preamp: 1. The losses in the duplexer and feedline cannot be made up in a preamp placed at the receiver input. You can increase the receiver gain with a preamp, but those losses are not recoverable. 2. You want to place the preamp at the output of the duplexer and put the attenuator between the preamp and the receiver. If you have a good preamp with a high level intercept point, you can usually gain a few dB if the repeater receiver is not as sensitive as it could be. Sensitivities in the order of .35 uV for 12 dB SINAD are common and they can be improved with a preamp, but if you are already using a receiver with .15 or so sensitivity, you will not be able to see any improvement by adding a preamp. In fact, it is quite possible to decrease the sensitivity due to overload in the preamp. Do a test on the repeater receiver to see what it's sensitivity is at present and compare to the figures given above to see if a preamp can add any useful sensitivity to the system. Often you can gain some sensitivity by using an Iso-Tee at the antenna port of the duplexer to inject the signal generator and tune the receiver front end through the duplexer thus compensating for any reactance in the duplexer. Using a SINAD test and tuning for best quieting will often result in improved sensitivity over using a meter on the first limiter to tune up the receiver. Hope this helps - 73 - Jim W5ZIT Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello to all and thanks for reading. I am in the market for a preamp for my 2 Meter repeater. I am not looking to invite intermod so am asking for suggestions on what to buy. I am only looking to compensate for losses in feedline-cavities so huge gain is not required. As a matter of fact, I am assuming I will have to use an attenuator in front of the preamp. Anyway, any advice on a brand/model of preamp you have used successfully greatly appreciated. 73 de W2AFD Howard _
RE: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Ron Wright wrote: For D* there is the one issue of less bandwidth. D* occupies about 6 kHz, about 1/3rd that of analog allowing for putting 2 D* in same space as 1 analog. This is not including what can be done with digital such as putting more than one set of users on one repeater using TDMA or some sort of multiplexing like is now being done I think with P25 in the Comercial world. These are starting to show up from the Comercial world to Ham Radio, but much more can be done. It has been done by the cel phone industry for over 15 years...it is old to them. It would be nice if existing efforts to install D-Star repeaters made use of this fact. Some spectral analysis information should be collected and made openly available. I would like to note that I am not in favor of modification of the existing limits set in the two meter band plan. I feel I did not make that clear in my last message. I think we as hams who have among us some very experienced people who have dealt with digital comm for years in the Comercial world (2m/440, etc analog came from Comercial world, just we Hams wanted more than get input/key repeater and added all kinds of bells a farts) we can put together systems that can be squeezed into the existing freq allocation. If we as hams really went the extra mile to ensure our repeaters generated no mixing products or spurious signals, we would all be broke at the cost of one $1,500 circulator for two meters. Combining systems are unfortunately the way of the future as most if not all tower sites are becoming commercial sites charging rent to anyone and anything that has a feedline and an antenna. Digital is going to revolution voice comm at least on VHF and above. A well engineered open Internet interface will be an added feature that will also revolution voice and data. We can go to CA or VA or IL and using a local repeater there comm with our home repeater just as if we were there and this will route things automatically. A feature the comm world has been working on and doing for a number of years although from my understanding has had slow progress. I just don't see the revolution myself. We've had HTs that had the capability to do APRS for several years now, and we've had the ability to build all the data networks we wanted to with packet radio at 1200 bps and 9600 bps. 9600 bps required radio modification, however looking at the history of land mobile, the Motorola Spectra has been able to pass 9600 bps packet data for the better part of the 1990s. The 9600-bps capable ham rigs, on the other hand, have only been around since about 1996 or so. The difference between digital NOW and digital THEN is that now we're digitizing voice, chopping it up, and sending it over the air in a digital packetized format. Whereas before, it was voice on one channel, and data on another, with the data being keyboard to keyboard or keyboard to BBS only. Even now, there are few good reasons to build and install a repeater based on D-Star -- ultimately, it is just building the infrastructure to support the existing community of users or future users. I am a repeater trustee myself, and the repeater I operate covers a range that only one other repeater covers -- however, that repeater has several remote recievers and due to the wide coverage afforded, may not be the best choice for a small localized event like a bike race or charity walk. I did analyze the existing location and the map of nearby repeaters before making the effort to restore the repeater to operation. Our location affords us protection from outside interference, as well as covering a relatively small patch of the earth that few nearby repeaters cover as well. However, there are draw backs with digital and I'm not talking about the high cost we see now. Experience will lead to these draw backs and solutions. Can't fix a problem if one does not know it exist or what is a problem. The land mobile guys have seen this already with simulcast and voted networks of repeaters running digital trunking modes. There are a few new papers out there about implementing the systems and the caveats of doing so. What I'm trying to say D* offers opportunities that will allow it to come into the analog world and make better use of spectrum allowing it to better and more efficiently use what spectrum we have now. The main obstacle are the ones wanting to stand still. This is unfortunately true. Hams are an obstinate group -- to suggest one clear a frequency for experimenting with a new mode such as D-star in a place like New York City would likely get one laughed at, in another part of the US, would cause one to become engaged in a grudge match with the existing repeater clique. There's no perfect solution, other than what we do with our repeaters already -- compromise. And again, this is just a hobby, even though some people
