[Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - Part 3 (The Exciter)

[skipp025]

A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project.
May 2009
Part 3 – The exciter (transmitter) 
First Post May 2, 2009, Second Post May 6, 2009 - This Post May 8, 2009 

Moving right along... 

This text is part 3 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

I selected a Hamtronics T301-6 exciter (transmitter) for the 
project for some of the following reasons. The exciter 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.

Unlike the receiver portion of this project I did not have an 
available original Hamtronics Equipment box. I did have a basic 
LMB type Aluminum box with a matching cover, its dimension 
about 7x5 inches. I drilled the proper locations for 3/8 inch 
threaded standoffs at the PC-Board mounting holes. There are no 
external controls so one only need be concerned with the RF Pipe 
(coax) and wire connections normally made through the rear panel. 
Be sure to pay attention to the box height requirement as the 
coil forms can "stick up" quite a bit. I've used 2.5 inch high 
boxes but the luxury of a 3 inch height box assures every coil 
form should easily clear the box cover lid. 

I again chose the feed-through capacitor method for routing the 
power, logic and audio type connections through the box wall (rear 
panel). The picture(s) should give a fair example of the same 3X3 
hole drill pattern I used for both the receiver and transmitter FT 
Caps. Also note the solder ground lugs used – mounted with some of 
the capacitors on both sides of the box wall – panel. 

Let's talk about the coax connector being an RCA jack on the 
exciter PC Board. Why bother with a box – chassis mount connector 
added to the path when in many cases it's more loss than it's 
worth. So... I soldered an RCA connector on the end of a section 
of quality small size (brown – tan) Teflon coax and routed it 
through a hole made just large enough (to pass the RCA plug) with 
a Unibit Step Drill (bit). A low cost clone set (three in one 
package) of Unibit type step drill bits are almost a must have 
expense of less than $15 at Harbor Freight. 

The other end of the Mini Teflon Coax routes directly out of the 
box to the RF Amplifier mounted right next door. My only grief 
was trying to find the original one piece RCA plug. Everyone 
wants to sell the two-piece plug more suited toward the audio 
crowd. I used one from the salvage bin while the replacement 
parts RCA Plug stock back-order gets sorted out. 

CTCSS encoder audio is routed from the TS-32 in the receiver 
box to the proper feed through capacitor, the wire on the box inside 
makes the connection to the proper point on the exciter. All the 
connection points are clearly described in the Hamtronics Manual. 
The output of the TS-32 has a lot of available voltage so a knock 
down series resistor (like say 15K) might put the level adjustment 
pot up off the almost off - zero position. I didn't bother but I will 
say setting the CTCSS injection level is something to do with great 
care. 

Hamtronics like a number of other Manufactures of current and 
previous transmitter modules provide a choice of two methods to 
"key the exciter" RF on and off. A classic method is to operate 
the low level oscillator section and switch supply voltage to 
the trailing higher level RF stages. This allows the oscillator 
or synthesizer to run constantly, which in many examples place 
the transmitter on the air fairly fast. 

The disadvantage of leaving the oscillator on all the time is a 
constant "local" low level signal that is sometimes a lot stronger 
than you would expect. One of my 224 MHz Spectrum transmitter 
oscillators can be heard  almost a half mile from the repeater 
site (which is not really very professional or something to be 
proud of). 

In the case of this model exciter, one can key the entire module each 
transmission knowing the synthesizer requires about 350 mS (Milli 
seconds) to come on the air. There is a provision on the exciter 
module to delay the RF until the synthesizer is stable and proving 
a valid lock signal so you're not sweeping a signal across the 
band as you power (key) the exciter each transmission. 

So I tied both the synthesizer and RF Chain supply leads together 
and switched both to the supply voltage with an active low logic 
made using a small 12vdc reed relay sold by Radio Shack. You can 
see the relay glued to the chassis right behind the exciter 
(transmitter) box. It's fairly clean, cheap and simple, w

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

[JOHN MACKEY]

Repeaters need functional band coordination.

-- Original Message --
Received: Fri, 08 May 2009 07:52:59 PM PDT
From: Dean Nash 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination

> I'm sorry, can SOMEone please tell me how this thread related to building
repeaters?
>  
>  
> 73 de N4SHD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ed Yoho 
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 6:17:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raffertysec wrote:
> > It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group
that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place..
You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I
referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to
one message. 
> > 
> > http://scaroa. org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that
are able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real
voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start.
> > 
> > This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset
of that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone
anyway? Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC
directly.
> > 
> > I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.
> > 
> 
> (Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post)
> 
> I am not sure where the "well over 100 repeater owner members" comes 
> from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - 
> seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today 
> (likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted 
> there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of 
> four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater 
> owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater 
> owners as members.
> 
> Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear 
> whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of 
> repeater ownership.
> 
> The repeater-builder- coordination group has 35 members. The last posting 
> was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 
> 2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well 
> accepted by repeater owners.
> 
> Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues 
> heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners.
> 
> I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination 
> committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local 
> committee(s) .
> 
> Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination 
> group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the 
> current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance 
> the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is 
> stopping you or anyone else from running for office.
> 
> I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done 
> better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they 
> each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better 
> (and still hold a full time job).
> 
> Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from 
> SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA 
> board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, 
> discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either.
> 
> Ed Yoho
> W6YJ
> (an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   

[Repeater-Builder] FW: climbing cost WAG help

[kf0m]

 We recently found out our 25 yr old feedlines have been broken and beat up
 by the wind at about 700 ft.
 
 Anybody got the background to provide a rough estimate for 
 climber costs to
 string two runs of hard line to 1300 Ft and remove the old runs?
 
 I am guessing the cost will mean the end of the line for this repeater but
 need to let the club board know.
 
 Back when we put these lines up, we could still use the elevator and climb
 ourselves.  These days we are all 25 yrs older, OSHA made the station
 disconnect the elevator, and liability concerns means the station wouldn't
 even remotely consider non professionals on the tower.
 
 
 John Lock
 kf0m at arrl.net
 
 

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

[Jim McLaughlin]

It's NOT, but apprently they can't get it to stop either. It's the last 
word... (well my word that is always the right word) problem.

Jim-  WA9FPT
  - Original Message - 
  From: Dean Nash 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination






  I'm sorry, can SOMEone please tell me how this thread related to building 
repeaters?
   


  73 de N4SHD






--
  From: Ed Yoho 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 6:17:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination


  raffertysec wrote:
  > It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group 
that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place.. 
You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I 
referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to 
one message. 
  > 
  > http://scaroa. org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that 
are able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real 
voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start.
  > 
  > This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset 
of that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone anyway? 
Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly.
  > 
  > I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.
  > 

  (Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post)

  I am not sure where the "well over 100 repeater owner members" comes 
  from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - 
  seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today 
  (likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted 
  there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of 
  four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater 
  owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater 
  owners as members.

  Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear 
  whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of 
  repeater ownership.

  The repeater-builder- coordination group has 35 members. The last posting 
  was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 
  2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well 
  accepted by repeater owners.

  Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues 
  heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners.

  I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination 
  committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local 
  committee(s) .

  Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination 
  group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the 
  current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance 
  the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is 
  stopping you or anyone else from running for office.

  I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done 
  better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they 
  each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better 
  (and still hold a full time job).

  Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from 
  SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA 
  board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, 
  discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either.

  Ed Yoho
  W6YJ
  (an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)






  

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

[Dean Nash]

I'm sorry, can SOMEone please tell me how this thread related to building 
repeaters?
 
 
73 de N4SHD





From: Ed Yoho 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 6:17:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination





raffertysec wrote:
> It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group 
> that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place.. 
> You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I 
> referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to 
> one message. 
> 
> http://scaroa. org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are 
> able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real 
> voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start.
> 
> This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset of 
> that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone anyway? 
> Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly.
> 
> I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.
> 

(Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post)

I am not sure where the "well over 100 repeater owner members" comes 
from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - 
seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today 
(likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted 
there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of 
four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater 
owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater 
owners as members.

Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear 
whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of 
repeater ownership.

The repeater-builder- coordination group has 35 members. The last posting 
was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 
2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well 
accepted by repeater owners.

Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues 
heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners.

I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination 
committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local 
committee(s) .

Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination 
group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the 
current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance 
the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is 
stopping you or anyone else from running for office.

I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done 
better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they 
each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better 
(and still hold a full time job).

Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from 
SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA 
board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, 
discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either.

Ed Yoho
W6YJ
(an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)





  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

[Chuck Kelsey]

Like I said, mine were the smaller red and black ones. I believe 35 amp. I 
have never crimped them, just soldered. I believe they are advertised as 
being able to just solder if so desired. Maybe that's the problem.

Chuck
WB2EDV


- Original Message - 
From: Butch Kanvick
To: repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:31 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)




I use the 50 AMP Power Poles for lots of connections.
I always solder them and I have never had a problem.
I have used many of the 350 amp ones for car/truck starting and I have never 
had a problem with those.
I like them and I have never had a failure.

Butch, KE7FEL/r



To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
From: wb2...@roadrunner.com
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:14:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)



I've had the same intermittent issues with the smaller PowerPoles. I'm not
sold on them. Haven't tried the big ones yet.

Chuck
WB2EDV 

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

[kt...@ameritech.net]

Thanks Joel (and others). Yes, this might be what I'm looking for. I've passed 
along this information to my group here in Milwaukee, and already contacted the 
company and signed up on their email reflector.

Tony

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Huntley, Joel"  wrote:
>
> You might want to check this new controller out.  
> If/When they pull this one off, it's going to change the game
> considerably!!
> 
> http://www.ercsystem.com/s/applications.shtml
> 
> Pay particular attention to paragraph about 2/3 of the way down...
>  Full featured digital repeater controller: This IPM will provide the
> ability to convert many existing commercially designed analog repeaters
> to dual mode units. Support will be provided for the D-STAR, Project 25
> and #DMR (Digital Mobile Radio - ETSI Standard) digital modulation
> formats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WebMaster for the Cheshire County DX ARC, Located at:
> http://www.ccdx.org
> 
> See Ya,  Joel
> 
>   wa1...@...
>   or
>   WA1ZYX > K1XX DxCluster Node (Amateur Radio)
>http://www.ccdx.org/zedyx/home.htm
> http://home.webryders.net/surry  443.800 141.3  Keene,
> NH  ---  449.450 123.0 Saddleback Mtn
>  449.875 123.0  Cannon Mtn 447.425 141.3 Temple Mtn
>  53.730 141.3 Keene
> 
> WinErr: 079 Mouse not found -- A mouse driver has not been installed.
> Please click the left mouse button to continue
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

[Butch Kanvick]

I use the 50 AMP Power Poles for lots of connections.
I always solder them and I have never had a problem.
I have used many of the 350 amp ones for car/truck starting and I have never 
had a problem with those.
I like them and I have never had a failure.

Butch, KE7FEL/r

To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
From: wb2...@roadrunner.com
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:14:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

























  
  I've had the same intermittent issues with the smaller PowerPoles. I'm 
not 

sold on them. Haven't tried the big ones yet.



Chuck

WB2EDV



- Original Message - 

From: "skipp025" 

To: 

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:19 PM

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

(anderson power poles revisited)



>

> Hi Martin,

>

> I normally would crimp and solder the wire into the small

> power pole connectors at fixed station (not moving and

> vibrating) locations.

>

> The intermittent was the contact(s).  The contact pressure

> wasn't consistent and the finger "tong" would bend with

> simple force.

>

> After the second extra long service call drive to find

> the intermittent power connection (wiggle to restore power),

> I jerked them all out and never looked back.

>

> Don't have the problems with the larger power pole

> connectors... just the smaller ones that tend to be popular

> with the Amateur Radio (Ham) crowd.

>

> cheers

> skipp

>

>> 



 

  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: (anderson power poles revisited)

[rahwayflynn]

I have the factory Anderson Power Products 1309G2 crimper and legit APP parts.  
I just built a two pole loop connector & hung 4# from the loop with no 
separation.  It did separate with a 5# weight.

Rebuilt the rig to feed a 2600HZ tone to the left channel of the sound card 
though a pair of 15 amp connectors, the same source was fed directly to the 
right.   

I recorded 60 seconds of audio while holding a jitterbug sander to the 
connector.   The audio looks exactly in both channels when played back with 
audacity.

Anyone have a decent storage scope to repeat the test with?  I will ship the 
power pole connector pigtails to your location if you want to repeat & publish 
the results.

Martin


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Kelsey"  wrote:
>
> Whatever Power Werks sells.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "MCH" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)
> 
> 
> > Were the really Power Poles or some knockoff? Some of the 'cheap ones'
> > are just that.
> >
> > I've seen trouble with all, but in every case it was due to not
> > following the proper installation instructions or not using the correct
> > tools. Most of the times it was due to the wrong crimp tool being used.
> > The correct ones are not cheap, but they do work well. When installed
> > correctly, I've never had a problem, and I've been using them for over
> > 25 years (and many in service for that long as well).
> >
> > Joe M.
> >
> > Chuck Kelsey wrote:
> >> I've had them unplug easily. Had another that if you wiggled it, it would
> >> make and break contact. I solder all mine, taking care not to get solder 
> >> on
> >> the contact itself.
> >>
> >> I went to them after having trouble with some heavy-duty Molex connectors
> >> ( one contact got hot and discolored the shell) and, no, I was not 
> >> exceeding
> >> the current carrying capacity of the connector.
> >>
> >> As far as using the smaller PowerPoles as a "standard" to insure multiple
> >> operators radios being compatible with each other, I find a connector 
> >> that
> >> can be configured multiple ways (like the PowerPole can) to be a poor 
> >> choice
> >> for that purpose.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >> WB2EDV
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - Original Message - 
> >> From: "MCH" 
> >> To: 
> >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:18 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)
> >>
> >>
> >>> Can you (either of you) specify what exactly is coming apart on them?
> >>>
> >>> Joe M.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

[Repeater-Builder] isolation

[Joel]

can Anyone tell me the amount of isolation need on a set of duplexers to run a 
GE vhf pll exciter with a 100 watt pa. The GE reciever .15 uv @20 db sinad?
power at 30 watts,50 watts 70 watts and 100 watts without desense

Thanks kj4si

RE: [Repeater-Builder] (Anderson Power Poles revisited)

[Eric Lemmon]

I agree with Joe, that every case I've seen of connection problems with
PowerPoles, has always been caused by incorrect tools, improper crimping
practices, or both.  A few problems were caused by soldering the terminals,
rather than crimping them, which not only results in a less-than-ideal
electrical joint but also may weaken the spring action of the terminal.
Most tutorials on proper soldering techniques emphasize the necessity of
creating a good mechanical joint before soldering it.  But if you make a
proper crimped joint, you don't improve it with solder.  A Vise-Grip or
Channelock plier does not make a proper crimp!

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY


- Original Message - 
From: "MCH" mailto:mch%40nb.net> >
To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

> Were the really Power Poles or some knockoff? Some of the 'cheap ones'
> are just that.
>
> I've seen trouble with all, but in every case it was due to not
> following the proper installation instructions or not using the correct
> tools. Most of the times it was due to the wrong crimp tool being used.
> The correct ones are not cheap, but they do work well. When installed
> correctly, I've never had a problem, and I've been using them for over
> 25 years (and many in service for that long as well).
>
> Joe M.
>
> Chuck Kelsey wrote:
>> I've had them unplug easily. Had another that if you wiggled it, it would
>> make and break contact. I solder all mine, taking care not to get solder 
>> on
>> the contact itself.
>>
>> I went to them after having trouble with some heavy-duty Molex connectors
>> ( one contact got hot and discolored the shell) and, no, I was not 
>> exceeding
>> the current carrying capacity of the connector.
>>
>> As far as using the smaller PowerPoles as a "standard" to insure multiple
>> operators radios being compatible with each other, I find a connector 
>> that
>> can be configured multiple ways (like the PowerPole can) to be a poor 
>> choice
>> for that purpose.
>>
>> Chuck
>> WB2EDV
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "MCH" mailto:mch%40nb.net> >
>> To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)
>>
>>
>>> Can you (either of you) specify what exactly is coming apart on them?
>>>
>>> Joe M.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt

[Bob M.]

