Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
The issue you point to of CW being allowed in the voice band is a bandwidth issue. That has nothing to do with repeater sub-bands. You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:57:07 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Again, I will point out that just because you *can* do something it does not follow that you must or you should. Their wording is obviously a block in which repeaters are legal. That does not mean repeaters are intended to cover the entire block. If you look carefully at Part 97, you will see that repeaters are legal everywhere except the satellite and other weak signal parts of the band. So, it's more of a matter that 146.520 is neither that it's included in the authorized repeater sub-band. And such a block does NOT make a bandplan. Again, CW is an authorized mode on all of 40M. Does that mean there should be no voice communications on 40M? Again, just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it should be done. I pointed this all out in previous posts. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Actually, part 97 DOES have what are, in effect, bandplans. Look in part 97.205-B, where it defines the repeater sub-bands: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. 146.52 Mhz falls right in the middle of the FCC designated repeater band and not in the frequency range which the FCC has reserved for simplex communications! Someone could land a repeater input or output on 146.52 Mhz and it would not be illegal. Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing a frequency does not make it illegal. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2265 - Release Date: 07/26/09 17:59:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
--- On Sun, 7/26/09, Steve petn...@sbcglobal.net wrote: From: Steve petn...@sbcglobal.net Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009, 10:35 PM This is a bit of another example where people want to extend their Constitutional Rights beyond what was intended. If we think any closed repeater system should be open to all because it uses a shared resource (the frequencies), then where do we stop? Does that mean that anyone gets to ride in my vehicle for free because I am driving on a public road, or Interstate Highway? A closed repeater is taking up space. If you want to go the highway route, look at it in another way. YOu are on two lane interstate and a friend comes along side of you . Both of you decide to stop in the middle of the road to talk. You are in your own car, but stopping the whole highway. HOw would you like it if when your repeater was not being used, someone else put a repeater on the air, maybe even using a digital mode that you can not decode by ear ? In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Suspose all repeater owners decide to go closed and not let any new hams on the system.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Yes, and there are plenty of open repeaters sitting there idle. Go use one of them. Suspose all repeater owners decide to go closed and not let any new hams on the system. I don't think I'll lay awake nights worring about it just yet. What are the odds that something like this will come close to happening? Chuck WB2EDV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar Battery Type Selection
Hey Tim, I was lucky and got 14 UPS batteries from a change out at work, all 260 AH! and all good, they just change them every year for safety. But they weigh almost 100 lbs! - Original Message - From: tahrens301 tahr...@swtexas.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:18:07 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Quantar Battery Type Selection Hi Eric, HA! You are correct. In the scheme of things, the 26AH gel cells are not Large! (Most of the ones that I've used are in the 2-5A hour). Hence my indication that they are large! (Wish I had some 260AH) Thanks for the info - I'll set it for the 'Non' selection. As these are small compared to a 'normal' sized battery, the main purpose is to let the repeater stay on line till we get up turn on the generator. Most of the time, the outages are only for a short while, so they ought to work ok. Thanks again!! Tim --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon wb6...@... wrote: Tim, A discussion on this topic was found on the Batlabs Batboard, and I have excerpted two relevant paragraphs from separate posts: From the Hardware screen, the RSS gives you four battery type choices: None, Lead Acid-Linear, Lead Acid Non-linear, and NICAD. Use the Lead Acid-Linear selection for flooded-cell lead acid batteries and the Lead Acid Non-linear setting for gel cells. There is no setting for AGMs, but I've been told by folks whose judgment I trust that, if your charger doesn't have a specific curve for AGMs, you can use the flooded cell curve with no significant impact on the batteries. This might be enough info for you to calculate runtime. Here's a table from power-sonic that might help. According to them, and in my experience, Lead_Acid_Non will float a gel cell properly - 2.26 volts per cell. Linear is for lead-antimony (flooded) cells - 2.21 volts per cell. Too low for lead-calcium (gel cell, AGM, etc). Too low float voltage makes the plates absorb water, and swell, and sulfate. So... It looks like the power supply does produce the correct voltages for the listed battery types. 