Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination

[MCH]

Still, I fail to see how a national list is less effective than a local 
list. Local lists are fine for local discussions, but cannot take the 
place of a national list. Maybe SCAROA should host a RB list, too???

BTW, the "having gone to a website" comment and URL you made AFTER I 
asked the question THEN berating me for not going to the website is 
hardly fair or honest. I think I see who is really tapping here. You're 
trying to take RB discussions away from the RB lists.

The RBC list is the official list for coordination discussions that 
would otherwise be on THIS list - like it or not, that's the way it is. 
There are also dozens if not hundreds of other local coordination lists, 
so please don't try to promote one of them as being 'the' place for all 
coordination discussions. There is an official list for such 
discussions, and I posted it. If you don't like the lists Kevin runs, 
there are unsubscription links on all of them.

Joe M.

raffertysec wrote:
> Having gone to the web site you'd have found that it is the Southern 
> California Amateur Repeater Owners Association :) Creating a subset list 
> below this only spreads conversations here and there. http://scaroa.org has 
> been around longer than the sublist or the new Google list. Please note that 
> I didn't bring this issue here, but when I read a tap dance I had to reply.
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>> The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep 
>> coordination discussions off this list. What is SCAROA anyway?
>>
>> Joe M.
>>
>> raffertysec wrote:
>>> Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed.
>>>
>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
 The list owner created 
  for 
 coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done 
 specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list.

 Joe M.

 raffertysec wrote:
> I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination 
> and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California.
>
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Mullarkey"  wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>>  
>>
>> I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body 
>> and
>> who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system, if you really know him he 
>> is a
>> very generous person. Let's be done with this. I would hope that Skip and
>> others would agree this thread is not about building repeaters or trying 
>> to
>> figure out how to build one. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> No dis-respect, but you guys should keep the coordinating board business 
>> to
>> internal email. It does not look good when everyone all over the world 
>> sees
>> how the coordinating body acts like.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 
> 05/07/09 05:57:00
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2103 - Release Date: 05/07/09 
> 18:05:00
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Analog Repeater to APCO25 conversion?

[wa1nh]

I was advised that something is in the late development stages that will fit 
the bill for what you are attempting.  There is a picture of the interface at 
the GEMOTO website.  Look for a link to NearFest V pictures.  

WA1NH



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "kt...@..."  wrote:
>
> Thanks Gentlemen! I was hoping that pure-FM could stay in the picture 
> somehow. I'll do some more research (other than Wikipedia and Daniels' P25 
> training guide) to see if this can be done. I'm not too worried about the 
> "logic" part of it, only if it could be attempted (APCO Phase I equipment has 
> to be dual-mode).
> 
> I've also seen Quantar control and wireline boards on eBay for pretty cheap, 
> and if one of those could be interfaced to say a MSR2K or MSF5K that might 
> get things started.
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[MCH]

If they were pulled apart, they were not put together properly.

Joe M.

Mike Naruta AA8K wrote:
> I read about the Anderson Power Pole connectors
> in QST and thought, "What a great idea".
> 
> I started using them in our county's com van for
> the portable 800 MHz repeater and ham gear, and
> was I disappointed.  Even the coiled cord for the
> cigarette lighter plug pulled them apart.  Now
> I'm supposed to buy a plastic clip to hold them
> together?  Bah!  I think that my toaster has a
> better plug on its cord.
> 
> 
> 
> rahwayflynn wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com 
>> , "skipp025"  
>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > I stopped using small Anderson Power Pole connectors
>>  > because of all the grief they caused me on the commercial
>>  > radio side of my life. A lot of people like and use them but
>>  > I don't trust or use them anymore after a few 10 hour days
>>  > sourced back to intermittent small power-pole connectors.
>>  >
>> Re your problem with the Power Pole Connectors: Was the contact itself 
>> intermittent or the wire / contact crimp?
>>
>> I have yet to have a prblem with them in DC service, however for signal 
>> and data, I generally use Amp CPC series.
>>
>> Martin
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination

[raffertysec]

Having gone to the web site you'd have found that it is the Southern California 
Amateur Repeater Owners Association :) Creating a subset list below this only 
spreads conversations here and there. http://scaroa.org has been around longer 
than the sublist or the new Google list. Please note that I didn't bring this 
issue here, but when I read a tap dance I had to reply.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>
> The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep 
> coordination discussions off this list. What is SCAROA anyway?
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> raffertysec wrote:
> > Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed.
> > 
> > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
> >> The list owner created 
> >>  for 
> >> coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done 
> >> specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list.
> >>
> >> Joe M.
> >>
> >> raffertysec wrote:
> >>> I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination 
> >>> and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California.
> >>>
> >>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Mullarkey"  wrote:
>  Guys,
> 
>   
> 
>  I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body 
>  and
>  who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system, if you really know him he 
>  is a
>  very generous person. Let's be done with this. I would hope that Skip and
>  others would agree this thread is not about building repeaters or trying 
>  to
>  figure out how to build one. 
> 
>   
> 
>  No dis-respect, but you guys should keep the coordinating board business 
>  to
>  internal email. It does not look good when everyone all over the world 
>  sees
>  how the coordinating body acts like.
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
>  Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> >>> Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 
> >>> 05/07/09 05:57:00
> >>>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination

[MCH]

The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep 
coordination discussions off this list. What is SCAROA anyway?

Joe M.

raffertysec wrote:
> Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed.
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>> The list owner created 
>>  for 
>> coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done 
>> specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list.
>>
>> Joe M.
>>
>> raffertysec wrote:
>>> I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and 
>>> this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California.
>>>
>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Mullarkey"  wrote:
 Guys,

  

 I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body 
 and
 who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system, if you really know him he is 
 a
 very generous person. Let's be done with this. I would hope that Skip and
 others would agree this thread is not about building repeaters or trying to
 figure out how to build one. 

  

 No dis-respect, but you guys should keep the coordinating board business to
 internal email. It does not look good when everyone all over the world sees
 how the coordinating body acts like.

  

  

 Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>>> Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09 
>>> 05:57:00
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[no6b]

At 5/7/2009 09:35, you wrote:

> > > Don't panic, the TS-32 also provides a separate tone
> > > generation "encoder" section for your transmitter CTCSS
> > > requirement. A shielded audio quality wire is routed out
> > > of the receiver box to the transmitter board at the
> > > proper CTCSS connection point.
>
> > I assume this is done using feed-through capacitors - you
> > don't want to plumb any wires straight through the case.
>
>In the past I've actually routed the shielded CTCSS endode
>audio source wire through chassis and cabinet/box holes
>and in this case I used the feed through-capacitor method.
>The holes in the direct wired version was already there so
>I used it. Through hole direct wiring can make servicing
>by box swapping a bit more difficult. In very short wire
>lengths I have not experienced a problem with stray RF or
>Ground Loops bringing a gremlin on board.

Yes, but if you run a wire into a box through a hole, you might as well 
take the lid off too, as that wire will act just like a coupling probe 
between the boxes.  Similar situation: I mistakenly used an isolated BNC 
feedthrough on a shielded box with feedthrough caps on all other 
I/O.  Inside the box was a scanner being used as a sig. gen.  The scanner's 
LO leaked out as if the lid was off the box because the BNC bulkhead was 
isolated.  Replaced it with a standard BNC feedthrough & the signal went 
from FQ all over the room to no detectable leakage, at least a 60 dB change.


> > >The Hamtronics Receiver COR/COS output is active high, which I
> > >don't like one bit.
> >
> > When I first started building repeaters, I used active low
> > CTCSS as well.

Oops - that should have been "...I used active low COS as well."  I also 
used active low CTCSS, but I still do today - that never changed because 
the RLC-1 controller only works with active low CTCSS.

>   The main reason was that it was convenient
> > to use as a cheap way to key the TX when a controller wasn't
> > available back in those "lean" college days. When I started
> > using G.E. radios with their active high CAS & RUS outputs,
> > I switched to active high as my standard.
>
>I like active low logic for a number of reasons and personal
>preference. In a situation where the controlling device loses
>power, there is a potential for the transmitter to key up.

If the RX loses power, the logic outputs could pull to ground as well - 
depends on the design.  In my case, using opposing polarities on COS & 
CTCSS appears to eliminate the possibility of both becoming spuriously valid.