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Stupid is a relative thing… I’m considerably more stupid Monday morning then I am Friday night! Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:44 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Collins, Well how stupid do you think Mike is??? :) Your comment No you are not too stupid to do this caught my eye, hi. Got my first laugh of the day. Seems I don't get those much anymore. 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 Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, No you are not too stupid to do this. On my Basic controller it is called control receiver. It is there only to control the repeater functions. It can be locked up under several layers of control access. In other words with one DTMF password you could access limited functions and with another DTMF password you could access all functions. This is with a simple controller like I use the ICS basic controller. I am sure you will have alot more control with the CAT. The connections should be similar to what you would have for the repeater receiver. With the basic the control receiver will take priority over the repeater receiver. Your CAT book should give you plain instructions for a control receiver. Hope this helps. Good Luck, Collin -Original Message- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] net mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com com Sent: Thu, 15 May 2008 8:08 pm Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector I’d prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have ‘been-there/done- that’, rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! I’m considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but it’d be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I can just use the port for the 2nd radio (need to do some more reading in the manual to see what functions are allowed with that setup). Am I barking up the right tree? Any downside to this? Do I need to coordinate the link frequency through our coordinating body (SERA)? Can I eventually use this link to link two repeaters? Am I too stupid to attempt this? Again, pardon me asking prior to doing the research myself, but this place is a wealth of knowledge and with WAY too little time to do everything I’d like to do I sure appreciate everybody’s assistance. Mike WM4B image001.jpgimage002.jpg
[Repeater-Builder] DB-210 feed line matching at 52.88 MHz
After a few hours of frustrating adjustments, I still could not match a (recently shortened) Decibel Products PD-210 antenna I was modifying for use on our 52.88 repeater. Initially, I used an HP- 8920 and SWR bridge and could not adjust the trombones any better than -8dB return loss. I am using a 6 foot pigtail of 50 Ohm, VB-8 coax. Best resonance was found at about an equal 52 inch extension on either side of the antenna's mechanical center. This morning I took a fresh start and pulled out the old SWR meter and an old 6 meter mobile radio. Sure enough, the forward power was about 40 watts and the reflected power was nearly 20 watts. OK, what's wrong here, I mumbled as I stared at the antenna's upper and lower folded elements pointing skyward on its mounting pipe. It passed through my mind that the antenna looked a lot like a folded monopole ground plane with two of its radials pointed straight down. So, I yanked out the lower trombone for some reason and the VSWR went to nearly zero! Next, I shoved the trombone all the way in (noted the same VSWR) and started making measurements. Now, it is obvious to me that the antenna is not really symmetrical. The hot end feed is 2.5 inches off mechanical center. By changing my measurement point to the point where the feed line connects and measuring to the tip of the hot end is 51 inches. Similarly, by measuring from the other side of the exposed insulator to the cold end of the dipole is now also 51 inches. Anyone out there have this happen to them? I wonder if this is something I can measure on the 145 and 440 antennas I have in the back yard? Jim WA6VPL Lompoc, CA
[Repeater-Builder] Re: [DStar-Gateway] D-Star/FM Dual Mode Working - RNC Diagram
Storer, Darren wrote: High level functional overview: http://www.g7lwt.com/documents/dv/gb3mi_gb7mi.pdf I assume you have no IRLP or D-STAR Gateway attached to either repeater, or you could have one of those trigger a transmission from either GB7MI (D-STAR Gateway) or GB3MI (IRLP/EchoLink) when the RF relay/switch is in the wrong position, due to local traffic. Be careful that GB3MI's controller also is not set to do a final ID after traffic ends. A user could be using GB7MI and that final ID would force the transmitter to transmit into an open also. Plus you ARE going to have an analog user (sooner or later) who refuses to run CTCSS DECODE who will hear the white noise from the D-STAR system and will key up over it, thinking it's interference at the repeater and start asking if there is a control operator around, The repeater is hearing noise!... that will cause GB3MI to transmit into an open also. I would highly recommend Ferrite Isolators on the outputs of both transmitters, and appropriate filtering for the use of those. Then if the switch ever gets stuck or the system malfunctions in any way, the load on the isoloator will present a 50 ohm load to your transmitters, and eat the power from the transmitter without damaging them. Some constructive criticism. Hope it helps. That relay is going to chatter a lot -- pick one that has a very high rating for many thousands of switches for mean-time-between-failure. And do something (isolators) to protect the transmitters when it doesn't switch properly. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
Paul Plack wrote: Are there any repeaters left using club callsigns? If so, those would be the only repeaters which still have trustees. Lots of them Paul, on purpose even. Look up W0CRA or W0CDS. W0CRA = Colorado Repeater Association W0CDS = Colorado D-STAR Association In the former, it's all analog machines, and the club call is for convenience... all the machines ID with the same callsign. In the latter, D-STAR repeaters REQUIRE a club callsign for each controller/Gateway combo. It's because the system is callsign routed I can't route from WY0X to WY0X. I need another callsign on the repeater itself so I'm not trying to call myself to talk between the various repeaters on the same controller. For a while, people around here were getting the old WR0___ callsigns issued, but I think the FCC stopped doing those again. Is kinda neat to hear those on the repeaters... Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digita
wd8chl wrote: 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. 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. That's a steal. I haven't seen any below abt $550-600. You're thinking of the IC-92AD. Not the IC-91AD. $399 is typical at all of the dealers for the IC-91AD right now. Good list of all the D-STAR compatible rigs at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-STAR#Equipment Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital Repeater Operation
wd8chl wrote: 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. Well, the fact that no one s sing it (like they SHOULD be doing), doesn't make it right to not include it. If a user in the commercial world keeps trouncing on other users, and it causes a problem, they can be cited, and it has happened. The same can apply to hams too. If a D* user(s) trounce on analog users, the analog users can complain, and the D* users will be at fault. And vice-versa. So you're saying we all have to learn to be good operators. Good. My IC-91AD will hear analog users on the same frequency (when set up correctly) just fine... Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mototrbo Simplex Operation Answered
Paul Metzger wrote: Yes, the Motorbo radios can operate simplex on both Analog Digital. Text messaging, non-intrusive radio checks, call logs, call alerts etc . . all work simplex as well. Just remember, the repeater handles the two time slots (two virtual voice channels at the same time), when the repeater goes down and your forced to run simplex, and you choose to run digital voice and or text messaging, you now can only run a single QSO on that frequency. Your two time slots (virtual channels) go away. Paul Metzger K6EH Awaiting the gates to open here at the Dayton Hamvention. The repeater transmits a wide signal that is sliced into two timeslots. Simplex requires the use of both timeslots. So the utilized bandwidth is the same, but you only get one channel in simplex. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