3.5 amp current limit will take a long time to recharge a large battery - like a day and a half for 100 AH like the one in the link. But, really, how often will you take it to nothing? The Quantar RSS manual 6881085E35-AJ mentions nothing about determining the proper setting on the Battery Equalization screen. BTW, a 26 Ah gel cell is hardly a large battery, since that rating is about 1/3 the size of a typical car battery. Perchance, did you mean 260 Ah? 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tahrens301 Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 2:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Quantar Battery Type Selection What type of battery should I choose in the RSS Screen? Using a pair of large Gel Cells. 26AH each Lead Acid Linear or Lead Acid Non-Linear? thanks, Tim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
OK, let's see if you understand this explanation... The only place on 2M repeaters are not allowed is in the satellite and weak signal sub-bands. From your theory, FM simplex, packet, and any mode other than satellite, weak signal, and repeaters are the only modes that should be operated on 2M? If you call Part 97 a bandplan, that's what you're saying. Put another way, where is the band segment for FM simplex? Where is the band segment for Packet? Part 97 is not a bandplan - it only describes the sub-bands where certain modes are legal. That doesn't mean the entire legal sub-band is only for those modes. I would argue that the FCC never intended to make the 146-148 MHz segment entirely repeaters, and by allowing them in that segment meant the exclusion of any other mode. Again, just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to do something. Part 97 is exclusionary, not inclusionary. You notice the repeater sub-bands say that repeaters may be operated in all EXCEPT the satellite and weak signal sub-bands, and not that they MUST be operated there. I would be legal operating CW on the PSK frequency on HF. Does that mean that people should operate only CW there? CW is legal on the ECARS/MidCARS/WCARS frequencies. Should CW be operated there? Again, legal does not make something right. When I'm responding to an emergency call, it is legal to travel at 100+ MPH. Does that mean I should? No - there are other concerns IN ADDITION TO the legal aspects. You don't seem to understand that. Same with repeaters - there are other aspects to the bands in addition to what is legal on any particular frequency. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: The issue you point to of CW being allowed in the voice band is a bandwidth issue. That has nothing to do with repeater sub-bands. You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:57:07 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Again, I will point out that just because you *can* do something it does not follow that you must or you should. Their wording is obviously a block in which repeaters are legal. That does not mean repeaters are intended to cover the entire block. If you look carefully at Part 97, you will see that repeaters are legal everywhere except the satellite and other weak signal parts of the band. So, it's more of a matter that 146.520 is neither that it's included in the authorized repeater sub-band. And such a block does NOT make a bandplan. Again, CW is an authorized mode on all of 40M. Does that mean there should be no voice communications on 40M? Again, just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it should be done. I pointed this all out in previous posts. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Actually, part 97 DOES have what are, in effect, bandplans. Look in part 97.205-B, where it defines the repeater sub-bands: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. 146.52 Mhz falls right in the middle of the FCC designated repeater band and not in the frequency range which the FCC has reserved for simplex communications! Someone could land a repeater input or output on 146.52 Mhz and it would not be illegal. Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing a frequency does not make it illegal. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
And who made 2M the only repeater band? Just like HF - if all the frequencies are used, try another band or wait for something to open up. Also, many areas have SNP pairs where anyone can put a repeater on the pair. Oh, and what would happen if 'all' repeaters went closed? I would make mine open and have the most popular repeater in the area. Joe M. Ralph Mowery wrote: In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Suspose all repeater owners decide to go closed and not let any new hams on the system.