> > So what do you use for a connector?  In my latest RX boxing
> > project I decided to put a DB9 "doghouse" on the box.  The
> > doghouse is a cheap plastic box since shielding isn't necessary.
> > I plan to install the feedthroughs in a manner similar to what
> > you describe, but then mount a DB9 & Anderson PowerPole on the
> > doghouse so all the connections are "connectorized".  I may
> > even add some switching circuitry inside the doghouse so this
> > receiver can be grafted into a existing system using a
> > single-port controller (2 RXs on one port).
>
>For this project... I only used the feed-through capacitors
>for everything. The wires at the rear of the controller get
>into the controller via a DB-9 plug but nothing on the chassis
>or RF deck. I stopped using small Anderson Power Pole connectors
>because of all the grief they caused me on the commercial
>radio side of my life. A lot of people like and use them but
>I don't trust or use them anymore after a few 10 hour days
>sourced back to intermittent small power-pole connectors.

Uh oh, I hope I don't run into that problem.  I began to standardize on the 
PowerPole a few years ago & have about 80% of my equipment 
converted.  Before that I direct-wired everything, but that just got too 
painful every time I needed to swap something out.  For a short time I 
started using Molex but the current rating of the easily-obtainable 
versions was only 8 A - not enough even when doubled up.

Up to now the only negative comments I've heard regarding the PowerPole are 
related to their non-locking nature.  I've found their inherent retention 
force to be more than sufficient for all my applications, both repeater & 
mobile.  I know that PowerPoles (& probably almost all other DC connectors) 
are NOT designed to be hot-mated, which could cause contact 
problems.  Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I try to prevent it whenever I can.

>
> > >and while the value is not ultra critical, you don't
> > >want the capacitance value large enough to impact the information
> > >passing through. I found and used surplus 100pf (pico farad)
> > >feed-through capacitors although I'm sure higher values will work.
>
> > To make sure that the shunt capacitance blocked any RF, I
> > added some series resistance to form an RC. On lines like
> > the RX audio, adding 470 ohms in series with a source that
> > was already several k-ohms didn't affect the audio
> > a

RE: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV Station

[Michael Ryan]

The CAT 700B Controller works VERY WELL with an ICOM 706 Mrk II G as a
remote base.  Allows linking from our 220 repeater to 2, 440, 6mtrs, 10mtrs,
or anything you want on HF. You can access the MEMORIES of the 706 which
allows you to link to other programmed repeaters (* including their PL tones
which is important ) if you like. Works very nicely that way.  - Mike

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B)
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:29 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at
TV Station

 






Eric,

As always, thanks for the advice. I'll add the bandpass cavity filter to
the shopping list. We 'should' have good coverage, so we can probably
forego any preamp until we can assess the footprint and add it later if
necessary. 

Hopefully my cohort in crime got more word about the site today. I'm hoping
we can tour the site soon with the site manager and/or engineer to see what
we might have to work with and what they'll expect from us. I definitely
believe in being a good tenant, especially when the benefactor is being so
generous to us. 

I don't know what we'll use for repeater equipment yet, but suspect we'll
end up with a MASTR II or MICOR conversion. 

I'm looking at different controllers to see what will do the job, not be a
pain to program, and not cost us both arms and a leg. (We 'think' we might
have some help from the EMA, but I don't want to be greedy either!) The two
systems I have on the air now both have CAT-1000's and the other one that I
help with has a CAT-500. I love the CAT-1000 (probably because I've got it
figured out now) but they are a bit in the PRICEY side. I do believe,
however, that it's worth spending the money to get something we can actually
work with and that will lend itself to expansion (perhaps a link or
remote-base) at a later time.

Do you have a recommendation for a duplexer for this application (or any of
the other equipment I need for that matter)? Everything I maintain now was
either already in place or built from existing spare pieces-parts. I've
never had the opportunity to select all the equipment for the site before
and I don't want to mis-spend somebody else's money.

73,

Mike
WM4B 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
 
[mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:08 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
 
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at
TV Station

Mike,

Whenever I am putting a repeater- commercial or Amateur- at a broadcasting
site, my preference is to always plan for a dual 8" bandpass cavity filter
between the duplexer and the receiver input. My choice is usually a
Telewave TWPC-4508-2, since it is very effective and is available with a Ham
discount. I have two UHF repeaters at high-RF sites (one is close to a five
megawatt FAA radar, and the other is close to a 25 kW coastal radar, while
both are near UHF trunked radio systems.) but the bandpass filters are
effective in eliminating receiver desense caused by "brute force" RF
presence. If your site has good coverage, you may not need any
amplification to make up for the slight insertion loss of the bandpass
filter.

I suggest that you use a good BpBr duplexer, rather than a simple notch
duplexer, to gain additional bandpass filtering.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
 
[mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of Mike (WM4B)
Besemer
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:56 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
 
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV
Station

Greetings all,

A friend of mine has been approached about accepting some tower/shack space
at a local Public Broadcasting station. Between us, we've been working up
our wants/needs for a 440 MHz system and I'm looking for suggestions for
duplexers. 

The TV Station is on DT Channel 7 (175.25 video 179.75 sound) transmitting
31kW ERP. I've been fortunate so far in that both of my other sites are
RF-free (we're the only tenant) so I've not had to deal with large amounts
of RF floating about. What do I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,

Mike
WM4B





__ NOD32 4051 (20090504) Information __

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

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[Chuck Kelsey]

I didn't see 50-amp ones on their site. Part number?

Chuck
WB2EDV


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Naruta AA8K" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - 
Part 2


>
> Ah, thank you John
>
>
>
> John J. Riddell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike, don't use the little red / black plugsthey don't work so well.
>> I have standardised on the 50 amp plugs...even in my car...they won't 
>> pull
>> apart.
>> I also use them on all my Son's farm machinery and he is very pleased 
>> with
>> them.
>>
>> 73 John VE3AMZ
>>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[no6b]

At 5/7/2009 08:03, you wrote:

>The hardest part of interfacing to the Hamtronics transmitter
>was finding a one-piece RF rated RCA connector. They seemed to
>have gone poof from the US Market... nay with Digi Key, Mouser,
>and similar sources.

Sorry Skipp, I scarfed up every one I could find @ Dayton last 
year.  Didn't find very many, but found a few more here & there at various 
swap meets since so I'm stocked OK now.  If you need a couple I can 
probably spare that much.


>Some coax types also work fairly well for high voltage lead. I
>and many others have used the center conductor of non-foam
>RG-8 type/size coax for RF Amplifier high voltage lead for
>many decades.

We have some RG-214 power cables at work made for a carcinotron that runs 
up to 11 kV on the anode.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[Mike Naruta AA8K]

Ah, thank you John



John J. Riddell wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike, don't use the little red / black plugsthey don't work so well.
> I have standardised on the 50 amp plugs...even in my car...they won't pull
> apart.
> I also use them on all my Son's farm machinery and he is very pleased with
> them.
> 
> 73 John VE3AMZ
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[John J. Riddell]

Mike,   don't use the little red / black plugsthey don't work so well.
I have standardised on the 50 amp plugs...even in my car...they won't pull 
apart.
I also use them on all my Son's farm machinery and he is very pleased with 
them.

73 John VE3AMZ


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Naruta AA8K" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - 
Part 2


>
> I read about the Anderson Power Pole connectors
> in QST and thought, "What a great idea".
>
> I started using them in our county's com van for
> the portable 800 MHz repeater and ham gear, and
> was I disappointed.  Even the coiled cord for the
> cigarette lighter plug pulled them apart.  Now
> I'm supposed to buy a plastic clip to hold them
> together?  Bah!  I think that my toaster has a
> better plug on its cord.
>
>
>
> rahwayflynn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com
>> , "skipp025" 
>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > I stopped using small Anderson Power Pole connectors
>>  > because of all the grief they caused me on the commercial
>>  > radio side of my life. A lot of people like and use them but
>>  > I don't trust or use them anymore after a few 10 hour days
>>  > sourced back to intermittent small power-pole connectors.
>>  >
>> Re your problem with the Power Pole Connectors: Was the contact itself
>> intermittent or the wire / contact crimp?
>>
>> I have yet to have a prblem with them in DC service, however for signal
>> and data, I generally use Amp CPC series.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[Mike Naruta AA8K]

I read about the Anderson Power Pole connectors
in QST and thought, "What a great idea".