On the first station I had with the internal filter/duplexer, I tried tuning it 
with the recommended equipment: sig gen, RF voltmeter, tuning probe, dummy 
loads. It was rather difficult and I wasn't happy with the results, so I 
figured "I'm smarter than the average bear" and I tried tuning it with my 
spectrum analyzer and tracking generator. The results were even worse.

Eventually I went back to the recommended method and substituted my own 50 ohm 
dummy load for the PA during tuning. One thing I did find was that you MUST 
follow the procedure in the book and not go back and readjust the coils again 
unless you back them out and start over from the beginning. You'll just end up 
chasing your tail that way. The tuning is very sharp using the tuning probe; 
it's very wide using the SA/TG combo. All of the filters are bandpass, so 
tuning by nature is somewhat broad. Using the tuning probe and "dip" method, 
like with the front end, you see the suck-out effect in the neighboring coil 
and you know exactly when you've got it tuned. It's almost like watching the 
notch tuning on a duplexer. Just follow the instructions and tune each core 
once.

I ended up with just over 2dB loss in the post filter and slightly less in the 
pre-filter. If you do the math, I think you'll find that your 110/70 ratio is 
right about on the money, even though it doesn't agree with what you see in the 
manual. It may also be that Motorola considers those to be maximum power levels 
with those configurations, not necessarily that you'd get 110 watts without the 
F/D and 85 watts with it on the same station.

If the pre-filter has too much loss, the station may complain and not transmit 
because it required too much drive from the IPA, but that doesn't seem to be 
your problem yet.

Also remember that the station's power control circuit is measuring the RF 
voltage at the output of the PA, so the amount of power you see will also 
depend on the load impedance. The load presented by the internal F/D is 
anybody's guess, especially after you tune it up. If you had something like a 
return-loss bridge, you could look into the ends of the filters and adjust the 
first coil for best return loss / match, and hope the rest work out OK. But if 
I recall the procedure in the book, you work your way towards the PA of the 
post-filter so the input (left-most) coil would be adjusted last anyway.

The 110w PA is really capable of a lot more power than Motorola rates it for. 
I've seen stations with the internal F/D making over 110 watts out of the 
antenna port.

The IPA, PA, and internal F/D are all either range-1 or range-2. In your case, 
range-2 covers about 435 to 475 MHz. The PA has a built-in circulator so it 
needs either a low-pass filter or the internal F/D after it to get rid of the 
2nd and 3rd harmonics that could result. A good external duplexer that has a 
real bandpass cavity on the input will also do the job. The low-pass filter 
used on base stations starts cutting off around 600 MHz and it reduces the 2nd 
harmonic and higher by over 80dB.

Those are my thoughts at the moment. You can reach me off the group if you want 
to get down to the nitty-gritty.

Bob M.
==
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Adam Feuer  wrote:

> From: Adam Feuer 
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 5:06 PM
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Interesting about your MSR2000.  I'm not sure about
> it's band splits but 
> if I'm not mistaken, my MSF is "in band" all the way down
> to 438mhz. I'm 
> suspicious about my tuning of that 4 pole filter because of
> my lack of 
> knowledge on the use of a tracking generator. Although,
> when I was done 
> tuning it, my scope looked very similar to the pics on the
> MSF page here 
> on Repeater-Builder.   I tried tuning it
> three times and every time I'm 
> done, I only get 70 to 72 watts at the side of the
> cabinet.  OH 
> wellthanks anyway!
> 
> Adam N2ACF
> 
> Mark wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > It may be far enough out-of-band for the harmonic
> filter that it isn't
> > passing as much RF to the antenna connection port,
> regardless of what the
> > specs call for...  I had an MSR2000 that was like
> that - it was in the
> > commercial UHF band and worked fine, but when it got
> moved to 444.5500, it
> > kept burning up the PA - melted the connections to the
> harmonic filter, even
> > with silver solder.  (We finally gave up on that
> one.)
> >
> > Mark - N9WYS
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> On Behalf Of Adam Feuer
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:49 PM
> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000
> Attempt
> >
> > Hmm???  The book at my friends shop said (if I
> read it right) that a C74 
> > with the filter option was rated at 110 from the PA
> and 85 at the 
> > junction box which is why I'm concerned about my 71
> watts.
> >
> >
> > James Delanc

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

[Ed Yoho]

raffertysec wrote:
> It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group 
> that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place.. 
> You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I 
> referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to 
> one message. 
> 
> http://scaroa.org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are 
> able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real 
> voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start.
> 
> This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset of 
> that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone anyway? 
> Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly.
> 
> I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.
> 

(Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post)

I am not sure where the "well over 100 repeater owner members" comes 
from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - 
seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today 
(likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted 
there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of 
four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater 
owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater 
owners as members.

Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear 
whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of 
repeater ownership.

The repeater-builder-coordination group has 35 members. The last posting 
was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 
2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well 
accepted by repeater owners.

Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues 
heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners.

I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination 
committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local 
committee(s).

Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination 
group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the 
current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance 
the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is 
stopping you or anyone else from running for office.

I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done 
better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they 
each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better 
(and still hold a full time job).

Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from 
SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA 
board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, 
discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either.


Ed Yoho
W6YJ
(an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)

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

[no6b]

At 5/8/2009 14:35, you wrote:

>Mr. Dengler still has not answered why he made the self-serving statement 
>that TASMA doesn't have a 70cm plan when they have a motion before them to 
>adopt the SCRRBA plan.

TASMA currently does not have a 70 cm bandplan.  There are proposals within 
TASMA being worked on, as noted by other postings here or elsewhere, to 
commence 70 cm band coordination activities which would include, among 
other things, adoption of some sort of 70 cm bandplan.  That is all they 
are at this point - proposals.  They will be discussed at our August 
general meeting & possibly voted on at our December general meeting.  All 
who have an interest in this, for or against, are strongly encouraged to 
join TASMA & participate in the decision making process.  Full voting 
membership is open to all amateurs with 2 meter operating privileges (I 
think that's all licensed amateurs now).

That is all I will say here, since this topic is out of bounds for this 
list.  I've been a subscriber to repeater-builder-coordination since it's 
inception some 2 years ago, & will be happy to pick up the thread there 
after Memorial day as I'll be on travel until then & internet access may be 
iffy for me.

Sorry to take up the bandwidth on this topic here, but I felt this was the 
best way to wrap it up.

Bob NO6B

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

[Scott Zimmerman]

THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS OUT OF LINE AND AGAINST LIST RULES!!

Per Kevin and my wishes, this topic is now closed. Any further 
discussion by ANY parties will lead to people being banned from this 
list. Understood??