[Repeater-Builder] Need a UHF BpBR Duplexer on 462/467.600 pair
I have a Kenwood TK-760-1 Mobile, a KMC-9 Deskmic, and a SEC-1223 power supply to trade for one set on my pair.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series)
Again Eric Thanks for the wisdom and information. I will digest this over the next several days and when I can I am going to apply it. I have what I feel is a very good service monitor with tracking generator/spectrum analyzer. I have access to an Anaritsu site master. It has a return loss bridge built in (I think) and I will give the low pass cans another go. The thing that I am curious about is what determins what side of the pass the notch will go? What makes a can a low pass can and not a high pass can? Does the value of ths capacitor do this? You mentioned the fact that BpBr duplexers don't have DC ground potential. I do have polyphasers and grounding pretty well covered. The repeater is at an old ATT Long lines microwave site. Grounding is not a problem. What were you saying about using bandpass only duplexers? I didn't think they were sharp enough for 600khz split. How many cans would you need to accomplish this and what are the advantages! I recently aquired another set of sinclair duplexers. They have no model info on them. They are high band VHF and are in the 154-158 range now. They were connected to a 250watt micor repeater. They apear to be hybrid ring type but they are small like 1/2 gallon milk carton sized and the harness has exposed braid between the cans (cartons) and the T's. They are mounted on a 19 rack panel with a cover. The cover is missing. The rack panel has the Sinclar tag and logo with ERP and the atom on it... Very strange. Again, I thank you for the wisdom and advise. 73 de N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun Jul 26 11:20:33 2009 Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series) Norm, Thanks for the update on your quest. The loops have two adjustments, and they are not complementary. The degree of coupling, and the amount of insertion loss, is adjusted by loosening the three screws that secure the loop mounting plate, and turning the plate slightly to achieve the desired insertion loss- which is generally around 0.5 to 0.8 dB per can. The variable capacitor mounted in the loop plate is used to move the notch closer to, or away from, the bandpass peak. Are you following the Q202G tuning instructions shown on the RBTIP? Those instructions are here: www.repeater-builder.com/sinclair/ci-1069-Q-Series-Tuning.pdf Because the bandpass peak is so vague, the best way to tune it is to use a network analyzer or a spectrum analyzer with a return-loss bridge. When tuning for return loss, the image on the display is a very sharp notch which is easy to get right on the money. Then, the analyzer is switched to transmission loss to set the notch capacitor. Finally, the loop plate is rotated to achieve an insertion loss of between 0.5 and 0.8 dB. If the jumper cables between each pair of cans are the correct length, the insertion losses should add exactly. I normally go through this routine at least three times to get the tuning as good as I can. I looked at some Q202G loops from a 2m duplexer, and they are plain copper- not silver-plated. The standard VHF loop assembly has a 1/4 wide copper strap bent into a rectangle that measures about 1-1/8 by 3-1/8, so if your loops are much different in size, they may be unsuitable for 2m operation. The notch tuning capacitor is a Johanson 5602, which is rated 1 to 30 pF, and has a Q of greater than 800. I have to wonder if the added capacitors you found were high-Q silver micas or ordinary ceramic capacitors. If the latter, the cavity cannot be tuned properly. The Johanson capacitors are on page 4 of this brochure: www.johansonmfg.com/pdf/Air-Capacitor.pdf One thing to keep in mind about BpBr duplexers- and not just those made by Sinclair- is that the presence of the notch tuning capacitor means that there is no DC ground anywhere on the feedline between the antenna and the receiver. A high-voltage spike caused by a nearby lightning strike, or an electrical system fault, can sail right into the receiver front end. That's one good reason for having a true bandpass cavity- which has DC grounded loops- somewhere in the RF chain. I have heard a few reports of notch tuning capacitors that were destroyed by high-voltage arcing. This damage would not be visible. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of NORM KNAPP Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:58 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series) Ok, it is official. I have a set of sinclair Q202 duplexers that didn't come as a set. At least two of the cans have different serial numbers and different factory
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
But that is not always an option. We have some repeater owners/trustees who simply are not mentally stable. I've seen trustees shut repeaters down because of the following: 1. People were talking about guns. 2. People were talking all night. 3. Someone allowed his child to talk on the repeater. yea, those repeaters sit idle until someone starts using them, then the repeaters get shut down because someone is using them for legal activity! -- Original Message -- Received: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:12:07 AM PDT From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Yes, and there are plenty of open repeaters sitting there idle. Go use one of them.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