Ron Wright wrote: Nate, On the IC91AD if one programs a memory for DV and it scans accross an analog signal on that freq the rig will remain there for short period of time, determine if not DV and resume scan. I have not tried setting up an analog freq and seeing what it does in scan if DV is encountered. Correct. To scan from MEMORY one must define what you're scanning for. If scanning in Analog with the auto dv function turned on, if the rig hears DV (digital) traffic, it'll switch. I haven't played with it too much, been too busy operating! (GRIN) ICOM did put some good features and thinking in the 91. I was surprised of this from a first time rig from Japan. Very much agreed. Even as an analog rig, it's pretty darn good. Complaints about the IC-91AD would include: - Runs hot on high power. Hot enough it's uncomfortable. - If powered externally with too high a voltage, the rig drops down to about 300 mW of output power, even though you're in the range specified by Icom. (Try it sometime on the workbench with a dummy load hooked up. Very interesting.) - When powering from external power, the voltage regulation circuits in the rig add to the already hot operation... the rig gets rediculously hot. (Buy oven mitts or an external speaker mic.) - Audio circuits aren't loud enough. Again external speaker or speaker mic helps here. - Auto squelch sucks (but most do). Set a real squelch level setting and forget about it. - Default settings for DV mode can cause problems. Turn off Auto callsign copy of anything except RPT2 field if your Gateway has D-Plus installed. - Memory A and B banks are tied to specific receivers, almost like it's two separate rigs. I don't like this, but it's manageable. - Programming anything this complex through the keypad is a giant pain. Get the programming software and cable. (The plus is, the programming cable doubles as the data/serial cable on the HT's -- not on the mobile rigs.) - The thing eats batteries alive. On the to-do list to get more or the aftermarket bigger one. That's my list... Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
Kris Kirby wrote: On Fri, 16 May 2008, Ron Wright wrote: For D* there is the one issue of less bandwidth. D* occupies about 6 kHz, about 1/3rd that of analog allowing for putting 2 D* in same space as 1 analog. This is not including what can be done with digital such as putting more than one set of users on one repeater using TDMA or some sort of multiplexing like is now being done I think with P25 in the Comercial world. These are starting to show up from the Comercial world to Ham Radio, but much more can be done. It has been done by the cel phone industry for over 15 years...it is old to them. It would be nice if existing efforts to install D-Star repeaters made use of this fact. Some spectral analysis information should be collected and made openly available. I would like to note that I am not in favor of modification of the existing limits set in the two meter band plan. I feel I did not make that clear in my last message. It is openly available on a number of coordination websites. Coordinators (in areas where coordinators are actually alive and paying attention) have been planning for narrow-band digital and other narrow-band technologies for years. The assumption that D-STAR only takes up 6 KHz is flat-out wrong, too. Folks HAVE looked at it now on spectrum analyzers, and most tend to agree with 10 KHz is the minimum spacing between two D-STAR systems. But there's not a lot of data (yet) on this. With P25 out there too, most areas are using 12.5 KHz spacing so D-STAR and P25 can play nicely together in a sub-section of the spectrum side-by-side, without bothering each other, but still being 1/3 more spectrally efficient as a standard 16 KHz wide (5 KHz deviation) analog signal. Here in Colorado, there is already a narrow band digital sub-section of the repeater spectrum for UHF and up, and digital machines that can do these narrow technologies are being coordinated there. Both a private P25 system and a D-STAR system are already in those allocated areas. Work on this takes a while, but started here more than two years ago. VHF is still full here, and recommendations for creative ideas haven't been formalized. Efforts are underway to remove the paper machines to make some room, and maybe... just maybe... some smart shuffling will be needed to get things right. No one really knows yet, but a lot of smart folks are thinking and working on it. The answer is... don't buy repeater gear expecting a VHF coordination on ANY mode right now in the Denver Metro area. Outside that area, things loosen up considerably. D-STAR, Analog, P25, or otherwise. I think we as hams who have among us some very experienced people who have dealt with digital comm for years in the Comercial world (2m/440, etc analog came from Comercial world, just we Hams wanted more than get input/key repeater and added all kinds of bells a farts) we can put together systems that can be squeezed into the existing freq allocation. If we as hams really went the extra mile to ensure our repeaters generated no mixing products or spurious signals, we would all be broke at the cost of one $1,500 circulator for two meters. Combining systems are unfortunately the way of the future as most if not all tower sites are becoming commercial sites charging rent to anyone and anything that has a feedline and an antenna. Yep. Long-term, individual hams getting deals from friends for sites, or clubs paying money to be on commercial sites, is the norm. Been that way for a couple of decades now, not sure what the surprise is there... or what it has to do with narrow-banding Amateur technologies? Building to commercial standards is now fast-becoming a requirement, not a luxury. Isolators are expensive, but lawsuits when you jam the local Public Safety frequencies will cost a lot more. Best practices must be followed by hams, we don't get any special dispensation not to do our engineering properly. Digital is going to revolution voice comm at least on VHF and above. A well engineered open Internet interface will be an added feature that will also revolution voice and data. We can go to CA or VA or IL and using a local repeater there comm with our home repeater just as if we were there and this will route things automatically. A feature the comm world has been working on and doing for a number of years although from my understanding has had slow progress. I just don't see the revolution myself. We've had HTs that had the capability to do APRS for several years now, and we've had the ability to build all the data networks we wanted to with packet radio at 1200 bps and 9600 bps. 9600 bps required radio modification, however looking at the history of land mobile, the Motorola Spectra has been able to pass 9600 bps packet data for the better part of the 1990s. The 9600-bps capable ham rigs, on the other hand, have only been around
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola - Quantar
Holben SINAGA wrote: We have this annoying problem where the receiver squelch opens up on the Quantars and is retransmitted. It can happen to each repeater individually, or both can fire up at the same time. Generally, only white noise can be heard. The interesting thing is that both repeaters have ctcss enabled, so in theory, the receivers should not open the gate without the correct tones. Do you transmit a CTCSS tone as well as receive one? What happens if you turn the transmitter off while the problem is happening, does the squelch close? If it does, your transmitter is either mixing with another and you're hearing your own CTCSS tone, or your system is exhibiting desense and you need to fix the duplexer/transmitter to receiver isolation problem. I have slowly increased the squelch threshold, which is now sitting at around 20%. This has had some success in that the receiver can open with the white noise up on the Quantar, but the threshold is no reached to open the gate and fire up the transmitter I can continue to experiment with the squelch gate threshold by setting it to to higher levels, but I do not want to continue and impeede on the radio range performance. This is not the correct way to set a squelch on a repeater system. Squelch should be set to a specific receiver input signal level and than left alone. Anything opening that squelch from that point on is ABOVE that signal level, which you know because you've set it properly. Then you investigate to find out what it is. Nate WY0X