Scott N3XCC - List co-owner

Scott Zimmerman
Amateur Radio Call N3XCC
474 Barnett Road
Boswell, PA 15531


raffertysec wrote:
> If it is not wanted here, Joe, stop responding while fanning the flames. 
> SCAROA does not want it here beause it wants a neutral forum where the list 
> owner cannot delete a message and then moderate the user. I've am a member of 
> many Yahoo groups and see this daily. Be part of the "in crowd" and speak 
> with impunity. But dare you be an outsider your words are subject to removal.
> 
> Does this list owner have a working relationship with the ARRL and NFCC on 
> this exact issue? No, but SCAROA does. That is THE point and that is the 
> fear. We want NOTHING buried and that is obvious. But it remains a local 
> issue. You're not even in California and have no dog in this fight. THAT is a 
> reason to keep it local. But it seems more to me that you are able to protect 
> your repeater guru here. Exactly why do you keep replying if you have nothing 
> to do with this? Move over to http://scaroa.org. The time spent just building 
> their web site shows that they are serious.
> 
> Mr. Dengler still has not answered why he made the self-serving statement 
> that TASMA doesn't have a 70cm plan when they have a motion before them to 
> adopt the SCRRBA plan. Mr. Dengler, man up and own up. Do it here, do it on 
> the other list, or do it on SCAROA where your presence would be appreciated. 
> It doesn't have to be a fight, either. Dialogue. Communication. But hiding 
> behind the internet in silence only brings more of the same towards you.
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>> Sounds like you want it buried on a local list. That's fine. I would 
>> like to see what's going on, but I'm not going to join 75 local lists to 
>> keep tabs on the various areas. That's the reason for having a national 
>> list.
>>
>> My only insistence was that it move from the RB list to the RBC list as 
>> desired by the list owner, as the RB list is not for coordination 
>> issues. That's why the RBC list was created - to keep the scope the 
>> same, but separate the coordination threads from the building threads.
>>
>> As for neutral, it sounds like you don't want a more neutral forum - you 
>> want it on a forum where virtually everyone has a direct stake in the 
>> matter. Again, that's fine.
>>
>> At this point, I don't care where it goes - just keep it off this list, 
>> as it's not wanted here.
>>
>> Joe M.
>>
>> raffertysec wrote:
>>> It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group 
>>> that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral 
>>> place.. You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it 
>>> matter? I referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You 
>>> even replied to one message. 
>>>
>>> http://scaroa.org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are 
>>> able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real 
>>> voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start.
>>>
>>> This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset 
>>> of that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone 
>>> anyway? Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the 
>>> NFCC directly.
>>>
>>> I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
 Threaded...

 Spencer R. Peterson wrote:
> You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct 
> comments to a more appropriate forum.
 That's what I was doing - trying to move the discussion from the RB list 
 to the RB Coordination list.

 Yes, I understand that he was trying to move it to a local list, but if 
 it was a local issue it should have never been put on the RB list which 
 IS a national (actually international) list. Regardless, it was and it 
 should have been immediately moved to the RBC list where the scope is 
 the same but the list is dedicated to issues such as those.

  > This is a repeater builder forums while the web site that he sent you 
 to is a local association that deals with TASMA and SCRRBA. This is not 
 a national issue. Why should the rest of us have to read this stuff? It 
 doesn't concern us. You complain that the discussion is here but then 
 complain that he is trying to move it where it belongs? That doesn't 
 really add up.

 Where it belongs is the RBC list as opposed to the RB (non-coordination) 
 list if you're going to compare apples to apples.

> You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before 
> asking him what 

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

[raffertysec]

If it is not wanted here, Joe, stop responding while fanning the flames. SCAROA 
does not want it here beause it wants a neutral forum where the list owner 
cannot delete a message and then moderate the user. I've am a member of many 
Yahoo groups and see this daily. Be part of the "in crowd" and speak with 
impunity. But dare you be an outsider your words are subject to removal.

Does this list owner have a working relationship with the ARRL and NFCC on this 
exact issue? No, but SCAROA does. That is THE point and that is the fear. We 
want NOTHING buried and that is obvious. But it remains a local issue. You're 
not even in California and have no dog in this fight. THAT is a reason to keep 
it local. But it seems more to me that you are able to protect your repeater 
guru here. Exactly why do you keep replying if you have nothing to do with 
this? Move over to http://scaroa.org. The time spent just building their web 
site shows that they are serious.

Mr. Dengler still has not answered why he made the self-serving statement that 
TASMA doesn't have a 70cm plan when they have a motion before them to adopt the 
SCRRBA plan. Mr. Dengler, man up and own up. Do it here, do it on the other 
list, or do it on SCAROA where your presence would be appreciated. It doesn't 
have to be a fight, either. Dialogue. Communication. But hiding behind the 
internet in silence only brings more of the same towards you.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>
> Sounds like you want it buried on a local list. That's fine. I would 
> like to see what's going on, but I'm not going to join 75 local lists to 
> keep tabs on the various areas. That's the reason for having a national 
> list.
> 
> My only insistence was that it move from the RB list to the RBC list as 
> desired by the list owner, as the RB list is not for coordination 
> issues. That's why the RBC list was created - to keep the scope the 
> same, but separate the coordination threads from the building threads.
> 
> As for neutral, it sounds like you don't want a more neutral forum - you 
> want it on a forum where virtually everyone has a direct stake in the 
> matter. Again, that's fine.
> 
> At this point, I don't care where it goes - just keep it off this list, 
> as it's not wanted here.
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> raffertysec wrote:
> > It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group 
> > that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral 
> > place.. You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it 
> > matter? I referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You 
> > even replied to one message. 
> > 
> > http://scaroa.org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are 
> > able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real 
> > voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start.
> > 
> > This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset 
> > of that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone 
> > anyway? Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the 
> > NFCC directly.
> > 
> > I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
> >> Threaded...
> >>
> >> Spencer R. Peterson wrote:
> >>> You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct 
> >>> comments to a more appropriate forum.
> >> That's what I was doing - trying to move the discussion from the RB list 
> >> to the RB Coordination list.
> >>
> >> Yes, I understand that he was trying to move it to a local list, but if 
> >> it was a local issue it should have never been put on the RB list which 
> >> IS a national (actually international) list. Regardless, it was and it 
> >> should have been immediately moved to the RBC list where the scope is 
> >> the same but the list is dedicated to issues such as those.
> >>
> >>  > This is a repeater builder forums while the web site that he sent you 
> >> to is a local association that deals with TASMA and SCRRBA. This is not 
> >> a national issue. Why should the rest of us have to read this stuff? It 
> >> doesn't concern us. You complain that the discussion is here but then 
> >> complain that he is trying to move it where it belongs? That doesn't 
> >> really add up.
> >>
> >> Where it belongs is the RBC list as opposed to the RB (non-coordination) 
> >> list if you're going to compare apples to apples.
> >>
> >>> You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before 
> >>> asking him what it was about.
> >> A website that he only referenced ***AFTER*** I asked? How should I have 
> >> known what the URL was or even that there WAS a website?
> >>
> >>
> >>> The address has been posted several times.
> >> Not that I saw. The only reference I saw before my comment was to an 
> >> acronym.
> >>
> >>> Or you can go to a Google group started by someone else for unknown 
> >>> reaso

Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt

[Adam Feuer]

Hi Mark,

Interesting about your MSR2000.  I'm not sure about it's band splits but 
if I'm not mistaken, my MSF is "in band" all the way down to 438mhz. I'm 
suspicious about my tuning of that 4 pole filter because of my lack of 
knowledge on the use of a tracking generator. Although, when I was done 
tuning it, my scope looked very similar to the pics on the MSF page here 
on Repeater-Builder.   I tried tuning it three times and every time I'm 
done, I only get 70 to 72 watts at the side of the cabinet.  OH 
wellthanks anyway!

Adam N2ACF

Mark wrote:
> Adam,
>
> It may be far enough out-of-band for the harmonic filter that it isn't
> passing as much RF to the antenna connection port, regardless of what the
> specs call for...  I had an MSR2000 that was like that - it was in the
> commercial UHF band and worked fine, but when it got moved to 444.5500, it
> kept burning up the PA - melted the connections to the harmonic filter, even
> with silver solder.  (We finally gave up on that one.)
>
> Mark - N9WYS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Adam Feuer
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:49 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt
>
> Hmm???  The book at my friends shop said (if I read it right) that a C74 
> with the filter option was rated at 110 from the PA and 85 at the 
> junction box which is why I'm concerned about my 71 watts.
>
>
> James Delancy wrote:
>   
>> UHF models that are 110 Watts, are rated for that out the side of the 
>> cabinet.  This usually results in 160 Watts out of the PA.  Then you 
>> are down around 100-110 Watts after the harmonic filter and the 
>> pre/post pass filters.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>> Maire-Radios wrote:
>> 
>>> *well if it was 85 watts with 122.5 watts*
>>> *it would be lower at 110 watts  and any be the 71 watts   do the 
>>> math  should be about the same values.*
>>> ** 
>>> *John*
>>> ** 
>>>  
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* n2acf 
>>> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>>> 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 2:49 PM
>>> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt
>>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> Attempted to tune up the TX side of a C74CXB today. The odds
>>> weren't really in my favor as I've never worked on a UHF MSF nor
>>> have I ever used a tracking generator. I brought the station to a
>>> friends shop and I used an IFR1200S for the tuning.
>>>
>>> I checked the station before I began and on 453.900 there was
>>> 82.5 watts at the antenna port and 122.5 coming out of the PA.
>>> So, I reprogrammed the station, adjusted the VCO, and then began
>>> to re-tune the 3 pole and 4 pole filter. I also changed the
>>> output power of the PA to 110 watts because I believe that is
>>> what the station is rated for. The new TX frequency is 441.950.
>>>
>>> When I was done with both filters, I checked the power at the
>>> antenna port and it's only 71 watts. I believe it's supposed to
>>> be 85.
>>>
>>> The PA looks very clean on the spectrum analyzer and the carrier
>>> is right on frequency. Again, I'm not the best at reading the
>>> scope while using the tracking generator but I did it the best I
>>> could for the first time. Is my output power OK at 71 watts or is
>>> something wrong?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advanced!
>>>
>>> Adam N2ACF
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> 
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/08/09
> 11:43:00
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