I started using them in our county's com van for
the portable 800 MHz repeater and ham gear, and
was I disappointed.  Even the coiled cord for the
cigarette lighter plug pulled them apart.  Now
I'm supposed to buy a plastic clip to hold them
together?  Bah!  I think that my toaster has a
better plug on its cord.



rahwayflynn wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com 
> , "skipp025"  
> wrote:
>  >
>  > I stopped using small Anderson Power Pole connectors
>  > because of all the grief they caused me on the commercial
>  > radio side of my life. A lot of people like and use them but
>  > I don't trust or use them anymore after a few 10 hour days
>  > sourced back to intermittent small power-pole connectors.
>  >
> Re your problem with the Power Pole Connectors: Was the contact itself 
> intermittent or the wire / contact crimp?
> 
> I have yet to have a prblem with them in DC service, however for signal 
> and data, I generally use Amp CPC series.
> 
> Martin
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor

[Larry Wagoner]

At 07:16 PM 5/7/2009, you wrote:
>The interesting thing about this cable is that it has a messenger 
>wire molded to the outside of the jacket. It is about # 10 gauge 
>steel. It is not wrapped around the coax, just to one side, about 
>0.2 inches away. When I say molded, I mean that messenger wire and 
>coax have the same black insulator jacket with a rib of the same 
>material between them.

That sounds like the stuff the local cable TV company uses for drop 
feeds to houses.
No idea about what it is good for ... but the steel line is purely support.



Larry Wagoner - N5WLW
VP - PRCARC
PIC - MS SECT ARRL 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV Station

[Mike Besemer (WM4B)]

Eric,

As always, thanks for the advice.  I'll add the bandpass cavity filter to
the shopping list.  We 'should' have good coverage, so we can probably
forego any preamp until we can assess the footprint and add it later if
necessary. 

Hopefully my cohort in crime got more word about the site today.  I'm hoping
we can tour the site soon with the site manager and/or engineer to see what
we might have to work with and what they'll expect from us.  I definitely
believe in being a good tenant, especially when the benefactor is being so
generous to us.  

I don't know what we'll use for repeater equipment yet, but suspect we'll
end up with a MASTR II or MICOR conversion.  

I'm looking at different controllers to see what will do the job, not be a
pain to program, and not cost us both arms and a leg.  (We 'think' we might
have some help from the EMA, but I don't want to be greedy either!)  The two
systems I have on the air now both have CAT-1000's and the other one that I
help with has a CAT-500.  I love the CAT-1000 (probably because I've got it
figured out now) but they are a bit in the PRICEY side.  I do believe,
however, that it's worth spending the money to get something we can actually
work with and that will lend itself to expansion (perhaps a link or
remote-base) at a later time.

Do you have a recommendation for a duplexer for this application (or any of
the other equipment I need for that matter)?  Everything I maintain now was
either already in place or built from existing spare pieces-parts.  I've
never had the opportunity to select all the equipment for the site before
and I don't want to mis-spend somebody else's money.

73,

Mike
WM4B  


From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:08 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at
TV Station



Mike,

Whenever I am putting a repeater- commercial or Amateur- at a broadcasting
site, my preference is to always plan for a dual 8" bandpass cavity filter
between the duplexer and the receiver input. My choice is usually a
Telewave TWPC-4508-2, since it is very effective and is available with a Ham
discount. I have two UHF repeaters at high-RF sites (one is close to a five
megawatt FAA radar, and the other is close to a 25 kW coastal radar, while
both are near UHF trunked radio systems.) but the bandpass filters are
effective in eliminating receiver desense caused by "brute force" RF
presence. If your site has good coverage, you may not need any
amplification to make up for the slight insertion loss of the bandpass
filter.

I suggest that you use a good BpBr duplexer, rather than a simple notch
duplexer, to gain additional bandpass filtering.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY


-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike (WM4B) Besemer
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:56 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV
Station

Greetings all,

A friend of mine has been approached about accepting some tower/shack space
at a local Public Broadcasting station. Between us, we've been working up
our wants/needs for a 440 MHz system and I'm looking for suggestions for
duplexers. 

The TV Station is on DT Channel 7 (175.25 video 179.75 sound) transmitting
31kW ERP. I've been fortunate so far in that both of my other sites are
RF-free (we're the only tenant) so I've not had to deal with large amounts
of RF floating about. What do I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,

Mike
WM4B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor

[Chuck Kelsey]

I agree with another poster - 75 ohm, figure eight, CATV line is most likely 
what this cable is.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: "pontotochs" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:16 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor


> Hi,
>  One of the ham repeater owners in the area has acquired a coax that I 
> can't identify. No markings on the jacket. It has a nominal jacket 
> diameter of 0.58 inches (it looks to be the 'standard' black PE), it has a 
> solid aluminum shield (0.51" OD), about 0.028" thick. The dielectric looks 
> to be the PE foam. The center conductor is copper over aluminum with a 
> 0.11" OD (about #10 gauge). It looks to be 50 ohm based on a rough 
> calculation.
>
>  The interesting thing about this cable is that it has a messenger wire 
> molded to the outside of the jacket. It is about # 10 gauge steel. It is 
> not wrapped around the coax, just to one side, about 0.2 inches away. When 
> I say molded, I mean that messenger wire and coax have the same black 
> insulator jacket with a rib of the same material between them.
>
>  I am looking for a source of connectors for this cable, so any help 
> identifying it would be appreciated.
>
>  Thanks for your help in advance,
>Rick, N5RB
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[rahwayflynn]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "skipp025"  wrote:
>
> I stopped using small Anderson Power Pole connectors 
> because of all the grief they caused me on the commercial 
> radio side of my life. A lot of people like and use them but 
> I don't trust or use them anymore after a few 10 hour days 
> sourced back to intermittent small power-pole connectors. 
>  
Re your problem with the Power Pole Connectors:  Was the contact itself 
intermittent or the wire / contact crimp? 

I have yet to have a prblem with them in DC service, however for signal and 
data, I generally use Amp CPC series.

Martin

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor

[N3QAM]

like 500 p3 or variant

  - Original Message - 
  From: N3QAM 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor






  sounds like some 75 ohm cable self support
- Original Message - 
From: pontotochs 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:16 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor


Hi,
One of the ham repeater owners in the area has acquired a coax that I can't 
identify. No markings on the jacket. It has a nominal jacket diameter of 0.58 
inches (it looks to be the 'standard' black PE), it has a solid aluminum shield 
(0.51" OD), about 0.028" thick. The dielectric looks to be the PE foam. The 
center conductor is copper over aluminum with a 0.11" OD (about #10 gauge). It 
looks to be 50 ohm based on a rough calculation.

The interesting thing about this cable is that it has a messenger wire 
molded to the outside of the jacket. It is about # 10 gauge steel. It is not 
wrapped around the coax, just to one side, about 0.2 inches away. When I say 
molded, I mean that messenger wire and coax have the same black insulator 
jacket with a rib of the same material between them.

I am looking for a source of connectors for this cable, so any help 
identifying it would be appreciated.

Thanks for your help in advance,
Rick, N5RB




  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor

[N3QAM]

sounds like some 75 ohm cable self support
  - Original Message - 
  From: pontotochs 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:16 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor





  Hi,
  One of the ham repeater owners in the area has acquired a coax that I can't 
identify. No markings on the jacket. It has a nominal jacket diameter of 0.58 
inches (it looks to be the 'standard' black PE), it has a solid aluminum shield 
(0.51" OD), about 0.028" thick. The dielectric looks to be the PE foam. The 
center conductor is copper over aluminum with a 0.11" OD (about #10 gauge). It 
looks to be 50 ohm based on a rough calculation.

  The interesting thing about this cable is that it has a messenger wire molded 
to the outside of the jacket. It is about # 10 gauge steel. It is not wrapped 
around the coax, just to one side, about 0.2 inches away. When I say molded, I 
mean that messenger wire and coax have the same black insulator jacket with a 
rib of the same material between them.

  I am looking for a source of connectors for this cable, so any help 
identifying it would be appreciated.

  Thanks for your help in advance,
  Rick, N5RB



  

[Repeater-Builder] Identify a coax and possible connector vendor

[pontotochs]

Hi,
  One of the ham repeater owners in the area has acquired a coax that I can't 
identify. No markings on the jacket. It has a nominal jacket diameter of 0.58 
inches (it looks to be the 'standard' black PE), it has a solid aluminum shield 
(0.51" OD), about 0.028" thick. The dielectric looks to be the PE foam. The 
center conductor is copper over aluminum with a 0.11" OD (about #10 gauge). It 
looks to be 50 ohm based on a rough calculation.