My views on this: #1 - If you want a closed repeater then you should get a private repeater pair coordinated in an appropriate private-communication pool. will happily assign you a private repeater pair for a reasonable price. Plain and simple. Amateur radio is not a replacement for a cell phone, nor should it be treated like one. If you legitimately NEED private communications this isn't even a significant expense. Make your 'radio club' worthwhile with a *real* private repeater (that your non-radio-geek wife can use, too!) Just because you hold an amateur license doesn't mean your communications/equipment/use are always in the interest of amateur radio and quite often are in the exact opposite interest of the overall community. This also includes situations where all the rest of the users of your closed repeater happen to be licensed amateurs, too. If nothing else, GMRS licenses are cheap (not ham cheap, but cheaper than a 'real' repeater pair) and get you UHF and plenty of power for most communications. #2 - digital does not mean 'closed system' - it means you gotta pay (for hardware) to play. Its also not the end of the 'home made repeater' - if anything its just the beginning... Just my 2 cents as a semi-interested party. JS Maire-Radios wrote: * yes I know what you mean but the good Doctor on the voice message need to have an open mind and not expect everyone to give it all away. If he wants an open repeater maybe he need to get one and pay for it. Let everyone use it any time and see how it goes. The days when you built a repeater from parts is almost over now with all the digital systems out there. * * * * John *
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, JOHN MACKEY wrote: You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. Why don't we discuss the fact that in virtually every area in the country, there are at least three repeaters in the linear translator part of the band? This makes it impossible to coordinate and implement a linear translator, which functions like a repeater but repeats *any* mode within the bandpass -- and does so using the minimum amount of power. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Good point on GMRS, Jacob. I have a GMRS license that I use with family on road trips, etc. I have considered putting up a GMRS repeater as well, but know there's not enough users to really warrant the work, so I stay with my 70cm amateur repeater. On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non- trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a closed repeater. Such as, is that an open repeater, or does it have a tone? We actually have a fair amount of ambiguity about what open and closed really mean, CSQ and PL/DPL have been conflated with open and closed to create a reality where a number believe if it has a tone you're not allowed to talk on it, others are confused, and of course, many do know what's going on. On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Jacob Suter wrote: My views on this: #1 - If you want a closed repeater then you should get a private repeater pair coordinated in an appropriate private-communication pool. will happily assign you a private repeater pair for a reasonable price. Plain and simple. Amateur radio is not a replacement for a cell phone, nor should it be treated like one. If you legitimately NEED private communications this isn't even a significant expense. Make your 'radio club' worthwhile with a *real* private repeater (that your non-radio-geek wife can use, too!) Just because you hold an amateur license doesn't mean your communications/equipment/use are always in the interest of amateur radio and quite often are in the exact opposite interest of the overall community. This also includes situations where all the rest of the users of your closed repeater happen to be licensed amateurs, too. If nothing else, GMRS licenses are cheap (not ham cheap, but cheaper than a 'real' repeater pair) and get you UHF and plenty of power for most communications. #2 - digital does not mean 'closed system' - it means you gotta pay (for hardware) to play. Its also not the end of the 'home made repeater' - if anything its just the beginning... Just my 2 cents as a semi-interested party. JS Maire-Radios wrote: * yes I know what you mean but the good Doctor on the voice message need to have an open mind and not expect everyone to give it all away. If he wants an open repeater maybe he need to get one and pay for it. Let everyone use it any time and see how it goes. The days when you built a repeater from parts is almost over now with all the digital systems out there. * * * * John * -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 04:10 PM 7/27/2009, you wrote: On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non- trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a closed repeater. Cort, When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them? I teach the Tech class in my area - and the facts about tones are PART of the course (the way I teach it, anyway). I am often stunned by what LICENSED HAMS do NOT know about this hobby. Things they should have learned when getting their TECH license. Larry Wagoner - N5WLW VP - PRCARC PIC - MS SECT ARRL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Larry Wagoner wrote: On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non- trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a closed repeater. Cort, When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them? I teach the Tech class in my area - and the facts about tones are PART of the course (the way I teach it, anyway). I am often stunned by what LICENSED HAMS do NOT know about this hobby. Things they should have learned when getting their TECH license. Seconded on both points. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I've been watching this post for a number of days now. Seems that there are a lot of hams who have at lot of opinions to share. I'm going to throw out a question to all: Has anyone checked with in individual state coordinating associations about this matter when applying for or renewing their coordination? I live in Southeastern Wisconsin, just north and west of Milwaukee. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember a PL frequency band plan by region in the state that is recommended by the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters, who is the coordination body for the state. As there are many hams who are replying to this thread in the CONUS, has anyone checked to see if their individual coordination body has either recommended or mandated PL/DPL (or other regulated means) to keep a system that has been coordinated closed (or open)? Any guidelines that you wish to share with the group? I'd be interested in hearing the results. 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Larry Wagoner larrywago...@bellsouth.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters At 04:10 PM 7/27/2009, you wrote: On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non- trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a closed repeater. Cort, When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them? I teach the Tech class in my area - and the facts about tones are PART of the course (the way I teach it, anyway). I am often stunned by what LICENSED HAMS do NOT know about this hobby. Things they should have learned when getting their TECH license. Larry Wagoner - N5WLW VP - PRCARC PIC - MS SECT ARRL Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
CTCSS is mandatory here. Western New York Southern Ontario Repeater Counsel is the coordinating body for my area. They have recommended tones, but permit alternative tone use. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Don Kupferschmidt d...@httpd.org To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I've been watching this post for a number of days now. Seems that there are a lot of hams who have at lot of opinions to share. I'm going to throw out a question to all: Has anyone checked with in individual state coordinating associations about this matter when applying for or renewing their coordination? I live in Southeastern Wisconsin, just north and west of Milwaukee. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember a PL frequency band plan by region in the state that is recommended by the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters, who is the coordination body for the state. As there are many hams who are replying to this thread in the CONUS, has anyone checked to see if their individual coordination body has either recommended or mandated PL/DPL (or other regulated means) to keep a system that has been coordinated closed (or open)? Any guidelines that you wish to share with the group? I'd be interested in hearing the results. 73, Don, KD9PT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I'll grab a reply to Don and Larry together: We do have PL coordination in Kansas. There are recommended frequencies for different regions to make it a bit easier, but there's still a lot of stuff out there where I think the hams used whatever reeds their surplus gear came with, etc. OR are left over from before the coordination. I'm actually NOT using the coordinated tone. My county is on the edge, and every other machine in the county is actually using the wrong tone. I went with local preference instead of the coordinated one. I'm not sure when the licensing took place of a lot of these folks, but they seem to start in the middle of the KC0 calls. On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:52 PM, Don Kupferschmidt wrote: I've been watching this post for a number of days now. Seems that there are a lot of hams who have at lot of opinions to share. I'm going to throw out a question to all: Has anyone checked with in individual state coordinating associations about this matter when applying for or renewing their coordination? I live in Southeastern Wisconsin, just north and west of Milwaukee. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember a PL frequency band plan by region in the state that is recommended by the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters, who is the coordination body for the state. As there are many hams who are replying to this thread in the CONUS, has anyone checked to see if their individual coordination body has either recommended or mandated PL/DPL (or other regulated means) to keep a system that has been coordinated closed (or open)? Any guidelines that you wish to share with the group? I'd be interested in hearing the results. 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Larry Wagoner larrywago...@bellsouth.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters At 04:10 PM 7/27/2009, you wrote: On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non- trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a closed repeater. Cort, When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them? I teach the Tech class in my area - and the facts about tones are PART of the course (the way I teach it, anyway). I am often stunned by what LICENSED HAMS do NOT know about this hobby. Things they should have learned when getting their TECH license. Larry Wagoner - N5WLW VP - PRCARC PIC - MS SECT ARRL Yahoo! Groups Links -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 7/27/2009 14:08, you wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, JOHN MACKEY wrote: You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. Why don't we discuss the fact that in virtually every area in the country, there are at least three repeaters in the linear translator part of the band? In SoCal there is no spectrum for linear translators in the VHF/UHF bandplans. A long time (30 years?) ago there were 2 pairs available for them, but were removed due to lack of any interest in the mode. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