[Chuck Kelsey]

Whatever Power Werks sells.

Chuck



- Original Message - 
From: "MCH" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)


> Were the really Power Poles or some knockoff? Some of the 'cheap ones'
> are just that.
>
> I've seen trouble with all, but in every case it was due to not
> following the proper installation instructions or not using the correct
> tools. Most of the times it was due to the wrong crimp tool being used.
> The correct ones are not cheap, but they do work well. When installed
> correctly, I've never had a problem, and I've been using them for over
> 25 years (and many in service for that long as well).
>
> Joe M.
>
> Chuck Kelsey wrote:
>> I've had them unplug easily. Had another that if you wiggled it, it would
>> make and break contact. I solder all mine, taking care not to get solder 
>> on
>> the contact itself.
>>
>> I went to them after having trouble with some heavy-duty Molex connectors
>> ( one contact got hot and discolored the shell) and, no, I was not 
>> exceeding
>> the current carrying capacity of the connector.
>>
>> As far as using the smaller PowerPoles as a "standard" to insure multiple
>> operators radios being compatible with each other, I find a connector 
>> that
>> can be configured multiple ways (like the PowerPole can) to be a poor 
>> choice
>> for that purpose.
>>
>> Chuck
>> WB2EDV
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "MCH" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)
>>
>>
>>> Can you (either of you) specify what exactly is coming apart on them?
>>>
>>> Joe M.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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

[MCH]

Sounds like you want it buried on a local list. That's fine. I would 
like to see what's going on, but I'm not going to join 75 local lists to 
keep tabs on the various areas. That's the reason for having a national 
list.

My only insistence was that it move from the RB list to the RBC list as 
desired by the list owner, as the RB list is not for coordination 
issues. That's why the RBC list was created - to keep the scope the 
same, but separate the coordination threads from the building threads.

As for neutral, it sounds like you don't want a more neutral forum - you 
want it on a forum where virtually everyone has a direct stake in the 
matter. Again, that's fine.

At this point, I don't care where it goes - just keep it off this list, 
as it's not wanted here.

Joe M.

raffertysec wrote:
> It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group 
> that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place.. 
> You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I 
> referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to 
> one message. 
> 
> http://scaroa.org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are 
> able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real 
> voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start.
> 
> This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset of 
> that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone anyway? 
> Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly.
> 
> I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.
> 
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>> Threaded...
>>
>> Spencer R. Peterson wrote:
>>> You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct 
>>> comments to a more appropriate forum.
>> That's what I was doing - trying to move the discussion from the RB list 
>> to the RB Coordination list.
>>
>> Yes, I understand that he was trying to move it to a local list, but if 
>> it was a local issue it should have never been put on the RB list which 
>> IS a national (actually international) list. Regardless, it was and it 
>> should have been immediately moved to the RBC list where the scope is 
>> the same but the list is dedicated to issues such as those.
>>
>>  > This is a repeater builder forums while the web site that he sent you 
>> to is a local association that deals with TASMA and SCRRBA. This is not 
>> a national issue. Why should the rest of us have to read this stuff? It 
>> doesn't concern us. You complain that the discussion is here but then 
>> complain that he is trying to move it where it belongs? That doesn't 
>> really add up.
>>
>> Where it belongs is the RBC list as opposed to the RB (non-coordination) 
>> list if you're going to compare apples to apples.
>>
>>> You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before asking 
>>> him what it was about.
>> A website that he only referenced ***AFTER*** I asked? How should I have 
>> known what the URL was or even that there WAS a website?
>>
>>
>>> The address has been posted several times.
>> Not that I saw. The only reference I saw before my comment was to an 
>> acronym.
>>
>>> Or you can go to a Google group started by someone else for unknown 
>>> reasons. Clearly southern California hams have had enough of the BS of 
>>> TASMA that they are now forming groups to vocalize the issues. THAT should 
>>> concern you.
>> And that is where the national scope comes in.
>>
>>
>>> The point I read clearly is this: TASMA and specifically Bob Dengler are 
>>> tap dancing. They have been asked to appear and justify their position. But 
>>> for Mr. Dengler to state that he is unaware of a 70cm band plan when he has 
>>> been a direct part of the absorbtion of SCRRBA and adopting by motion its 
>>> current band plan speaks for itself. He has attended meetings and 
>>> conference calls on this topic. I realize that he is helpful to this group, 
>>> but that doesn't take away his responsibility to the perception that TASMA 
>>> and SCRRBA need and intervention and are perceived as corrupt. Mr. Dengler 
>>> chose not to answer in this forum but perhaps he'll take notice when he is 
>>> served with one of several law suits that I am aware of.
>>>
>>> I don't have a dog in this fight and can, I believe, read objectively. The 
>>> bottom line is that if you don't want the discussion here then don't 
>>> complain when a suggestion is made that it be taken elsewhere and an 
>>> address given.
>> Complain when that happens? I'm the one that SUGGESTED it in the first 
>> place - that it should be on the RB list that deals with coordination, 
>> and not on the non-coordination list.
>>
>> Joe M.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt

[Mark]

Adam,

It may be far enough out-of-band for the harmonic filter that it isn't
passing as much RF to the antenna connection port, regardless of what the
specs call for...  I had an MSR2000 that was like that - it was in the
commercial UHF band and worked fine, but when it got moved to 444.5500, it
kept burning up the PA - melted the connections to the harmonic filter, even
with silver solder.  (We finally gave up on that one.)

Mark - N9WYS

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Adam Feuer
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:49 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt

Hmm???  The book at my friends shop said (if I read it right) that a C74 
with the filter option was rated at 110 from the PA and 85 at the 
junction box which is why I'm concerned about my 71 watts.


James Delancy wrote:
>
>
> UHF models that are 110 Watts, are rated for that out the side of the 
> cabinet.  This usually results in 160 Watts out of the PA.  Then you 
> are down around 100-110 Watts after the harmonic filter and the 
> pre/post pass filters.
>
> James
>
>
> Maire-Radios wrote:
>> *well if it was 85 watts with 122.5 watts*
>> *it would be lower at 110 watts  and any be the 71 watts   do the 
>> math  should be about the same values.*
>> ** 
>> *John*
>> ** 
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* n2acf 
>> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>> 
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 2:49 PM
>> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Attempted to tune up the TX side of a C74CXB today. The odds
>> weren't really in my favor as I've never worked on a UHF MSF nor
>> have I ever used a tracking generator. I brought the station to a
>> friends shop and I used an IFR1200S for the tuning.
>>
>> I checked the station before I began and on 453.900 there was
>> 82.5 watts at the antenna port and 122.5 coming out of the PA.
>> So, I reprogrammed the station, adjusted the VCO, and then began
>> to re-tune the 3 pole and 4 pole filter. I also changed the
>> output power of the PA to 110 watts because I believe that is
>> what the station is rated for. The new TX frequency is 441.950.
>>
>> When I was done with both filters, I checked the power at the
>> antenna port and it's only 71 watts. I believe it's supposed to
>> be 85.
>>
>> The PA looks very clean on the spectrum analyzer and the carrier
>> is right on frequency. Again, I'm not the best at reading the
>> scope while using the tracking generator but I did it the best I
>> could for the first time. Is my output power OK at 71 watts or is
>> something wrong?
>>
>> Thanks in advanced!
>>
>> Adam N2ACF
>>
>
>
> 







Yahoo! Groups Links



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/08/09
11:43:00

Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

[MCH]

Were the really Power Poles or some knockoff? Some of the 'cheap ones' 
are just that.