  The interesting thing about this cable is that it has a messenger wire molded 
to the outside of the jacket. It is about # 10 gauge steel. It is not wrapped 
around the coax, just to one side, about 0.2 inches away. When I say molded, I 
mean that messenger wire and coax have the same black insulator jacket with a 
rib of the same material between them.

  I am looking for a source of connectors for this cable, so any help 
identifying it would be appreciated.

  Thanks for your help in advance,
Rick, N5RB

RE: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV Station

[Eric Lemmon]

Mike,

Whenever I am putting a repeater- commercial or Amateur- at a broadcasting
site, my preference is to always plan for a dual 8" bandpass cavity filter
between the duplexer and the receiver input.  My choice is usually a
Telewave TWPC-4508-2, since it is very effective and is available with a Ham
discount.  I have two UHF repeaters at high-RF sites (one is close to a five
megawatt FAA radar, and the other is close to a 25 kW coastal radar, while
both are near UHF trunked radio systems.) but the bandpass filters are
effective in eliminating receiver desense caused by "brute force" RF
presence.  If your site has good coverage, you may not need any
amplification to make up for the slight insertion loss of the bandpass
filter.

I suggest that you use a good BpBr duplexer, rather than a simple notch
duplexer, to gain additional bandpass filtering.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike (WM4B) Besemer
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:56 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV
Station



Greetings all,

A friend of mine has been approached about accepting some tower/shack space
at a local Public Broadcasting station. Between us, we've been working up
our wants/needs for a 440 MHz system and I'm looking for suggestions for
duplexers. 

The TV Station is on DT Channel 7 (175.25 video 179.75 sound) transmitting
31kW ERP. I've been fortunate so far in that both of my other sites are
RF-free (we're the only tenant) so I've not had to deal with large amounts
of RF floating about. What do I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,

Mike
WM4B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] changing frequencies on GM 300

[Gibbs Associates]

Thank you for your tech advice.

//30
LTC (IN) Spencer L. Gibbs USA ret.
Indiana Guard Reserve Communications/Electronics Director
Master Military Emergency Management Specialist
Tel: 317 745 2134 Cell: 317 538 2636 email (see From: above)
Hendricks County EC IDHS RACES 11
N9DVL 147.130- 88.5 PL/444.575+ 88.5PL
"To every man there comes in his lifetime that special moment when he is tapped 
on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing. What a 
tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared and unqualified for the work which 
should be his finest hour." -Winston Spencer Churchill

--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Bob M.  wrote:
From: Bob M. 
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] changing frequencies on GM 300
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 4:07 PM
















  
  

It's not feasible to replace the necessary components. There are probably 20-30 
surface-mount capacitors plus some coils. The entire board should be swapped 
for one on the right band-split. You may also need to do something with the 
power amplifier as well.



Bob M.

==

--- On Wed, 5/6/09, sixpe...@sbcglobal. net  wrote:



> From: sixpe...@sbcglobal. net 

> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] changing frequencies on GM 300

> To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 2:22 PM

> What needs to be done to the RF board

> to convert hle 8264a to hle 8300a?




 

  




 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[wd8chl]

John Transue wrote:
> Well, I wanted to use GM300s until I found out that I can't afford the
> software and cable to program these radios. Now it looks like I will
> have to settle for new ham gear. With the Motorola radios, I'd have to
> take the radios to a shop and pay $45 per radio every time I wanted to
> change something, even the squelch setting. I can't afford that.
> 
>  
> 
> 73 de 
> 
> John AF4PD

What do you want this repeater to do? Ham, right? 2M or UHF? High 
profile, low profile, quiet site, noisy site (RF-wise), easy access, 
hard access (snowed in half the year, etc)? Low/Solar power?

A Micor or MastrII station is FAR cheaper than a pair of GM300's plus 
s/w or paying to get it programmed, etc. And it'll outperform them 
hands-down!
If you put more than $200-300 or so into something like a 
Micor/MastrII/MSR2000 or even an MSF-5000, somethings not right.
2M though can be more if you have to have a duplexer. UHF duplexers on 
the other hand are cheap.

For a first repeater, made-for-ham is NOT the way to go either.

Jim
WD8CHL

[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination

[raffertysec]

Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>
> The list owner created 
>  for 
> coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done 
> specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list.
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> raffertysec wrote:
> > I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and 
> > this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California.
> > 
> > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Mullarkey"  wrote:
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >> I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body 
> >> and
> >> who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system, if you really know him he is 
> >> a
> >> very generous person. Let's be done with this. I would hope that Skip and
> >> others would agree this thread is not about building repeaters or trying to
> >> figure out how to build one. 
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >> No dis-respect, but you guys should keep the coordinating board business to
> >> internal email. It does not look good when everyone all over the world sees
> >> how the coordinating body acts like.
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >> Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> > Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09 
> > 05:57:00
> >
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] changing frequencies on GM 300

[Bob M.]

It's not feasible to replace the necessary components. There are probably 20-30 
surface-mount capacitors plus some coils. The entire board should be swapped 
for one on the right band-split. You may also need to do something with the 
power amplifier as well.

Bob M.
==
--- On Wed, 5/6/09, sixpe...@sbcglobal.net  wrote:

> From: sixpe...@sbcglobal.net 
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] changing frequencies on GM 300
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 2:22 PM
> What needs to be done to the RF board
> to convert hle 8264a to hle 8300a?


  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[Nate Duehr]

On May 7, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Paul Plack wrote:

> Buying an expensive, poorly-shielded box of low-quality surface- 
> mount chips "so anybody can work on it" is actually pretty funny.  
> Obviously they've never worked on older commercial stuff, which  
> usually has manuals so detailed any chimpanzee with patience could  
> get it fixed.

Hey!  I resemble that remark!

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
n...@natetech.com
(A chimpanzee with patience and a pile of LBI's my mentors made me  
read.  LOL!)

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[John Transue]

Well, I wanted to use GM300s until I found out that I can't afford the
software and cable to program these radios. Now it looks like I will
have to settle for new ham gear. With the Motorola radios, I'd have to
take the radios to a shop and pay $45 per radio every time I wanted to
change something, even the squelch setting. I can't afford that.

 

73 de 

John AF4PD

 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Plack
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 1:03 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

 






I've seen two cases in which club boards, over the advice of the tech
people, insisted on ordering new ham-grade repeaters so they'd be
covered by a manufacturers warranty. Apparently, the directors didn't
consider how ticked-off the users would be when the new repeater had to
be out of service for 3 or 4 weeks to be fixed.

 

Old Moto or GE stuff is both better quality and way cheaper than new
ham-grade stuff, meaning you can keep a stack of spares around.

 

Buying an expensive, poorly-shielded box of low-quality surface-mount
chips "so anybody can work on it" is actually pretty funny. Obviously
they've never worked on older commercial stuff, which usually has
manuals so detailed any chimpanzee with patience could get it fixed.

 

73,

Paul, AE4KR

 

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] GM300 repeater build

[N3QAM]

Ok , i will leave as it is for now. 
  - Original Message - 
  From: wd8chl 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] GM300 repeater build





  kb3ccn wrote:
  > i have a question that hasn't been really answered by my searches .I
  > am building a gm300 repeater for local GMRS usage. Would it be
  > better to open the squelch on the rcvr and allow the tone to do the
  > muting until it detects the carrier with proper tone?
  > 
  > Thanks Keith N3QAM
  > 

  No. Nearly all CTCSS decoders false to one degree or another, so your 
  repeater will trip occasionally on falses. Using the COS line will add a 
  level of 'validity' to any signal that brings up the repeater, ie, it 
  has to both open squelch AND have the right tone.
  Another good reason is that likely, unless users have reverse burst, and 
  your decoder/tone panel recognizes it correctly (not a lot really do), 
  you will hear a pretty lengthy squelch crash when users unkey, however 
  long it takes the decoder to 'spin down', frequently a half second or 
  more. 'And-ing' the COS in will usually shorten that up quite a bit to 
  maybe 50-300 mS. Much easier to listen to.

  Jim
  WD8CHL/KAE9169


  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] GM300 repeater build

[wd8chl]

kb3ccn wrote:
> i have a question that hasn't been really answered by my searches .I
> am building a gm300 repeater for  local GMRS usage. Would it be
> better  to open the squelch on the rcvr and allow the tone to do the
> muting until it detects the carrier with proper tone?
> 
> Thanks Keith N3QAM
> 

No. Nearly all CTCSS decoders false to one degree or another, so your 
repeater will trip occasionally on falses. Using the COS line will add a 
level of 'validity' to any signal that brings up the repeater, ie, it 
has to both open squelch AND have the right tone.
Another good reason is that likely, unless users have reverse burst, and 
your decoder/tone panel recognizes it correctly (not a lot really do), 
you will hear a pretty lengthy squelch crash when users unkey, however 
long it takes the decoder to 'spin down', frequently a half second or 
more. 'And-ing' the COS in will usually shorten that up quite a bit to 
maybe 50-300 mS. Much easier to listen to.