--- On Mon, 7/27/09, Don Kupferschmidt d...@httpd.org wrote: From: Don Kupferschmidt d...@httpd.org Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 8:52 PM I've been watching this post for a number of days now. Seems that there are a lot of hams who have at lot of opinions to share. I'm going to throw out a question to all: Has anyone checked with in individual state coordinating associations about this matter when applying for or renewing their coordination? I live in Southeastern Wisconsin, just north and west of Milwaukee. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember a PL frequency band plan by region in the state that is recommended by the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters, who is the coordination body for the state. As there are many hams who are replying to this thread in the CONUS, has anyone checked to see if their individual coordination body has either recommended or mandated PL/DPL (or other regulated means) to keep a system that has been coordinated closed (or open)? Any guidelines that you wish to share with the group? I'd be interested in hearing the results. 73, Don, KD9PT You can check out what the SERA has to say for many of the southern states here: http://www.sera.org/ They recommend using a subaudio tone and discourage closed repeaters. Our repeater has always had the policy for over 35 years that you should suppport one repeater, but have basic access to all. It was not a requirement that you had to support any repeater. A few years ago they tried to make it a requirement that repeaters had to have a subaudio tone. Many repeater owners sent out a bunch of email and got that requirement reversed. While the repeater I help keep up had a subaudio tone on it because at one time there was a paging system that was keying up lots of repeaters in the state, I sent email not to make the tone a requirement.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Yes, lots of comments, lots of opinions this week. Here's a new one. If someone wants their own private repeater for their own group, put it on a private BAND. How about coordinating a pair on the 220 band or 1.2 ghz. Privacy, lots of available pairs, nothing to fight over, and you won't have to deal with the rif raf if that is your worry. The characteristics of 220 are about the same as 2 mtrs anyway, less trouble line of sight probably than UHF. -M From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I'll grab a reply to Don and Larry together: We do have PL coordination in Kansas. There are recommended frequencies for different regions to make it a bit easier, but there's still a lot of stuff out there where I think the hams used whatever reeds their surplus gear came with, etc. OR are left over from before the coordination. I'm actually NOT using the coordinated tone. My county is on the edge, and every other machine in the county is actually using the wrong tone. I went with local preference instead of the coordinated one. I'm not sure when the licensing took place of a lot of these folks, but they seem to start in the middle of the KC0 calls. On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:52 PM, Don Kupferschmidt wrote: I've been watching this post for a number of days now. Seems that there are a lot of hams who have at lot of opinions to share. I'm going to throw out a question to all: Has anyone checked with in individual state coordinating associations about this matter when applying for or renewing their coordination? I live in Southeastern Wisconsin, just north and west of Milwaukee. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember a PL frequency band plan by region in the state that is recommended by the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters, who is the coordination body for the state. As there are many hams who are replying to this thread in the CONUS, has anyone checked to see if their individual coordination body has either recommended or mandated PL/DPL (or other regulated means) to keep a system that has been coordinated closed (or open)? Any guidelines that you wish to share with the group? I'd be interested in hearing the results. 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Larry Wagoner mailto:larrywagoner%40bellsouth.net larrywago...@bellsouth.net To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters At 04:10 PM 7/27/2009, you wrote: On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non- trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a closed repeater. Cort, When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them? I teach the Tech class in my area - and the facts about tones are PART of the course (the way I teach it, anyway). I am often stunned by what LICENSED HAMS do NOT know about this hobby. Things they should have learned when getting their TECH license. Larry Wagoner - N5WLW VP - PRCARC PIC - MS SECT ARRL Yahoo! Groups Links -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4280 (20090726) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com image001.jpgimage002.jpg
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
WPA has standard CTCSS tones (and CDCSS codes), but use (decode) is not mandated except in specific cases, and encode is highly recommended. On SNP pairs, the CTCSS/CDCSS Tones/Codes are coordinated only to the extent to prevent reuse in a given area. Regardless, CTCSS/CDCSS use does not make a repeater closed. A closed repeater is one on which users are not authorized to use unless given permission by the owner/group/another member/whatever. It could even be CSQ receive and be closed. An open repeater is one which anyone can use UNLESS they have been denied authorization. BTW, WPA had a linear translator on the air, but the owner removed it after interference from users of FM repeaters in other states whose bandplan didn't include LTs. As there was no interest in the mode, WPA followed suit and coordinated FM repeaters in that segment since it was clear it wasn't usable for LTs. Joe M. Don Kupferschmidt wrote: As there are many hams who are replying to this thread in the CONUS, has anyone checked to see if their individual coordination body has either recommended or mandated PL/DPL (or other regulated means) to keep a system that has been coordinated closed (or open)? Any guidelines that you wish to share with the group?