I've seen trouble with all, but in every case it was due to not 
following the proper installation instructions or not using the correct 
tools. Most of the times it was due to the wrong crimp tool being used. 
The correct ones are not cheap, but they do work well. When installed 
correctly, I've never had a problem, and I've been using them for over 
25 years (and many in service for that long as well).

Joe M.

Chuck Kelsey wrote:
> I've had them unplug easily. Had another that if you wiggled it, it would 
> make and break contact. I solder all mine, taking care not to get solder on 
> the contact itself.
> 
> I went to them after having trouble with some heavy-duty Molex connectors 
> ( one contact got hot and discolored the shell) and, no, I was not exceeding 
> the current carrying capacity of the connector.
> 
> As far as using the smaller PowerPoles as a "standard" to insure multiple 
> operators radios being compatible with each other, I find a connector that 
> can be configured multiple ways (like the PowerPole can) to be a poor choice 
> for that purpose.
> 
> Chuck
> WB2EDV
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "MCH" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)
> 
> 
>> Can you (either of you) specify what exactly is coming apart on them?
>>
>> Joe M.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

[skipp025]

> >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.
 
> 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. 

Depends on how the wires are done... I understand what 
you're trying to convey... but it's not been a problem/issue 
in this example. 

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

> 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.

In cases where I run into active high logic... I change them 
to active low before they leave the box for the big world. I've 
run into a number of Ham devices (the above mentioned Hamtronics 
Receiver and the CAT Auto RLS/RBS-1000 unit) with active high 
logic and it's just more sane to convert everything over. 

> >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.

If power goes away... the active low device normally would 
stay high impedance (high isolated state) and I can be more 
easily assured the trailing controller remains in a resting 
state. 

> >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.

Some people seem to have decent results with the Power-poles... 
and I can and do sometimes use them in legacy (already 
installed) situations... but I have my own way of ensuring 
they don't go intermittent, which I don't apply/use in the 
commercial radio world. I don't normally like or use Molex 
connectors for any serious current requirement. 

> 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.

I just end up removing them from the path and do as much 
direct wire as possible. I haven't had to revisit a cranky 
intermittent power-pole since. 

> >Unless I'm sure there's going to be a lot of shear RF at the
> >repeaters location... I take the simple and easy route. Even
> >with a broadcast station nearby (but not in the same value)
> >I didn't feel the advanced filtering techniques were required
> >and so far, so good.
> 
> When I box a RX, it's usually because I'm having an 
> interference problem due to insufficient shielding.  So 
> I want to be darn sure I don't have to do it again.
> Bob NO6B

This example used a supplied bare receiver and transmitter 
boards. I put them in to acceptable boxes and wired things 
up. Lo and behold it all works very well and I'm on to the 
next cluster ___ .  

I'll hopefully be posting part 3 of this saga in the near 
future. 

Smell the Dayton Brats (Brauts) defrosting... 

cheers,
s. 

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

[raffertysec]

It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group that 
is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place.. You 
don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I 
referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to 
one message. 

http://scaroa.org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are 
able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real 
voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start.

This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset of 
that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone anyway? 
Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly.

I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread.


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>
> Threaded...
> 
> Spencer R. Peterson wrote:
> > You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct 
> > comments to a more appropriate forum.
> 
> That's what I was doing - trying to move the discussion from the RB list 
> to the RB Coordination list.
> 
> Yes, I understand that he was trying to move it to a local list, but if 
> it was a local issue it should have never been put on the RB list which 
> IS a national (actually international) list. Regardless, it was and it 
> should have been immediately moved to the RBC list where the scope is 
> the same but the list is dedicated to issues such as those.
> 
>  > This is a repeater builder forums while the web site that he sent you 
> to is a local association that deals with TASMA and SCRRBA. This is not 
> a national issue. Why should the rest of us have to read this stuff? It 
> doesn't concern us. You complain that the discussion is here but then 
> complain that he is trying to move it where it belongs? That doesn't 
> really add up.
> 
> Where it belongs is the RBC list as opposed to the RB (non-coordination) 
> list if you're going to compare apples to apples.
> 
> > You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before asking 
> > him what it was about.
> 
> A website that he only referenced ***AFTER*** I asked? How should I have 
> known what the URL was or even that there WAS a website?
> 
> 
> > The address has been posted several times.
> 
> Not that I saw. The only reference I saw before my comment was to an 
> acronym.
> 
> > Or you can go to a Google group started by someone else for unknown 
> > reasons. Clearly southern California hams have had enough of the BS of 
> > TASMA that they are now forming groups to vocalize the issues. THAT should 
> > concern you.
> 
> And that is where the national scope comes in.
> 
> 
> > The point I read clearly is this: TASMA and specifically Bob Dengler are 
> > tap dancing. They have been asked to appear and justify their position. But 
> > for Mr. Dengler to state that he is unaware of a 70cm band plan when he has 
> > been a direct part of the absorbtion of SCRRBA and adopting by motion its 
> > current band plan speaks for itself. He has attended meetings and 
> > conference calls on this topic. I realize that he is helpful to this group, 
> > but that doesn't take away his responsibility to the perception that TASMA 
> > and SCRRBA need and intervention and are perceived as corrupt. Mr. Dengler 
> > chose not to answer in this forum but perhaps he'll take notice when he is 
> > served with one of several law suits that I am aware of.
> > 
> > I don't have a dog in this fight and can, I believe, read objectively. The 
> > bottom line is that if you don't want the discussion here then don't 
> > complain when a suggestion is made that it be taken elsewhere and an 
> > address given.
> 
> Complain when that happens? I'm the one that SUGGESTED it in the first 
> place - that it should be on the RB list that deals with coordination, 
> and not on the non-coordination list.
> 
> Joe M.
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt

[Adam Feuer]

Hmm???  The book at my friends shop said (if I read it right) that a C74 
with the filter option was rated at 110 from the PA and 85 at the 
junction box which is why I'm concerned about my 71 watts.


James Delancy wrote:
>
>
> UHF models that are 110 Watts, are rated for that out the side of the 
> cabinet.  This usually results in 160 Watts out of the PA.  Then you 
> are down around 100-110 Watts after the harmonic filter and the 
> pre/post pass filters.
>
> James
>
>
> Maire-Radios wrote:
>> *well if it was 85 watts with 122.5 watts*
>> *it would be lower at 110 watts  and any be the 71 watts   do the 
>> math  should be about the same values.*
>> ** 
>> *John*
>> ** 
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* n2acf 
>> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>> 
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 2:49 PM
>> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Attempted to tune up the TX side of a C74CXB today. The odds
>> weren't really in my favor as I've never worked on a UHF MSF nor
>> have I ever used a tracking generator. I brought the station to a
>> friends shop and I used an IFR1200S for the tuning.
>>
>> I checked the station before I began and on 453.900 there was
>> 82.5 watts at the antenna port and 122.5 coming out of the PA.
>> So, I reprogrammed the station, adjusted the VCO, and then began
>> to re-tune the 3 pole and 4 pole filter. I also changed the
>> output power of the PA to 110 watts because I believe that is
>> what the station is rated for. The new TX frequency is 441.950.
>>
>> When I was done with both filters, I checked the power at the
>> antenna port and it's only 71 watts. I believe it's supposed to
>> be 85.
>>
>> The PA looks very clean on the spectrum analyzer and the carrier
>> is right on frequency. Again, I'm not the best at reading the
>> scope while using the tracking generator but I did it the best I
>> could for the first time. Is my output power OK at 71 watts or is
>> something wrong?
>>
>> Thanks in advanced!
>>
>> Adam N2ACF
>>
>
>
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt

[Adam Feuer]

True, BUT the book says 110 and 85 (I think) at the antenna port.  What 
I'm getting at is that it may NOT have been right (122.5) from the start.