Jim
WD8CHL/KAE9169

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination

[MCH]

The list owner created 
 for 
coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done 
specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list.

Joe M.

raffertysec wrote:
> I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and 
> this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California.
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Mullarkey"  wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>>  
>>
>> I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body and
>> who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system, if you really know him he is a
>> very generous person. Let's be done with this. I would hope that Skip and
>> others would agree this thread is not about building repeaters or trying to
>> figure out how to build one. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> No dis-respect, but you guys should keep the coordinating board business to
>> internal email. It does not look good when everyone all over the world sees
>> how the coordinating body acts like.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09 
> 05:57:00
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination

[Spencer R. Peterson]

This isn't about Shorty or Bob. It is related to building a repeater because 
once the repeater is built the ham has to deal with Bob and soon enough Shorty. 
I noticed that you gave Shorty a thumbs up, so I guess that its ok to express a 
favorable opinion of him but not a negative. http://scaroa.org has invited 
anyone to discuss this issue.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Mullarkey"  wrote:
>
> Guys,
> 
>  
> 
> I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body and
> who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system, if you really know him he is a
> very generous person. Let's be done with this. I would hope that Skip and
> others would agree this thread is not about building repeaters or trying to
> figure out how to build one. 
> 
>  
> 
> No dis-respect, but you guys should keep the coordinating board business to
> internal email. It does not look good when everyone all over the world sees
> how the coordinating body acts like.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ
> 
>   _  
> 
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:12 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before this gets out of hand, allow me to state that my post mentioning
> TASMA in conflict with SCRRBA was in error, and I posted a retraction. The
> potential conflict is between SCRRBA and NARCC; TASMA is not a party to the
> low in/high out versus high in/low out issue on 70cm band plans. At least,
> not yet.
> 
> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@ 
> yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ 
> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raffertysec
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:44 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@ 
> yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination
> 
> Respectfully and only with respect -- I think it suggests a lot about
> character when I read your reply Mr. Dengler.
> 
> TASMA does not *yet* have a band plan but you are fully aware of a motion
> placed before the board recommending the continued use of the SCRRBA band
> plan as it exists. Therefore, TASMA has a 70cm band plan.
> 
> http://forums.
> 
> scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16&posted=1#post16
>  
> scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16&posted=1#post16> 
> 
> This is a partial list of the WIN System that features repeaters with
> overlapping coverage, but granted coordination. Pair after pair after pair
> on two bands linked together providing duplicate content and under the
> direct control of one man. K6JSI and even a sight impaired person could not
> miss the extreme conflict of interest.
> 
> I believe that most of us know that on 440 1) most repeaters are limited
> range and private and this practice absolutely does not serve amateur radio
> operators, and 2) one has to pay to play. Has anyone actually listened to
> the "simplex" frequencies on 2/440 lately where linking is already being
> done in violation of the existing band plans?
> 
> http://www.thedeanf 
> amily.com/winreptr.htm
> 
> amily.com/winreptr.htm> 
> 
> The next conference call on Skype is scheduled for May 12th as I recall.
> Who's invited? Yet another closed door meeting? One entity conrolling all
> spectrum will only add to the corruption most of us know takes place but say
> nothing about because we're already coordinated and don't want to find
> ourselves penalized for having an opinion.
> 
> It isn't my intent to present an ad homenum attack against you or to create
> controversy in this group -- your record and that of TASMA speaks for itself
> and controversy has long, long, long existed. I am shocked that it has taken
> this long for someone to light the fuse. I hope to read a respectful reply
> from you and strongly recommend that we cut the crap. It serves no one and
> certainly does not serve the amateur radio operators for whom the spectrum
> is intended. It is not intended for those that earn a living selling
> memberships to linked system that place 5 repeaters on one hilltop all
> linked together.
> 
> Respectfully, how is this going to work? Shorty is going to have his friends
> show up again, he'll pay their dues again, kick more people off of the board
> and gain control; he'll be the chairman that says yes or no to primary and
> link frequencies for others because they conflict with his business of
> selling memberships? Mr. Dengler, please. A straight answer. Perhaps this
> local issue should be taken elsewh

[Repeater-Builder] changing frequencies on GM 300

[sixpe...@sbcglobal.net]

What needs to be done to the RF board to convert hle 8264a to hle 8300a?

[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination

[raffertysec]

Respectfully sir,

"I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body and 
who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system..."

But then you post:

"...if you really know him he is a very generous person."

If I have this right you don't want to read negatives about a man that abuses 
part 97 by earning a living linking repeaters 87 times and is now perched to 
take over TASMA and SCRBBA and assign himself whatever he needs to further 
monopolize amateur radio on 2 and 440 in southern California, but you can post 
your affirmative opinion of him? Rather one-sided and biased, wouldn't you 
agree?

You're in Colorado and I agree that TASMA business doesn't belong here. But it 
is here. I already suggested that this be moved elsewhere. In the meantime a 
retraction of naivete from Bob Dengler would be appropriate. I replied as if he 
knows nothing but knows everything.

I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and this 
thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Mullarkey"  wrote:
>
> Guys,
> 
>  
> 
> I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body and
> who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system, if you really know him he is a
> very generous person. Let's be done with this. I would hope that Skip and
> others would agree this thread is not about building repeaters or trying to
> figure out how to build one. 
> 
>  
> 
> No dis-respect, but you guys should keep the coordinating board business to
> internal email. It does not look good when everyone all over the world sees
> how the coordinating body acts like.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ

[Repeater-Builder] GM300 repeater build

[kb3ccn]

i have a question that hasn't been really answered by my searches .I am 
building a gm300 repeater for  local GMRS usage. Would it be better  to open 
the squelch on the rcvr and allow the tone to do the muting until it detects 
the carrier with proper tone?

Thanks
Keith
N3QAM

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Analog Repeater to APCO25 conversion?

[kt...@ameritech.net]

Thanks Gentlemen! I was hoping that pure-FM could stay in the picture somehow. 
I'll do some more research (other than Wikipedia and Daniels' P25 training 
guide) to see if this can be done. I'm not too worried about the "logic" part 
of it, only if it could be attempted (APCO Phase I equipment has to be 
dual-mode).

I've also seen Quantar control and wireline boards on eBay for pretty cheap, 
and if one of those could be interfaced to say a MSR2K or MSF5K that might get 
things started. 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[Kris Kirby]

On Thu, 7 May 2009, wd8chl wrote:
> How about putting money into a project for a club repeater (including 
> buying crystals), installing it, and then after it's running, being 
> told to 'take it out we don't want to use that, we want something 
> anyone can work on', which turns out to be some made-for-ham junk?

That's the exact reason why I went with a Mastr II repeater instead of a 
hacked-together pair of GE Rangrs. While the Rangrs get the job done, 
trying to explain the whats and whys of what's actually happening in the 
machine is difficult. The time-out-timer is in the radio's software; the 
COS line is the Audio PA Enable line inverted, which is activated by the 
reciever's microprocessor (which itself does the PL detection). 

There's a basic level of competency required in building something to 
last ten or twenty years -- an assumption that the heirs will be able to 
work on the machine and that it will be possible to find someone who 
knows how. OTOH, far more "customization" has been done to GE Mastr IIs, 
where a radio shop would take the basic radio and then customize it in a 
non-standard way. 

We're into the appliance-operator era; hams who know how to solder are 
getting fewer and farther between. 

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
Disinformation Analyst

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[Michael Ryan]

"If you ever install anything that looks this HamSexy at a
> commercial radio site, and don't keep the kiddie-show to your back-yard
> repeater, I'm personally coming to your house to kick your ass."



 

Sorry to burst the bubble. Really sorry.  