[Repeater-Builder] Re: DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For D* there is the one issue of less bandwidth. D* occupies about 6 kHz, about 1/3rd that of analog allowing for putting 2 D* in same space as 1 analog. This little tidbit of information, courtesy of ICOM's badly misleading charts, needs to be laid to rest once and for all. Although the bandwidth occupied by D-Star and other digital modes is 1/2 (or less) than that of wide band FM operation it DOES NOT mean that one can automagically get 2 for 1 by going digital. However, allocating a full FM channel to a D-Star or other narrow band repeater is a complete waste of bandwidth. Something needs to be done. . . First: It's not necessarily simple to change repeater frequencies. We are channelized in our repeater operation. In some places 2M channels are allocated in 15 kHz and 20 kHz (I hope there are no 25 kHz) channels. D-Star repeaters can operate on ONLY either 5 or 6.25 kHz channels. Do the math: If you can't divide the new channel by 6.25 or 5 it can't be used for D-Star. The same for many other synthesized radios. Second: We have and live by band plans. As a coordinator I would never consider putting both an digital and analog repeater on the same channel with overlapping 19 dBu contours. Tis best to not mix the lions and lambs. I'm not even sure about sharing a channel between D-Star and P25 digital. Any volunteers? Third: What do we really want to do? If bandwidth reuse and maximizing channels is the ONLY intent, Narrow Band FM works just fine too. In this case, 12.5 kHz channels make the most sense for everybody. If it's just a case of finding a way to weasel new channels for new D-Star toys, get thee to the back of the line; we have a waiting list. Fourth: The taxi is already occupied. There are many, many existing systems and users on the current channels. How does one convince them that it is their best interest to move off THEIR channel to make room? In MANY cases, existing repeaters are crystal controlled and not easily moved even only a couple of kHz. In summary: No matter how we do it, gaining / splitting channels is by no means simple - especially when the human element is added to the mix. But, we have to do something sooner or later. JMNSHO, Bill - WB1GOT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Preamp Info Wanted
Jim Brown wrote: Sensitivities in the order of .35 uV for 12 dB SINAD are common and they can be improved with a preamp, but if you are already using a receiver with .15 or so sensitivity, you will not be able to see any improvement by adding a preamp. In fact, it is quite possible to decrease the sensitivity due to overload in the preamp. This is a very good, succinct sentence that says it all. Nicely done, Jim. Do a test on the repeater receiver to see what it's sensitivity is at present and compare to the figures given above to see if a preamp can add any useful sensitivity to the system. Agreed here too. As my elmers taught me... If you didn't measure the system before you made the change, how do you know if you made it better or worse? To get maximum performance out of any system, is a process that includes full performance measurements BEFORE adding or changing anything. If you KNOW your usable receiver sensitivity going in, including site noise with the antenna connected, and perhaps some other basic things like the noise-figure of your chosen receiver... You can then choose appropriate pre-amplification and filtering to match the circumstances that match your particular radio, antenna, duplexer... or what I call overall system configuration. What kind of VHF receiver is it? What's the factory spec for 12 dB SINAD? Is it already performing to that level? That's first... then pre-amps. One logical step at a time... is the easiest way to find maximum receiver performance. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
Bill Powell wrote: First: It's not necessarily simple to change repeater frequencies. We are channelized in our repeater operation. In some places 2M channels are allocated in 15 kHz and 20 kHz (I hope there are no 25 kHz) channels. D-Star repeaters can operate on ONLY either 5 or 6.25 kHz channels. Do the math: If you can't divide the new channel by 6.25 or 5 it can't be used for D-Star. The same for many other synthesized radios. Definitely do the math. Can you describe any normal splinter frequencies you can't get to using those two offsets combined. (It's a trick question... there's really no issue there... most commercial rigs only do 5 and 6.25 internally too. I had to have a 1/2 hour phone conversation with someone a lot quicker at math than I am to figure it out, but then the light bulb went on.) Second: We have and live by band plans. As a coordinator I would never consider putting both an digital and analog repeater on the same channel with overlapping 19 dBu contours. Tis best to not mix the lions and lambs. I'm not even sure about sharing a channel between D-Star and P25 digital. Any volunteers? Well we will eventually have them on adjacent pairs at 12.5 KHz spacing here... will let you know if it causes problems. Even 15 KHz spacing on analog VHF is a pain in the butt, since user radio's front-ends are wide, and the real required bandwidth of a 5 KHz deviation system is 16 KHz, as we've all learned over the years... Third: What do we really want to do? If bandwidth reuse and maximizing channels is the ONLY intent, Narrow Band FM works just fine too. In this case, 12.5 kHz channels make the most sense for everybody. The problem there is the end-users... forgetting to switch on their FM Narrow mode, and/or users who hear the repeater fine but can't figure out why they can't get into the repeater they hear with their 5 KHz deviation FM rig. That problem would be so ugly that it'd take years of user education to avoid it. You're too quiet!... I can hear it now. If it's just a case of finding a way to weasel new channels for new D-Star toys, get thee to the back of the line; we have a waiting list. Or work with bored, boring analog system owners... many people would be amazed how many backyard pairs could be had for the price of a single new rig so the operator could try out the new system himself/herself. (Disclaimer: If the area has a REAL 'waiting list', conversion of a system from analog to digital might be workable, but you'd be jumping the line and probably piss off some folks. But if the local area has no official waiting list, and you've already been told no pairs, getting creative is the only way to go.) Fourth: The taxi is already occupied. There are many, many existing systems and users on the current channels. How does one convince them that it is their best interest to move off THEIR channel to make room? In MANY cases, existing repeaters are crystal controlled and not easily moved even only a couple of kHz. A very good sales pitch, and perhaps budgeting for buying them their first user rig. Or maybe you start with a repeater that's dual-mode like a P25 Quantar or MASTR III, so they can still use their analog gear... to start with. In summary: No matter how we do it, gaining / splitting channels is by no means simple - especially when the human element is added to the mix. But, we have to do something sooner or later. It's already happening... it just has to be shaped into something good in each coordination area. Great comments Bill. Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Preamp Info Wanted
Great info given But something else to consider Where is the Repeater Located , Maybe a Place You cannot get to Easy in the winter on a Mountain Etc , I use the advanced research Preamps on My 440 and 220 Repeaters , They work Great Except when the GasFet goes Bad it is Like a 20 DB Or more of Attenuation, it Has only happened twice in 5 Yrs. I do Not know if they are all like that. Happy Repeater Building Don KA9QJG
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola - Quantar