Maire-Radios wrote:
>
>
> *well if it was 85 watts with 122.5 watts*
> *it would be lower at 110 watts  and any be the 71 watts   do the 
> math  should be about the same values.*
> ** 
> *John*
> ** 
>  
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* n2acf 
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 2:49 PM
> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt
>
> Hello All,
>
> Attempted to tune up the TX side of a C74CXB today. The odds
> weren't really in my favor as I've never worked on a UHF MSF nor
> have I ever used a tracking generator. I brought the station to a
> friends shop and I used an IFR1200S for the tuning.
>
> I checked the station before I began and on 453.900 there was 82.5
> watts at the antenna port and 122.5 coming out of the PA. So, I
> reprogrammed the station, adjusted the VCO, and then began to
> re-tune the 3 pole and 4 pole filter. I also changed the output
> power of the PA to 110 watts because I believe that is what the
> station is rated for. The new TX frequency is 441.950.
>
> When I was done with both filters, I checked the power at the
> antenna port and it's only 71 watts. I believe it's supposed to be
> 85.
>
> The PA looks very clean on the spectrum analyzer and the carrier
> is right on frequency. Again, I'm not the best at reading the
> scope while using the tracking generator but I did it the best I
> could for the first time. Is my output power OK at 71 watts or is
> something wrong?
>
> Thanks in advanced!
>
> Adam N2ACF
>
>
>
> 
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt

[Maire-Radios]

well if it was 85 watts with 122.5 watts
it would be lower at 110 watts  and any be the 71 watts   do the math  should 
be about the same values.

John


  - Original Message - 
  From: n2acf 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:49 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt





  Hello All,

  Attempted to tune up the TX side of a C74CXB today. The odds weren't really 
in my favor as I've never worked on a UHF MSF nor have I ever used a tracking 
generator. I brought the station to a friends shop and I used an IFR1200S for 
the tuning.

  I checked the station before I began and on 453.900 there was 82.5 watts at 
the antenna port and 122.5 coming out of the PA. So, I reprogrammed the 
station, adjusted the VCO, and then began to re-tune the 3 pole and 4 pole 
filter. I also changed the output power of the PA to 110 watts because I 
believe that is what the station is rated for. The new TX frequency is 441.950.

  When I was done with both filters, I checked the power at the antenna port 
and it's only 71 watts. I believe it's supposed to be 85. 

  The PA looks very clean on the spectrum analyzer and the carrier is right on 
frequency. Again, I'm not the best at reading the scope while using the 
tracking generator but I did it the best I could for the first time. Is my 
output power OK at 71 watts or is something wrong? 

  Thanks in advanced!

  Adam N2ACF



  

[Repeater-Builder] First UHF MSF5000 Attempt

[n2acf]

Hello All,

Attempted to tune up the TX side of a C74CXB today. The odds weren't really in 
my favor as I've never worked on a UHF MSF nor have I ever used a tracking 
generator. I brought the station to a friends shop and I used an IFR1200S for 
the tuning.

I checked the station before I began and on 453.900 there was 82.5 watts at the 
antenna port and 122.5 coming out of the PA. So, I reprogrammed the station, 
adjusted the VCO, and then began to re-tune the 3 pole and 4 pole filter. I 
also changed the output power of the PA to 110 watts because I believe that is 
what the station is rated for. The new TX frequency is 441.950.

When I was done with both filters, I checked the power at the antenna port and 
it's only 71 watts. I believe it's supposed to be 85. 

The PA looks very clean on the spectrum analyzer and the carrier is right on 
frequency. Again, I'm not the best at reading the scope while using the 
tracking generator but I did it the best I could for the first time.  Is my 
output power OK at 71 watts or is something wrong? 

Thanks in advanced!

Adam N2ACF

Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

[Chuck Kelsey]

I've had them unplug easily. Had another that if you wiggled it, it would 
make and break contact. I solder all mine, taking care not to get solder on 
the contact itself.

I went to them after having trouble with some heavy-duty Molex connectors 
( one contact got hot and discolored the shell) and, no, I was not exceeding 
the current carrying capacity of the connector.

As far as using the smaller PowerPoles as a "standard" to insure multiple 
operators radios being compatible with each other, I find a connector that 
can be configured multiple ways (like the PowerPole can) to be a poor choice 
for that purpose.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: "MCH" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)


> Can you (either of you) specify what exactly is coming apart on them?
>
> Joe M.
>
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

[MCH]

Can you (either of you) specify what exactly is coming apart on them?

Joe M.

Chuck Kelsey wrote:
> I've had the same intermittent issues with the smaller PowerPoles. I'm not 
> sold on them. Haven't tried the big ones yet.
> 
> Chuck
> WB2EDV
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "skipp025" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:19 PM
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - 
> (anderson power poles revisited)
> 
> 
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I normally would crimp and solder the wire into the small
>> power pole connectors at fixed station (not moving and
>> vibrating) locations.
>>
>> The intermittent was the contact(s).  The contact pressure
>> wasn't consistent and the finger "tong" would bend with
>> simple force.
>>
>> After the second extra long service call drive to find
>> the intermittent power connection (wiggle to restore power),
>> I jerked them all out and never looked back.
>>
>> Don't have the problems with the larger power pole
>> connectors... just the smaller ones that tend to be popular
>> with the Amateur Radio (Ham) crowd.
>>
>> cheers
>> skipp
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2104 - Release Date: 05/08/09 
> 06:34:00
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] (anderson power poles revisited)

[Chuck Kelsey]

I've had the same intermittent issues with the smaller PowerPoles. I'm not 
sold on them. Haven't tried the big ones yet.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: "skipp025" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:19 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - 
(anderson power poles revisited)


>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I normally would crimp and solder the wire into the small
> power pole connectors at fixed station (not moving and
> vibrating) locations.
>
> The intermittent was the contact(s).  The contact pressure
> wasn't consistent and the finger "tong" would bend with
> simple force.
>
> After the second extra long service call drive to find
> the intermittent power connection (wiggle to restore power),
> I jerked them all out and never looked back.
>
> Don't have the problems with the larger power pole
> connectors... just the smaller ones that tend to be popular
> with the Amateur Radio (Ham) crowd.
>
> cheers
> skipp
>
>> 

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

[MCH]

Threaded...

Spencer R. Peterson wrote:
> You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct 
> comments to a more appropriate forum.

That's what I was doing - trying to move the discussion from the RB list 
to the RB Coordination list.

Yes, I understand that he was trying to move it to a local list, but if 
it was a local issue it should have never been put on the RB list which 
IS a national (actually international) list. Regardless, it was and it 
should have been immediately moved to the RBC list where the scope is 
the same but the list is dedicated to issues such as those.

 > This is a repeater builder forums while the web site that he sent you 
to is a local association that deals with TASMA and SCRRBA. This is not 
a national issue. Why should the rest of us have to read this stuff? It 
doesn't concern us. You complain that the discussion is here but then 
complain that he is trying to move it where it belongs? That doesn't 
really add up.

Where it belongs is the RBC list as opposed to the RB (non-coordination) 
list if you're going to compare apples to apples.

> You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before asking 
> him what it was about.

A website that he only referenced ***AFTER*** I asked? How should I have 
known what the URL was or even that there WAS a website?


> The address has been posted several times.

Not that I saw. The only reference I saw before my comment was to an 
acronym.

> Or you can go to a Google group started by someone else for unknown reasons. 
> Clearly southern California hams have had enough of the BS of TASMA that they 
> are now forming groups to vocalize the issues. THAT should concern you.

And that is where the national scope comes in.