Just because someone wears a MOTOROLA shirt doesn't mean a thing, nor should
it.  Get a grip here fellas.  WE ALL know that.  There are plenty of MONKEYS
walkin' around thinking their ..don't stink because they are in the
'business'.  And those of you who are HONEST know this.  That does not
excuse poor practices, unadvised practices, and out and out stupidity,
whether by a 'HAM' or a 'PRO'.   But there are plenty of amateur repeaters
out there that are well engineered and perform as such.  Having access to a
FREE rack that has a picture of 'Barney' or another favorite 'kiddie-show'
character shows a person, a builder, or group, may be frugal or just
lucky..that's it.  These racks are usually located in a dark, scary room
where someone thought better of those in their building and did NOT install
a toilet. So who cares what the RACK looks like?  I dare you to tell me what
is inside that rack may be any more inferior to what is in your designer
cabinet. How would you know anyway? Site 'owners' or 'moderators' or
whatever you want to call them have the right to question what shares space
in their house and may want to look inside at the engineering..fine.  But to
simply assume based on aesthetics that one is 'cleaner' than another is
preposterous.

Here in Florida no one that I know is allowed to use 'amateur grade' ( for
the lack of a better term ) antennas on a roof top due to nature of our
annual tropical storm season.  You don't see many Ringos here reported
flying around in a hurricane.  -Mike

 

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wd8chl
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:52 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

 






Nate Duehr wrote:
We could discuss how utterly
> useless ham radio is these days, or my favorite point recently that
> anyone with a satellite dish, ability to aim it, and an IP-based
> service, can do more communications "good" in a disaster area with that
> IP, an Asterisk box, and some cordless phones to hand to the real
> emergency services folks... 

Until the sat fills up and is overloaded-which usually only takes a 
dozen or so calls, if that.

> 
> I never bashed ALL hams. I bashed hams who install CRAP repeaters made
> out of RG-58 jumpers, smashed hardline, on frequencies not authorized by
> the head site manager, with cheap ham-grade antennas at 120', a mobile
> duplexer, an open cabinet, no grounding other than a polyphaser, and a
> power supply that looks like it came out of someone's junk box to run
> their Heathkit. 
> 
> Please - get a grip on reality. That type of installation makes us ALL
> look bad, and you know it. And if you're touchy about it because you
> personally have such an installation, get it down off the commercial
> site and put it in your backyard where it won't be a mess for others to
> deal with.
> 

Agreed-I know of one multiple tower owner who won't allow ham repeaters 
on his towers-at least not the transmit side-for just that reason. Oh, 
he is a ham himself.

But there is also even more just-as-crappy commercial installs 
too-especially RG-58 jumpers on repeaters...and lack of grounds...





__ NOD32 4051 (20090504) Information __

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

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[Paul Plack]

I've seen two cases in which club boards, over the advice of the tech people, 
insisted on ordering new ham-grade repeaters so they'd be covered by a 
manufacturers warranty. Apparently, the directors didn't consider how 
ticked-off the users would be when the new repeater had to be out of service 
for 3 or 4 weeks to be fixed.

Old Moto or GE stuff is both better quality and way cheaper than new ham-grade 
stuff, meaning you can keep a stack of spares around.

Buying an expensive, poorly-shielded box of low-quality surface-mount chips "so 
anybody can work on it" is actually pretty funny. Obviously they've never 
worked on older commercial stuff, which usually has manuals so detailed any 
chimpanzee with patience could get it fixed.

73,
Paul, AE4KR

  - Original Message - 
  From: Chuck Kelsey 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality





  Yep. "Get that GE junk out of here." A few guys around here have been 
  through that one :-(

  Chuck
  WB2EDV

  - Original Message - > How about putting money into a project for a 
  club repeater (including
  > buying crystals), installing it, and then after it's running, being told
  > to 'take it out we don't want to use that, we want something anyone can
  > work on', which turns out to be some made-for-ham junk?
  >
  > Jim
  > WD8CHL



  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Analog Repeater to APCO25 conversion?

[wd8chl]

kt...@ameritech.net wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone has thought about or attempted to modify an
> analog repeater to regenerate P25 signalling (C4FM)? I know the easy
> way would be to buy a Quantar or similar box, or tying two mobiles
> back-to-back for flat-audio passthru.
> 
> I want to find a way to recover the phase-modulated signalling,
> passing it to a homebrew "logic" board. This board would stream the
> bits into memory and if the NAC is valid, then regenerate the
> similiar stream out the transmitter. You could also store-and-forward
> this "audio" to other systems or for playback. So I either need to
> buy a manual to read the theory or ask here if anyone has tinkered
> with this. Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't
> phase-modulation not quite the same as our VCO-modulated direct FM?
> P25 as I understand it, either shifts the phase 600Hz or 1800Hz plus
> or minus, and based on this generates a two-bit "symbol" at 9600
> baud.

Error: P25 is direct FM-actually true FSK. Phase-modulated transmitters 
won't work with P25.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] 440 Repeater Project

[wd8chl]

n...@no6b.com wrote:
> At 5/4/2009 05:54, you wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>> "§97.119 Station identification.
>>
>> (c) One or more indicators may be included with the call sign. Each 
>> indicator must be separated from the call sign by the slant mark (/) or by 
>> any suitable word that denotes the slant mark. If an indicator is 
>> self-assigned, it must be included before, after, or both before and 
>> after, the call sign. No self-assigned indicator may conflict with any 
>> other indicator specified by the FCC Rules or with any prefix assigned to 
>> another country."
>>
>> /R is a self-assigned indicator and 'R' is assigned by ITU to Russia.
> 
> Not sure if a simple "R" would be a sufficient prefix.  When I operate in 
> Canada I sign "NO6B/VE3" (in Ontario), not "NO6B/VE" even though Canada has 
> all of the VE prefixes IIRC.  Americans in Baja ID "/XE2", not "/XE".

Right. The suffix for Russia has always been /RU in CW, since that was 
always the primary prefix for the country. And in voice you would say 
'portable RU.'

[Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[skipp025]

Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project.

> n...@... wrote: 
> Thanks for posting this, Skipp.  It's always fun to see 
> another angle on repeater building.  Threaded are my $0.02:

Thank you Bob, it would be great to see other examples of how 
people build repeaters and why they use certain construction 
techniques and equipment. 

In this example, someone requested a repeater be quickly placed 
in service before a sanction application deadline passed, not 
knowing the final repeater package had not even been constructed. 
Many of us build repeaters using different techniques based 
on what is supplied or available at the time of construction. 
I thought about a surplus commercial radio conversion... but 
the delay in having crystals cut made the frequency synthesized 
Hamtronics RF Decks much more attractive. 

> Any idea what Hamtronics chose for the loop bandwidth of the 
> PLL (I assume it's not a direct DDS synth.)?  If very low, it 
> could have very good phase noise characteristics.  Not that 
> that's important on 220, but could be good for a 2 meter 
> version @ 15 kHz spacing.

A very good question with a non-technical reply. Rather than 
get into the gritty details of the PLL operation before the 
purchase... I will say that I jumped in and bought the Hamtronics 
modules on trusting faith from my decades of using Jerry's 
(of Hamtronics) kits and pre-made units. 

I've seen a relatively small number of reported horror stories 
related to the synthesized Hamtronics transmitter and receiver 
strips (module). The reported problems I saw posted were related 
to PLL Stability in relation to mechanical and physical chassis  
movement. 

I'm fairly sure the Hamtronics PLL circuits have been modified 
(tweaked) from the original design, but where, when and what I 
have not compared in detail. 

I was not disappointed with choosing the Hamtronics Equipment, 
the modules seem to function very well. The PLL performance 
is noticeable in very detailed measurements and the end result 
is nothing bad anyone is going to be able to hear or detect in 
normal operation. Nothing objectionable or unexpected in regards 
to the previously mentioned PLL mechanical stability issue reared 
its ugly head. 

The R302-6 Receiver Manual with diagrams is available for free 
download at the Hamtronics web site. I had concerns about the 
receivers front end performance based on the number of (or lack 
of) tune circuits helical resonators. I placed the repeater on 
a site antenna combiner system and it's working very, very well. 
The receiver is red hot and the repeaters performance is much 
better than expected. 

> > New old stock ("NOS") Com Spec TS-32 CTCSS (PL) tone boards 
> > are very nice "Ebay sleeper deals".
 
> Yeah, but I don't like them.  They do decode reliably, but 
> the encoders have harmonics that need to be externally filtered 
> if fed to a phase modulator.  

I had not ever noticed the harmonics and related them to a 
problem... but I'll fire one up and check it out. Easy enough 
to deal with using a low pass filter. Some exciter (transmitter) 
circuits run external sourced CTCSS through a basic filter, 
but not all... 

> They also don't respond to reverse burst.  Again, not a big 
> deal if we're talking 220 & a direct FM TX.