I believe this phenomenon is known as 'Quantar Howl'. I've suspected on chassis desence to be the cause, but I don't own one so I havent put serious effort into tracking it down. PL is not a cure for desence, just a way to hide it. If the transmitter sends tone that will open the receiver if they are the same. On 5/16/08, Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Holben SINAGA wrote: We have this annoying problem where the receiver squelch opens up on the Quantars and is retransmitted. It can happen to each repeater individually, or both can fire up at the same time. Generally, only white noise can be heard. The interesting thing is that both repeaters have ctcss enabled, so in theory, the receivers should not open the gate without the correct tones. Do you transmit a CTCSS tone as well as receive one? What happens if you turn the transmitter off while the problem is happening, does the squelch close? If it does, your transmitter is either mixing with another and you're hearing your own CTCSS tone, or your system is exhibiting desense and you need to fix the duplexer/transmitter to receiver isolation problem. I have slowly increased the squelch threshold, which is now sitting at around 20%. This has had some success in that the receiver can open with the white noise up on the Quantar, but the threshold is no reached to open the gate and fire up the transmitter I can continue to experiment with the squelch gate threshold by setting it to to higher levels, but I do not want to continue and impeede on the radio range performance. This is not the correct way to set a squelch on a repeater system. Squelch should be set to a specific receiver input signal level and than left alone. Anything opening that squelch from that point on is ABOVE that signal level, which you know because you've set it properly. Then you investigate to find out what it is. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Ron, Good Day to you too. Well I know Mike somewhat and am sure he is neither stupid nor would take an offense to my reply. Besides that he asked the question first. I only replied. I certainly hope Mike has taken no offense to my comments. If so I am sorry and apologize. Also Ron my name is Collin. -Original Message- From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 16 May 2008 8:43 am Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Collins, Well how stupid do you think Mike is??? :) Your comment No you are not too stupid to do this caught my eye, hi. Got my first laugh of the day. Seems I don't get those much anymore. 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 Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, No you are not too stupid to do this. On my Basic controller it is called control receiver. It is there only to control the repeater functions. It can be locked up under several layers of control access. In other words with one DTMF password you could access limited functions and with another DTMF password you could access all functions. This is with a simple controller like I use the ICS basic controller. I am sure you will have alot more control with the CAT. The connections should be similar to what you would have for the repeater receiver. With the basic the control receiver will take priority over the repeater receiver. Your CAT book should give you plain instructions for a control receiver. Hope this helps. Good Luck, Collin -Original Message- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] net To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Thu, 15 May 2008 8:08 pm Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector I’d prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have ‘been-there/done- that’, rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! I’m considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but it’d be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I can just use the port for the 2nd radio (need to do some more reading in the manual to see what functions are allowed with that setup). Am I barking up the right tree? Any downside to this? Do I need to coordinate the link frequency through our coordinating body (SERA)? Can I eventually use this link to link two repeaters? Am I too stupid to attempt this? Again, pardon me asking prior to doing the research myself, but this place is a wealth of knowledge and with WAY too little time to do everything I’d like to do I sure appreciate everybody’s assistance. Mike WM4B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Collin, No did'nt mean to think any spears were flying. I knew it was just talking. I saw no offending comment, just struck me funny, 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 Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron, Good Day to you too. Well I know Mike somewhat and am sure he is neither stupid nor would take an offense to my reply. Besides that he asked the question first. I only replied. I certainly hope Mike has taken no offense to my comments. If so I am sorry and apologize. Also Ron my name is Collin. -Original Message- From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] net mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 16 May 2008 8:43 am Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Collins, Well how stupid do you think Mike is??? :) Your comment No you are not too stupid to do this caught my eye, hi. Got my first laugh of the day. Seems I don't get those much anymore. 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 Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, No you are not too stupid to do this. On my Basic controller it is called control receiver. It is there only to control the repeater functions. It can be locked up under several layers of control access. In other words with one DTMF password you could access limited functions and with another DTMF password you could access all functions. This is with a simple controller like I use the ICS basic controller. I am sure you will have alot more control with the CAT. The connections should be similar to what you would have for the repeater receiver. With the basic the control receiver will take priority over the repeater receiver. Your CAT book should give you plain instructions for a control receiver. Hope this helps. Good Luck, Collin -Original Message- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] net To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Thu, 15 May 2008 8:08 pm Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector I’d prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have ‘been-there/done- that’, rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! I’m considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but it’d be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I can just use the port for the 2nd radio (need to do some more reading in the manual to see what functions are allowed with that setup). Am I barking up the right tree? Any downside to this? Do I need to coordinate the link frequency through our coordinating body (SERA)? Can I eventually use this link to link two repeaters? Am I too stupid to attempt this? Again, pardon me asking prior to doing the research myself, but this place is a wealth of knowledge and with WAY too little time to do everything I’d like to do I sure appreciate everybody’s assistance. Mike WM4B mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola - Quantar
DCFluX wrote: I believe this phenomenon is known as 'Quantar Howl'. I've suspected on chassis desence to be the cause, but I don't own one so I havent put serious effort into tracking it down. Ick. Definitely someone will find it, eventually... if it's internal, ick ick ick. External is still ick... but fixable. Sometimes. PL is not a cure for desence, just a way to hide it. If the transmitter sends tone that will open the receiver if they are the same. You can also split the tones with most commercial repeaters, I assume the Quantar is included... but most hams are utterly confused by this, since most ham rigs won't do it. (I know of only two or three that will.) The repeater will still have the problem that the receiver is hearing the transmitter (not really desense in the classic sense, but same result... lower performance on receive)... but it at least won't key itself. Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