> The point I read clearly is this: TASMA and specifically Bob Dengler are tap 
> dancing. They have been asked to appear and justify their position. But for 
> Mr. Dengler to state that he is unaware of a 70cm band plan when he has been 
> a direct part of the absorbtion of SCRRBA and adopting by motion its current 
> band plan speaks for itself. He has attended meetings and conference calls on 
> this topic. I realize that he is helpful to this group, but that doesn't take 
> away his responsibility to the perception that TASMA and SCRRBA need and 
> intervention and are perceived as corrupt. Mr. Dengler chose not to answer in 
> this forum but perhaps he'll take notice when he is served with one of 
> several law suits that I am aware of.
> 
> I don't have a dog in this fight and can, I believe, read objectively. The 
> bottom line is that if you don't want the discussion here then don't complain 
> when a suggestion is made that it be taken elsewhere and an address given.

Complain when that happens? I'm the one that SUGGESTED it in the first 
place - that it should be on the RB list that deals with coordination, 
and not on the non-coordination list.

Joe M.

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

[John Transue]

>-Original Message-
>From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
>buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wd8chl
>Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:41 PM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-
>quality
>
>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
>

Jim,

My only point was that the software is expensive enough to make the use
of good cheap old commercial radios (made by Motorola) far more
expensive than I had imagined. 

But to get to your questions, what I am planning and costing is a remote
receiver (VHF) with a UHF link back to the base VHF repeater. The space
we have under negotiation is in a high rise building. Getting to the
equipment will involve keeping on the good side of the building engineer
and not making a nuisance of myself. The base repeater is used for ham
nets and general chit chat, but it is available (and is used) in
emergencies and public service events. 

Currently I favor using ICOM ICF121S and ICF221S radios. 

John T. 
AF4PD

[Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - (anderson power poles revisited)

[skipp025]

Hi Martin, 

I normally would crimp and solder the wire into the small 
power pole connectors at fixed station (not moving and 
vibrating) locations. 

The intermittent was the contact(s).  The contact pressure 
wasn't consistent and the finger "tong" would bend with 
simple force. 

After the second extra long service call drive to find 
the intermittent power connection (wiggle to restore power), 
I jerked them all out and never looked back. 

Don't have the problems with the larger power pole 
connectors... just the smaller ones that tend to be popular 
with the Amateur Radio (Ham) crowd. 

cheers
skipp 

> "rahwayflynn"  wrote:
> 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


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

[N3QAM]

Here you go
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/75_ohm_hardline.html
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/hardline_connectors.html


  - Original Message - 
  From: N3QAM 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Identify a coax and possible connector 
vendor






  There  is a whole write up on the net somewhere on how to use the 75 ohm 
hardline connectors and covert them to a n conector or pl-259 with pics  . If 
you need any let me know as i am a line tech for a cable company . Unfotunetly 
it will be hard for me to core the cable for you to install the connectors 
unless you are close by. If you get to that point , i would suggest going to 
the local office of your cable company ( not a payment center but one that the 
line techs and construction department works out of) and ask them if they can 
core them for you. The connetors installs differently than say a PL-259 would 
and are either a 2 piece or a 3 piece.

  The coring tool actually cores out the dialetric and leaves the center 
conductor exposed with the shield. i do not have any here at the house to take 
pictures of it  , nor be at work for the next month ( due to a back surgery).

  But feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.

  Keith
  N3QAM
- Original Message - 
From: pontotochs 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:35 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Identify a coax and possible connector 
vendor


Thanks to N3QAM and Ben. You guys nailed it with the P3 500 from China.

I also appreciate Ben's tip on how to use a PL259.

Regards,
Rick, N5RB

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "N3QAM"  wrote:
>
> 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] Re: Identify a coax and possible connector vendor

[N3QAM]

There  is a whole write up on the net somewhere on how to use the 75 ohm 
hardline connectors and covert them to a n conector or pl-259 with pics  . If 
you need any let me know as i am a line tech for a cable company . Unfotunetly 
it will be hard for me to core the cable for you to install the connectors 
unless you are close by. If you get to that point , i would suggest going to 
the local office of your cable company ( not a payment center but one that the 
line techs and construction department works out of) and ask them if they can 
core them for you. The connetors installs differently than say a PL-259 would 
and are either a 2 piece or a 3 piece.

The coring tool actually cores out the dialetric and leaves the center 
conductor exposed with the shield. i do not have any here at the house to take 
pictures of it  , nor be at work for the next month ( due to a back surgery).

But feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.

Keith
N3QAM
  - Original Message - 
  From: pontotochs 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:35 AM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Identify a coax and possible connector vendor





  Thanks to N3QAM and Ben. You guys nailed it with the P3 500 from China.

  I also appreciate Ben's tip on how to use a PL259.

  Regards,
  Rick, N5RB

  --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "N3QAM"  wrote:
  >
  > 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
  >



  

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

[pontotochs]

Thanks to N3QAM and Ben. You guys nailed it with the P3 500 from China.

  I also appreciate Ben's tip on how to use a PL259.

Regards,
   Rick, N5RB

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "N3QAM"  wrote:
>
> 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
>

[Repeater-Builder] Analog Repeater to APCO25 conversion?

[Huntley, Joel]

You might want to check this new controller out.  
If/When they pull this one off, it's going to change the game
considerably!!

http://www.ercsystem.com/s/applications.shtml

Pay particular attention to paragraph about 2/3 of the way down...




WebMaster for the Cheshire County DX ARC, Located at:
http://www.ccdx.org

See Ya,  Joel

  wa1...@ccdx.org
  or
  WA1ZYX > K1XX DxCluster Node (Amateur Radio)
   http://www.ccdx.org/zedyx/home.htm
http://home.webryders.net/surry  443.800 141.3  Keene,
NH  ---  449.450 123.0 Saddleback Mtn
 449.875 123.0  Cannon Mtn 447.425 141.3 Temple Mtn
 53.730 141.3 Keene

WinErr: 079 Mouse not found -- A mouse driver has not been installed.
Please click the left mouse button to continue

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

[Chuck Kelsey]

Thanks. Somehow I missed it.

Chuck


- Original Message - 
From: "John J. Riddell" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - 
Part 2


>I use the SB-50 dual connectors. They come in several colours
> which are a "semi standard" for the voltage used.
>
> John VE3AMZ
>
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck Kelsey" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater 
> Project. -
> Part 2
>
>
>>I didn't see 50-amp ones on their site. Part number?
>>
>> Chuck
>> WB2EDV
>>

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

[John J. Riddell]

I use the SB-50 dual connectors. They come in several colours
which are a "semi standard" for the voltage used.

John VE3AMZ



- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck Kelsey" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: A Home Brew 224 MHz Repeater Project. - 
Part 2


>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
>>>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 

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

[Spencer R. Peterson]

You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct 
comments to a more appropriate forum. This is a repeater builder forums while 
the web site that he sent you to is a local association that deals with TASMA 
and SCRRBA. This is not a national issue. Why should the rest of us have to 
read this stuff? It doesn't concern us. You complain that the discussion is 
here but then complain that he is trying to move it where it belongs? That 
doesn't really add up.

You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before asking him 
what it was about. The address has been posted several times. Or you can go to 
a Google group started by someone else for unknown reasons. Clearly southern 
California hams have had enough of the BS of TASMA that they are now forming 
groups to vocalize the issues. THAT should concern you.

The point I read clearly is this: TASMA and specifically Bob Dengler are tap 
dancing. They have been asked to appear and justify their position. But for Mr. 
Dengler to state that he is unaware of a 70cm band plan when he has been a 
direct part of the absorbtion of SCRRBA and adopting by motion its current band 
plan speaks for itself. He has attended meetings and conference calls on this 
topic. I realize that he is helpful to this group, but that doesn't take away 
his responsibility to the perception that TASMA and SCRRBA need and 
intervention and are perceived as corrupt. Mr. Dengler chose not to answer in 
this forum but perhaps he'll take notice when he is served with one of several 
law suits that I am aware of.

I don't have a dog in this fight and can, I believe, read objectively. The 
bottom line is that if you don't want the discussion here then don't complain 
when a suggestion is made that it be taken elsewhere and an address given.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH  wrote:
>
> 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 M