While reverse burst and muted CTCSS during the repeater tail/hang 
time is a wonderful thing... I took the simple and less time 
consuming path of wiring the constant on CTCSS encoder direct 
to the transmitter strip (module). CTCSS is on (encoding) anytime 
the transmitter is up (on the air) and that for me is just fine 
versus not having any Tx CTCSS at all. I felt it's better to 
at least provide for CTCSS enabled receiver operation. 

One option would be to shunt mute the CTCSS line based on the 
receiver COR/COS or CTCSS detect line... but that might be a 
future project if the need was really there (required). 

> My favorite is the Sigtone C1116.  Unfortunately they've 
> been out of production for a few years, but fortunately for 
> me I made a bulk purchase at a local swap meet many years 
> ago & still have a couple of them left today.  They decode & 
> release faster than the TS-32 & have a better HPF 
> (see below).

Now you let the cat out of the bag... we'll all be sharking 
Sigtone equipment at the flea markets and of course Dayton 
next week. Of course the TS-32 is out of production but any 
similar device would fit the bill. I believe the TS-64 or a 
similar animal is still being made if someone wanted to go 
retail (buy one new). 

> The problem with the TS-32 tone filter is that it has poor 
> transient response, "ringing" around 400 Hz.  To me, a system 
> that uses one in the audio path sounds "boxy". 

I have seen the above posted comment before, but have not 
experienced it myself. I will say the filter performance does 
change with source and termination impedance but again for 
me using standard techniques I've not experience any ringing 
issues and "so f

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[Chuck Kelsey]

Yep. "Get that GE junk out of here." A few guys around here have been 
through that one :-(

Chuck
WB2EDV


- Original Message - > How about putting money into a project for a 
club repeater (including
> buying crystals), installing it, and then after it's running, being told
> to 'take it out we don't want to use that, we want something anyone can
> work on', which turns out to be some made-for-ham junk?
>
> Jim
> WD8CHL

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Analog Repeater to APCO25 conversion?

[nj902]

I would hope no one flames you for wanting to design your own digital repeater 
- that's in the spirit of amateur radio and repeater-building.

I don't think the Motorola manuals will be much help since all the 
'heavy-lifiting' is done in software inside of DSP chips.  Some products from 
other vendors might be more useful.  IIRC there were some hams - maybe in 
Colorado - that created a P25 repeater using EFJ logic and MastrII RF.

Also, you could look up this thesis as a starting point:

A SOFTWARE BASED APCO PROJECT 25 DATA TRANSMISSION BASE STATION FOR LOCAL 
POLICE HEADQUARTERS BY ERIC RENÉ RAMSEY

---

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "kt...@..."  wrote:

 I'm wondering if anyone has thought about or attempted to modify an analog 
repeater to regenerate P25 signalling (C4FM)? I know the easy way would be to 
buy a Quantar or similar box, or tying two mobiles back-to-back for flat-audio 
passthru.
 
 I want to find a way to recover the phase-modulated signalling, passing it to 
a homebrew "logic" board. This board would stream the bits into memory and if 
the NAC is valid, then regenerate the similiar stream out the transmitter. You 
could also store-and-forward this "audio" to other systems or for playback. So 
I either need to buy a manual to read the theory or ask here if anyone has 
tinkered with this. Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't 
phase-modulation not quite the same as our VCO-modulated direct FM? P25 as I 
understand it, either shifts the phase 600Hz or 1800Hz plus or minus, and based 
on this generates a two-bit "symbol" at 9600 baud.
 
 So please don't flame and say "Go buy a Quantar" because if this could be 
done, many surplus systems could be modified for new digital modes. Any help 
with schematic scans or what part numbers for Astro/Quantar style unit manuals 
would be welcomed.
 
 Thanks!
 Tony

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Looking for a Motorola job?

[wd8chl]

Joe wrote:
> Sometimes a job is a job, until you find your next one
> 
> Joe

And remember-it's not an adventure, it's just a job!
;cD


> skipp025 wrote:
>> Fairly low pay and all the pride you can swallow... 
>>
>> :-) 
>> s. 
>>
>>   
>>> Just though I would pass this along for those RF heads who 
>>> may be job hunting.
>>>
>>> Motorola will be at booth 452 if you are interested in 
>>> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[wd8chl]

Nate Duehr wrote:


> I've SEEN this work in person... the right people tell the right people
> that the ham standing there with the test gear "knows what he's doing",
> and the gear goes in the back of the truck and off they go.  It's rare,
> but in the REALLY big events... any qualified help you can get, is
> utilized if you know they'll do it right.
> 
> Nate WY0X
> --


Well said, Nate.

Jim

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[wd8chl]

Nate Duehr wrote:

> (Raise your hands if you've put personal money into a club radio system
> to make it better... and never gotten reimbursed!  I bet more than 1/2
> the room's hands go up on this one!!!)  

How about putting money into a project for a club repeater (including 
buying crystals), installing it, and then after it's running, being told 
to 'take it out we don't want to use that, we want something anyone can 
work on', which turns out to be some made-for-ham junk?

Jim
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[wd8chl]

Nate Duehr wrote:
   We could discuss how utterly
> useless ham radio is these days, or my favorite point recently that
> anyone with a satellite dish, ability to aim it, and an IP-based
> service, can do more communications "good" in a disaster area with that
> IP, an Asterisk box, and some cordless phones to hand to the real
> emergency services folks... 

Until the sat fills up and is overloaded-which usually only takes a 
dozen or so calls, if that.

> 
> I never bashed ALL hams.  I bashed hams who install CRAP repeaters made
> out of RG-58 jumpers, smashed hardline, on frequencies not authorized by
> the head site manager, with cheap ham-grade antennas at 120', a mobile
> duplexer, an open cabinet, no grounding other than a polyphaser, and a
> power supply that looks like it came out of someone's junk box to run
> their Heathkit.  
> 
> Please - get a grip on reality.  That type of installation makes us ALL
> look bad, and you know it.  And if you're touchy about it because you
> personally have such an installation, get it down off the commercial
> site and put it in your backyard where it won't be a mess for others to
> deal with.
> 

Agreed-I know of one multiple tower owner who won't allow ham repeaters 
on his towers-at least not the transmit side-for just that reason. Oh, 
he is a ham himself.

But there is also even more just-as-crappy commercial installs 
too-especially RG-58 jumpers on repeaters...and lack of grounds...

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality

[wd8chl]

AJ wrote:
> I concur - I would *love* to see a write up with photos (preferrably with
> arrows and captions pointing out actual issues rather than playing Where's
> Waldo?) up on the RB site.
> 
> Half the battle is encouraging folks to do it right the first time - the
> easier we, as a community, make it for new and soon-to-be Repeater Builders
> to "mimick" the proper, correct and respectable way to build, upgrade,
> repair or maintain their own repeaters, the sooner we'll be able to put
> these sort of installs behind us and in to the history books as "where we've
> been, where we are now & where we're going to be in the future."
> 
> 73,
> AJ, K6LOR
>

Course there's also all the new 'Wi-Fi' junk going in all over...

Re: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV Station

[Redd Legg]

I've not gotten it yet but the systems I ordered use a Cellwave duplexer.  I'm 
not up on how they handle RF as my installation will be one stand alone and one 
moble.

https://www.gmrsoutlet.com/product.php?productid=49&cat=19&page=1
 73, Dean KJ4LII 





From: Mike (WM4B) Besemer 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 10:55:46 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV 
Station





Greetings all,

A friend of mine has been approached about accepting some tower/shack space at 
a local Public Broadcasting station. Between us, we've been working up our 
wants/needs for a 440 MHz system and I'm looking for suggestions for duplexers. 

The TV Station is on DT Channel 7 (175.25 video 179.75 sound) transmitting 31KW 
ERP. I've been fortunate so far in that both of my other sites are RF-free 
(we're the only tenant) so I've not had to deal with large amounts of RF 
floating about. What do I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,

Mike
WM4B 





  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[skipp025]

Hi Joe, 

There should not be a problem using RF Coax for audio in many 
fairly short length examples. One RG-174 coax data sheet I just 
looked at on the web states a 100pf per meter C value. In 
this case certainly not enough C to get excited about. 

RG174 and many other small diameter coaxial lines are quite 
lossy to RF, especially above the VHF low band. So except for 
very short runs I don't even like to use it much except for 
space restricted requirements. 