Have not done the math, but for 25 kHz spacing as on UHF what about putting 2 D* repeaters one + 6.25 and one -6.25 kHz from a standard channel. Might be necessary to seperate distance wise as we do for 2m 15 kHz adjacent repeaters. Here it is 35 miles. The D* rigs can do this and might be enough seperation. However, I do not know the D* rcvr selective spec. They might use the same IF filters that is used for the analog. 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 Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Bill Powell wrote: --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com , Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For D* there is the one issue of less bandwidth. D* occupies about 6 kHz, about 1/3rd that of analog allowing for putting 2 D* in same space as 1 analog. This little tidbit of information , courtesy of ICOM's badly misleading charts, needs to be laid to rest once and for all. Although the bandwidth occupied by D-Star and other digital modes is 1/2 (or less) than that of wide band FM operation it DOES NOT mean that one can automagically get 2 for 1 by going digital. However, allocating a full FM channel to a D-Star or other narrow band repeater is a complete waste of bandwidth. Something needs to be done. . . First: It's not necessarily simple to change repeater frequencies. We are channelized in our repeater operation. In some places 2M channels are allocated in 15 kHz and 20 kHz (I hope there are no 25 kHz) channels. D-Star repeaters can operate on ONLY either 5 or 6.25 kHz channels. Do the math: If you can't divide the new channel by 6.25 or 5 it can't be used for D-Star. The same for many other synthesized radios. Second: We have and live by band plans. As a coordinator I would never consider putting both an digital and analog repeater on the same channel with overlapping 19 dBu contours. Tis best to not mix the lions and lambs. I'm not even sure about sharing a channel between D-Star and P25 digital. Any volunteers? Third: What do we really want to do? If bandwidth reuse and maximizing channels is the ONLY intent, Narrow Band FM works just fine too. In this case, 12.5 kHz channels make the most sense for everybody. If it's just a case of finding a way to weasel new channels for new D-Star toys, get thee to the back of the line; we have a waiting list. Fourth: The taxi is already occupied. There are many, many existing systems and users on the current channels. How does one convince them that it is their best interest to move off THEIR channel to make room? In MANY cases, existing repeaters are crystal controlled and not easily moved even only a couple of kHz. In summary: No matter how we do it, gaining / splitting channels is by no means simple - especially when the human element is added to the mix. But, we have to do something sooner or later. JMNSHO, Bill - WB1GOT mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
- Original Message - From: Howard Klino SERA does require that you co-ordinate your control frequency. It will be an unpublished frequency. Also suggest that you use a sub tone. They will probably request that anyway. Missouri Repeater Council is thatway, too. Ray KBØSTN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
Ron Wright wrote: Have not done the math, but for 25 kHz spacing as on UHF what about putting 2 D* repeaters one + 6.25 and one -6.25 kHz from a standard channel. You're starting to think like the folks who are trying to come up with good ideas, now you've got it! However... you forgot the next step... Next you have to think about the original adjacent channel analog systems on either side. It's a matrix. Now mess around with the locations of all three. Trying to do a raw matrix analysis gets complex, real fast. Might be necessary to seperate distance wise as we do for 2m 15 kHz adjacent repeaters. Here it is 35 miles. We have to go a LOT further here, based on Height Above Average Terrain (HAAT). On VHF we have some systems that will EASILY hear a mobile user out past 80 miles. (And this is why each area has their own coordination bodies... tailoring the situation to the local conditions, is key.) The D* rigs can do this and might be enough seperation. However, I do not know the D* rcvr selective spec. They might use the same IF filters that is used for the analog. Needs more bench testing and real-world experiences with digital against digital and digital against analog. I suspect we'll see more good work out of people who've already published. (Utah's coordination group, and Mark N5RFX have both done some very nice published work for D-STAR systems specifically, and I've talked to a number of radio folks who DID similar or useful work to test such things on their systems, but never had time or energy to publish.) Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Dang Collin… I didn’t put your name and callsign together! Good to hear from you, and I certainly not offended. (I take a better beating than that every morning during 2-meter drive-time!) I don’t get offended easily and I know from a couple of years of lurking that this gang on here knows their stuff… Ron is a regular poster and I’ve learned a lot watching from the wings. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:44 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Ron, Good Day to you too. Well I know Mike somewhat and am sure he is neither stupid nor would take an offense to my reply. Besides that he asked the question first. I only replied. I certainly hope Mike has taken no offense to my comments. If so I am sorry and apologize. Also Ron my name is Collin. -Original Message- From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:mccrpt%40verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 16 May 2008 8:43 am Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Collins, Well how stupid do you think Mike is??? :) Your comment No you are not too stupid to do this caught my eye, hi. Got my first laugh of the day. Seems I don't get those much anymore. 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 Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:n4tua%40aol.com wrote: Mike, No you are not too stupid to do this. On my Basic controller it is called control receiver. It is there only to control the repeater functions. It can be locked up under several layers of control access. In other words with one DTMF password you could access limited functions and with another DTMF password you could access all functions. This is with a simple controller like I use the ICS basic controller. I am sure you will have alot more control with the CAT. The connections should be similar to what you would have for the repeater receiver. With the basic the control receiver will take priority over the repeater receiver. Your CAT book should give you plain instructions for a control receiver. Hope this helps. Good Luck, Collin -Original Message- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] net To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Thu, 15 May 2008 8:08 pm Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector I’d prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have ‘been-there/done- that’, rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! I’m considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but it’d be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I can just use the port for the 2nd radio (need to do some more reading in the manual to see what functions are allowed with that setup). Am I barking up the right tree? Any downside to this? Do I need to coordinate the link frequency through our coordinating body (SERA)? Can I eventually use this link to link two repeaters? Am I too stupid to attempt this? Again, pardon me asking prior to doing the research myself, but this place is a wealth of knowledge and with WAY too little time to do everything I’d like to do I sure appreciate everybody’s assistance. Mike WM4B image001.jpgimage002.jpg