I should put more pictures of the completed repeater in the 
folder. One might note the transmitter to external RF Amplifier 
cable is small diameter coax, but not RG174. I have some surplus 
high quality brown Teflon type 50 ohm coax so a section, which 
included a pre-mounted BNC connector was used. And of course 
there is no part number on the side of the mini Teflon coax 
to tell you what it is. Maybe someone else here on the group 
has the Teflon RG-174 coax equivalent part number handy. 

The hardest part of interfacing to the Hamtronics transmitter 
was finding a one-piece RF rated RCA connector. They seemed to 
have gone poof from the US Market... nay with Digi Key, Mouser, 
and similar sources. 

Some coax types also work fairly well for high voltage lead. I 
and many others have used the center conductor of non-foam 
RG-8 type/size coax for RF Amplifier high voltage lead for 
many decades. 

cheers, 
skipp 

> Joe  wrote:
> This brings up an interesting question.  I have always used 
> small diameter coax for my audio leads, as I have a lot of 
> it around.  I remember a discussion about "audio wire" in 
> the past.  Is there any problem with using coax for audio? 
> Capacitance, maybe?  I've always had this question in the 
> back of my mind.
> 73, Joe, Kike 

>
> > skipp025 wrote:
> > A shielded audio quality wire is routed out of the receiver 
> > box to the transmitter board at the proper CTCSS connection 
> > point. 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Ham installation quality/non-quality

[wd8chl]

Chuck Kelsey wrote:
> I know a radio shop that does installs like that.  It's been in business for 
> over 30 years.
> 
> Chuck
> WB2EDV

Me too. Some of them have trucks with bat-wings on them (not really moto 
though, they just think they are).


> - Original Message - 
> From: "Nate Duehr" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 2:50 PM
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Ham installation quality/non-quality
> 
> 
>> Nightmare "f-ing Hams!" story from this weekend:
>>
>> I went to a site this weekend, and the "new" Amateur repeater in the new
>> building the hams are moving into had 200' of 1/2 Andrews hardline on it
>> that I don't even know how it was operating... it looked like someone
>> had taken a ballpeen hammer to it at 5' lengths all the way across the
>> ice bridge and up the tower.  The hardline run was done INSIDE a tower
>> leg instead of properly up the outside cable tray/unistrut with no
>> hangers, and no grounding kits on the run of 1/2" anywhere.
>>

[Repeater-Builder] 440 MHZ Duplexer Recommendation/Repeater at TV Station

[Mike (WM4B) Besemer]

Greetings all,

A friend of mine has been approached about accepting some tower/shack space at 
a local Public Broadcasting station.  Between us, we've been working up our 
wants/needs for a 440 MHz system and I'm looking for suggestions for duplexers. 
 

The TV Station is on DT Channel 7 (175.25 video 179.75 sound) transmitting 31KW 
ERP.  I've been fortunate so far in that both of my other sites are RF-free 
(we're the only tenant) so I've not had to deal with large amounts of RF 
floating about.  What do I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,

Mike
WM4B 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 2

[no6b]

At 5/6/2009 09:41, you wrote:
>A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project.
>May 2009
>Part 2 ­ The Receiver
>First Post May 2, 2009, this post May 6, 2009
>
>This text is part 2 of a description of a recently completed 224
>MHz Repeater Project. One could easily apply the same techniques
>toward a repeater project in different frequency ranges. Pictures of
>the completed repeater project reside in the group photos section.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/photos/album/1157128983/pic/list
> 
>

Thanks for posting this, Skipp.  It's always fun to see another angle on 
repeater building.  Threaded are my $0.02:

>I selected a Hamtronics R302-6 Receiver for the project for a few
>of the following reasons. The receiver is frequency synthesized,
>relatively low in cost (about $229 each at the time of this post),
>respectable in performance and fairly straight forward to interface.
>Hamtronics normally requests the frequency of operation at the time
>of purchase so the receiver arrives "pre- tuned" and ready to
>interface after mounting.

Any idea what Hamtronics chose for the loop bandwidth of the PLL (I assume 
it's not a direct DDS synth.)?  If very low, it could have very good phase 
noise characteristics.  Not that that's important on 220, but could be good 
for a 2 meter version @ 15 kHz spacing.

>New old stock ("NOS") Com Spec TS-32 CTCSS (PL) tone boards are
>very nice "Ebay sleeper deals".

Yeah, but I don't like them.  They do decode reliably, but the encoders 
have harmonics that need to be externally filtered if fed to a phase 
modulator.  They also don't respond to reverse burst.  Again, not a big 
deal if we're talking 220 & a direct FM TX.

My favorite is the Sigtone C1116.  Unfortunately they've been out of 
production for a few years, but fortunately for me I made a bulk purchase 
at a local swap meet many years ago & still have a couple of them left 
today.  They decode & release faster than the TS-32 & have a better HPF 
(see below).

>Repeat Receiver audio is routed through the TS-32 on-board CTCSS
>tone filter to provide fairly clean filter flat audio output to
>your external controller.

The problem with the TS-32 tone filter is that it has poor transient 
response, "ringing" around 400 Hz.  To me, a system that uses one in the 
audio path sounds "boxy".  What's worse is that if more than one is used in 
a linked system, the audio at the other end will quickly degrade as that 
400 Hz region begins to dominate the frequency response.

>Don't panic, the TS-32 also provides a separate tone generation
>"encoder" section for your transmitter CTCSS requirement. A
>shielded audio quality wire is routed out of the receiver box
>to the transmitter board at the proper CTCSS connection point.

I assume this is done using feedthrough capacitors - you don't want to 
plumb any wires straight through the case.

>The Hamtronics Receiver COR/COS output is active high, which I
>don't like one bit.

When I first started building repeaters, I used active low CTCSS as 
well.  The main reason was that it was convenient to use as a cheap way to 
key the TX when a controller wasn't available back in those "lean" college 
days.  When I started using G.E. radios with their active high CAS & RUS 
outputs, I switched to active high as my standard.

>  So I simply routed the receivers COS/COR Output
>logic line through a 120 ohm resistor to the gate of a 2N7000 FET
>(also known as a VN10K and similar device). The FET source lead
>is grounded and the drain output lead becomes the main active low
>logic output source routed to your external repeater controller.

That works.  If you don't have a 2N7000 available, any decent NPN BJT 
(2N, 2N3904) will do too - just use a higher value resistor on the base 
like 4.7k.  In fact, you can use a bigger resistance on the 2N7000 as well 
since the gate is high impedance.  I mention this because around here BJTs 
are easily obtained whereas I had to order 2N7000s via mail.

>DB-9 Connectors are very popular with repeater builder types. I
>for personal preference and experience tend to move away from
>using them in for this type of repeater chassis through hole
>connections. I have returned to using through hold feed-through
>capacitors

So what do you use for a connector?  In my latest RX boxing project I 
decided to put a DB9 "doghouse" on the box.  The doghouse is a cheap 
plastic box since shielding isn't necessary.  I plan to install the 
feedthroughs in a manner similar to what you describe, but then mount a DB9 
& Anderson PowerPole on the doghouse so all the connections are 
"connectorized".  I may even add some switching circuitry inside the 
doghouse so this receiver can be grafted into a existing system using a 
single-port controller (2 RXs on one port).

>  and while the value is not ultra critical, you don't
>want the capacitance value large enough to impact the information
>passing through. I found and used surplus 100pf (pico farad)
>feed-through capac

[Repeater-Builder] Analog Repeater to APCO25 conversion?

[kt...@ameritech.net]

I'm wondering if anyone has thought about or attempted to modify an analog 
repeater to regenerate P25 signalling (C4FM)? I know the easy way would be to 
buy a Quantar or similar box, or tying two mobiles back-to-back for flat-audio 
passthru.

I want to find a way to recover the phase-modulated signalling, passing it to a 
homebrew "logic" board. This board would stream the bits into memory and if the 
NAC is valid, then regenerate the similiar stream out the transmitter. You 
could also store-and-forward this "audio" to other systems or for playback. So 
I either need to buy a manual to read the theory or ask here if anyone has 
tinkered with this. Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't 
phase-modulation not quite the same as our VCO-modulated direct FM? P25 as I 
understand it, either shifts the phase 600Hz or 1800Hz plus or minus, and based 
on this generates a two-bit "symbol" at 9600 baud.

So please don't flame and say "Go buy a Quantar" because if this could be done, 
many surplus systems could be modified for new digital modes. Any help with 
schematic scans or what part numbers for Astro/Quantar style unit manuals would 
be welcomed.

Thanks!
Tony