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
It certainly makes sense. With all the randomness in the universe, I guarantee that two of us in the same town would probably pick the same control frequency and tone! Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Brown Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link - Original Message - From: Howard Klino SERA does require that you co-ordinate your control frequency. It will be an unpublished frequency. Also suggest that you use a sub tone. They will probably request that anyway. Missouri Repeater Council is thatway, too. Ray KBØSTN image001.jpgimage002.jpg
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B) Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:14 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link It certainly makes sense. With all the randomness in the universe, I guarantee that two of us in the same town would probably pick the same control frequency and tone! Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Brown Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link - Original Message - From: Howard Klino SERA does require that you co-ordinate your control frequency. It will be an unpublished frequency. Also suggest that you use a sub tone. They will probably request that anyway. Missouri Repeater Council is thatway, too. Ray KBØSTN image001.jpgimage002.jpg
[Repeater-Builder] MSF5000 ID please
Hello Folks, Is anyone able to ID this MSF5000 repeater for me please? C65CXB7106A7 Kindest regards, Paul VK2PDS
RE: [Repeater-Builder] MSF5000 ID please
Paul, Here's the breakdown: C - Compa Station 6 - 70 to 100 watts 5 - 806 to 960 MHz CX - Digital Capable B - 120 VAC Power Source 7 - Programmable (PL or DPL) Squelch 1 - 25 kHz Channel Spacing 0 - Always 0 6 - Tone Remote Control A - Version T - Repeater You will need to provide the board numbers stamped in black ink on the receiver, exciter, power amplifier, and harmonic filter in order to determine exactly what band your station is intended for. The model number won't tell you. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Simpson Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 5:51 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] MSF5000 ID please Hello Folks, Is anyone able to ID this MSF5000 repeater for me please? C65CXB7106A7 Kindest regards, Paul VK2PDS
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola - Quantar
Make sure you program the repeater activation and repeater hold in to Carrier and PL. And if you are NOT using mixed mode(if equipped) sometime the station can get a little crazy if left in the Carrier mode for the Hold in. I have 6 of these stations and the vhfs are the only units that have this problem. If set to carrier and pl in all fields, it should work great for you, it fixed My stations even after a flash upgrade. Are these digital stations? _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola - Quantar Holben SINAGA wrote: We have this annoying problem where the receiver squelch opens up on the Quantars and is retransmitted. It can happen to each repeater individually, or both can fire up at the same time. Generally, only white noise can be heard. The interesting thing is that both repeaters have ctcss enabled, so in theory, the receivers should not open the gate without the correct tones. Do you transmit a CTCSS tone as well as receive one? What happens if you turn the transmitter off while the problem is happening, does the squelch close? If it does, your transmitter is either mixing with another and you're hearing your own CTCSS tone, or your system is exhibiting desense and you need to fix the duplexer/transmitter to receiver isolation problem. I have slowly increased the squelch threshold, which is now sitting at around 20%. This has had some success in that the receiver can open with the white noise up on the Quantar, but the threshold is no reached to open the gate and fire up the transmitter I can continue to experiment with the squelch gate threshold by setting it to to higher levels, but I do not want to continue and impeede on the radio range performance. This is not the correct way to set a squelch on a repeater system. Squelch should be set to a specific receiver input signal level and than left alone. Anything opening that squelch from that point on is ABOVE that signal level, which you know because you've set it properly. Then you investigate to find out what it is. Nate WY0X
[Repeater-Builder] Re: MSF5000 ID please
C75CXB7106AT is a 75 Watt secure capable repeater station. It operates in the 800 band, 806-825 MHz receive, 851-870 MHz transmit. If your application is 800 MHz commercial, you're good to go. If you were looking for a station for a 900 ham project - keep looking. A comparable 900 MSF model number would be C65GFB7206AT. --- --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Paul Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...Is anyone able to ID this MSF5000 repeater ... C65CXB7106A7
[Repeater-Builder] Dayton
Well, where is everyone at Dayton?? I've been looking near the BRAT tent for Skipp, but not knowing what he looks like to begin with has me at a severe handicap. hehehe I'm wearing a name tag with my call on it, along with a wide-brimmed, brown felt hat - and I'll be there again tomorrow. looking for other Repeater Builders! (I have seen a couple of the BatLabs boys, though.) 73 from Dayton! Mark - N9WYS
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
So what's the answer: 1. Try to make room elsewhere for D* or 2. Encourage Icom to make dual mode repeaters so those with analog systems can simply swap them out and support both modes. I would try for the latter in the spirit of cooperation and upgrade ease on the part of the users. Once again, there is a perfectly reasonable solution staring trustees in the face if only Icom would support it. If D* takes off, or all the users make the transition, the analog side can be disabled and the spectrum benefits can be realized. People have to learn that sometimes a wholesale change is not the best for the service. This is ham radio - you can't expect everyone to bend over backwards for every new mode that comes along, and you can't expect more spectrum just because you have a new mode. You have to make it easy for people to transition. Joe M. KF4TNP wrote: *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Kris Kirby *Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2008 2:59 AM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital On Thu, 15 May 2008, KF4TNP wrote: D STAR DOES NOT NEED ITS OWN PLAN if all communication are done correctly and thing thought out . There is plenty of room if people would work together but too many are stuck on OLD I would be inclined to agree with you, however most existing repeater owners are not likely to give up a repeater location, or coordination. Additionally, there are locations where it does not make simple sense to sacrafice a repeater location for the purposes of securing a digital mode. OK I agree When I program up the radio I have all the fail soft and , and control channels etc etc are programmed into the radios So if the system fails. And it ends up in failsoft then one trunk channel is now for the police , one for fire, etc etc etc. Of course it is all how you plan the system before you deploy it . Brent Ah, another of our land-mobile guys speaks up. Brent, in your experience of commercial trunking radio, and analyzing the D-star protocol documents, wouldn't you agree that a common channel, similar to the APRS frequency, is needed for D-star to be truly effective? Now if you look at it that way. I would say I would give that a try, it would be interesting You do make a succinct point about the nature of systems planning, however one must remember that this is amateur radio, and not all amateurs have experience with trunking radio, or intend to build a large system. Much as those in the data and computer networking worlds have learned (and often the hard way), it takes a lot of work and learning and making the wrong decision a few times to discover the most reliable and the most effective way to solve a problem. True Also correct me if I am wrong there is no way to turn off the dstar system as in remote control? Maybe on the newer systems there might be. I have also not heard a good sounding D system yet. Just my opnion I am not familiar with the ICOM products enough to be able to answer that question -- I would think it unwise to throw that into the conversation without having a supporting reason. I will relate this: I have seen numerous commercial stations and repeaters that did not implement a remote control facility for allowing a control operator to shut the repeater down. Guilty, I have one at this time that I can not shut off. Well I can shut the whole site off That would not be nice. Kris , you make great points as describe above Where do you get the superpowers J- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:kris%40catonic.us But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 4:44 PM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
A licensee is a person who is authorized to do something. A trustee is a person *entrusted* with something. (That's the legal definition of a trustee) That something could be a repeater or a coordination or a license, or any combination of these. In the case of my repeaters, I'm trustee of all three - the license, the repeater, and the coordination. So, a single person could be both a licensee and a trustee. Certainly that person is the trustee for their personal license. It doesn't have to be an FCC definition - it's a legal definition and one which the FCC must honor unless they want to define it differently in their rules. In the absense of any FCC definition, they are bound by the legal definition. This is like arguing that a licensee isn't an entity since the FCC has no definition of an entity. Now, let's please end the discussion on semantics. The decaying horse is really beginning to smell. Joe M. On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Ron, not in any legal sense. You're the licensee. If, by trustee, you mean the guy into whose care the club entrusts the repeater, that's OK, but not an FCC definition.
[Repeater-Builder] radios i'm playing with kenwood tk-3100
I just got a stack of these old radios.. Does anybody have kpg-48d in their stash? -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5 145.230 PL-88.5 927.875 PL-103.6
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
How could they stop it when they are still issuing vanity club calls (which a local club just got one of within the last month or so)? BTW, all licenses have trustees. All repeaters have trustees. All coordinations have trustees. When the time comes there is no trustee for any one of these, they are abandoned. (such as a SK which results in no trustee for the license, repeater and/or coordination) In my area, there are provisions for a backup trustee for the coordination. If the primary trustee passes away, or moves, or becomes otherwise unable to perform his duties, the backup can automatically receive the coordination - after due process, of course. This ensures that a coordination is not left in the balance being fought over between two people should someone become a SK. The backup is specified by the primary trustee and is a form of a will for the coordination. (and there have been cases where a SK's coordination was claimed by more than one person in the past. It can get REALLY ugly REALLY fast. This solves that issue. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: Paul Plack wrote: Are there any repeaters left using club callsigns? If so, those would be the only repeaters which still have trustees. Lots of them Paul, on purpose even. Look up W0CRA or W0CDS. W0CRA = Colorado Repeater Association W0CDS = Colorado D-STAR Association In the former, it's all analog machines, and the club call is for convenience... all the machines ID with the same callsign. In the latter, D-STAR repeaters REQUIRE a club callsign for each controller/Gateway combo. It's because the system is callsign routed I can't route from WY0X to WY0X. I need another callsign on the repeater itself so I'm not trying to call myself to talk between the various repeaters on the same controller. For a while, people around here were getting the old WR0___ callsigns issued, but I think the FCC stopped doing those again. Is kinda neat to hear those on the repeaters... Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize2m Sub-Band for Digital
There wasn't enough money involved for the FCC to approve D* spectrum request. Our local RACES district acquired UHF and VHF D* repeaters, complete systems with duplexers and $69.00 repeater antennas and feed line (unknown type) One complete VHF and UHF system as described above and a dual band mobile for each county in district 1 here in Michigan with plans to link them all together via high speed Internet. (Our local club that has about 30 members if that can't afford the high speed Internet) This will be interesting as the D* systems for my county will be co located with 1 VHF and 1 UHF analog repeaters on the same 100 foot tower. I want to know why D* only needs $69.00 antennas and I had to spend ten times that for an analog antenna for my repeater. tom [Original Message] From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: 5/16/2008 10:12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize2m Sub-Band for Digital So what's the answer: 1. Try to make room elsewhere for D* or 2. Encourage Icom to make dual mode repeaters so those with analog systems can simply swap them out and support both modes. I would try for the latter in the spirit of cooperation and upgrade ease on the part of the users. Once again, there is a perfectly reasonable solution staring trustees in the face if only Icom would support it. If D* takes off, or all the users make the transition, the analog side can be disabled and the spectrum benefits can be realized. People have to learn that sometimes a wholesale change is not the best for the service. This is ham radio - you can't expect everyone to bend over backwards for every new mode that comes along, and you can't expect more spectrum just because you have a new mode. You have to make it easy for people to transition. Joe M. KF4TNP wrote:
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
According to the math, 15 kHz won't work for analog repeaters. The math is also responsible for the umpteen 6M bandplans in use across the USA. It's not pure math. If only it were It's more art and opinion than pure math. Joe M. Bill Powell wrote: Do the math: If you can't divide the new channel by 6.25 or 5 it can't be used for D-Star.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Dayton
Hi Mark, We are all here... some of us haven't been located by the authorities yet. If you want to call my cell... 17074463419 and the brauts can be ordered with pepers and onions for .75 more... mmmhm good. Our booth is just up from the Outside braut tent where the cowgirls are cooking. Look for the blue shirts and cowboy hats. I'm the short fat guy with red hair... c'ya cheers, s. Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, where is everyone at Dayton?? I've been looking near the BRAT tent for Skipp, but not knowing what he looks like to begin with has me at a severe handicap. hehehe I'm wearing a name tag with my call on it, along with a wide- brimmed, brown felt hat - and I'll be there again tomorrow. looking for other Repeater Builders! (I have seen a couple of the BatLabs boys, though.) 73 from Dayton! Mark - N9WYS