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series)
Norm, A Polyphaser does not put a DC ground on the center conductor of the feedline- nor does any other inline arrestor of any brand, except a quarter-wave shorted stub. But that is impractical at 2m. My point was simply that a single bandpass cavity on either the TX or the RX side, between the duplexer and the antenna tee, will put a DC ground on the feedline at the transmitter end. Most antennas are DC grounded, but a lot can happen to that feedline between the antenna and the duplexer. One 2m repeater I have on a hilltop suffered a lot from wind-caused static discharges (aka triboelectric charging) until I put a single bandpass cavity on the receive side. My intent was to prevent desense from the adjacent FM broadcast station, but the static elimination was a bonus. Regarding the determination of high pass versus low pass, this is usually determined by the design of the duplexer. Some designs are symmetrical, while others are asymmetrical. In most cases, the loop coupling will be different between the high side and the low side, so it is convenient to simply follow the manufacturer's settings, and their tuning instructions. In the case of the Sinclair Q202-G, the loop assemblies are all identical, and the notch tuning capacitors are the same as well, regardless of which pass side they're on. You're correct about bandpass duplexers being unsuitable for the 600 kHz split at 2m. However, I have a 8 bandpass duplexer on a commercial repeater that is using a 5.26 MHz split on VHF, and it works perfectly. I specified it because of the antenna being the high point on the tower, and I wanted DC ground at the duplexer for repeater protection. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of NORM KNAPP Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:20 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series) Again Eric Thanks for the wisdom and information. I will digest this over the next several days and when I can I am going to apply it. I have what I feel is a very good service monitor with tracking generator/spectrum analyzer. I have access to an Anritsu site master. It has a return loss bridge built in (I think) and I will give the low pass cans another go. The thing that I am curious about is what determins what side of the pass the notch will go? What makes a can a low pass can and not a high pass can? Does the value of ths capacitor do this? You mentioned the fact that BpBr duplexers don't have DC ground potential. I do have polyphasers and grounding pretty well covered. The repeater is at an old ATT Long lines microwave site. Grounding is not a problem. What were you saying about using bandpass only duplexers? I didn't think they were sharp enough for 600khz split. How many cans would you need to accomplish this and what are the advantages! I recently aquired another set of sinclair duplexers. They have no model info on them. They are high band VHF and are in the 154-158 range now. They were connected to a 250watt micor repeater. They apear to be hybrid ring type but they are small like 1/2 gallon milk carton sized and the harness has exposed braid between the cans (cartons) and the T's. They are mounted on a 19 rack panel with a cover. The cover is missing. The rack panel has the Sinclar tag and logo with ERP and the atom on it... Very strange. Again, I thank you for the wisdom and advice. 73 de N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun Jul 26 11:20:33 2009 Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series) Norm, Thanks for the update on your quest. The loops have two adjustments, and they are not complementary. The degree of coupling, and the amount of insertion loss, is adjusted by loosening the three screws that secure the loop mounting plate, and turning the plate slightly to achieve the desired insertion loss- which is generally around 0.5 to 0.8 dB per can. The variable capacitor mounted in the loop plate is used to move the notch closer to, or away from, the bandpass peak. Are you following the Q202G tuning instructions shown on the RBTIP? Those instructions are here: www.repeater-builder.com/sinclair/ci-1069-Q-Series-Tuning.pdf Because the bandpass peak is so vague, the best way to tune it is to use a network analyzer or a spectrum analyzer with a return-loss bridge. When tuning for return loss, the image on the display is a very sharp notch which is easy to get right on the money. Then, the analyzer is switched to transmission loss to set the notch capacitor.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Here is the way we do it in Arkansas. There are six districts and each use different CTCSS tones. As far as the discussion of open and closed based on tone, I hear from many older hams that toned repeaters are closed and non-toned repeaters are open (must have been that way before my time no doubt). Our local club repeater is open, some access to it requires tone, and some doesn't. None of it is closed, but we do have the right and exercise the right to limit access to those who follow the policies set forth by the club. Always with the attitude to help and encourage all, with much patience and understanding. If some nutcase just refuses too act right, then it becomes closed to him. I am not trying to address the closed repeater question at all, simply that OPEN repeaters may or may not be toned, and even an open repeater may restrict certain users and still not have a tone on their repeater. http://www.arkansasrepeatercouncil.org/page25.html John Godfrey KE5NZY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Kupferschmidt Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 7:52 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I've been watching this post for a number of days now. Seems that there are a lot of hams who have at lot of opinions to share. I'm going to throw out a question to all: Has anyone checked with in individual state coordinating associations about this matter when applying for or renewing their coordination? I live in Southeastern Wisconsin, just north and west of Milwaukee. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember a PL frequency band plan by region in the state that is recommended by the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters, who is the coordination body for the state. As there are many hams who are replying to this thread in the CONUS, has anyone checked to see if their individual coordination body has either recommended or mandated PL/DPL (or other regulated means) to keep a system that has been coordinated closed (or open)? Any guidelines that you wish to share with the group? I'd be interested in hearing the results. 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Larry Wagoner larrywagoner@ mailto:larrywagoner%40bellsouth.net bellsouth.net To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters At 04:10 PM 7/27/2009, you wrote: On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non- trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a closed repeater. Cort, When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them? I teach the Tech class in my area - and the facts about tones are PART of the course (the way I teach it, anyway). I am often stunned by what LICENSED HAMS do NOT know about this hobby. Things they should have learned when getting their TECH license. Larry Wagoner - N5WLW VP - PRCARC PIC - MS SECT ARRL Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series)
Eric, Please read about this Lightning arrestor that drains static and please let me know your thoughts as I use them here http://www.iceradioproducts.com/impulse1.html#1 http://www.iceradioproducts.com/33.htm Thanks Mike KC8FWD
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series)
Eric, Why is a quarter-wave shorted stub impractical at 2m? I have been told that a quarter-wave shorted stub would serve two purposes: a) provide a dc path to ground for static caused by precip or wind, and also b) substantially reduce the strength of a transmitter's second harmonic. 73 and aloha, Eric KH6CQ --- On Mon, 7/27/09, Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net wrote: From: Eric Lemmon wb6...@verizon.net Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series) To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 4:51 PM Norm, A Polyphaser does not put a DC ground on the center conductor of the feedline- nor does any other inline arrestor of any brand, except a quarter-wave shorted stub. But that is impractical at 2m. My point was simply that a single bandpass cavity on either the TX or the RX side, between the duplexer and the antenna tee, will put a DC ground on the feedline at the transmitter end. Most antennas are DC grounded, but a lot can happen to that feedline between the antenna and the duplexer. One 2m repeater I have on a hilltop suffered a lot from wind-caused static discharges (aka triboelectric charging) until I put a single bandpass cavity on the receive side. My intent was to prevent desense from the adjacent FM broadcast station, but the static elimination was a bonus. Regarding the determination of high pass versus low pass, this is usually determined by the design of the duplexer. Some designs are symmetrical, while others are asymmetrical. In most cases, the loop coupling will be different between the high side and the low side, so it is convenient to simply follow the manufacturer' s settings, and their tuning instructions. In the case of the Sinclair Q202-G, the loop assemblies are all identical, and the notch tuning capacitors are the same as well, regardless of which pass side they're on. You're correct about bandpass duplexers being unsuitable for the 600 kHz split at 2m. However, I have a 8 bandpass duplexer on a commercial repeater that is using a 5.26 MHz split on VHF, and it works perfectly. I specified it because of the antenna being the high point on the tower, and I wanted DC ground at the duplexer for repeater protection. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of NORM KNAPP Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:20 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series) Again Eric Thanks for the wisdom and information. I will digest this over the next several days and when I can I am going to apply it. I have what I feel is a very good service monitor with tracking generator/spectrum analyzer. I have access to an Anritsu site master. It has a return loss bridge built in (I think) and I will give the low pass cans another go. The thing that I am curious about is what determins what side of the pass the notch will go? What makes a can a low pass can and not a high pass can? Does the value of ths capacitor do this? You mentioned the fact that BpBr duplexers don't have DC ground potential. I do have polyphasers and grounding pretty well covered. The repeater is at an old ATT Long lines microwave site. Grounding is not a problem. What were you saying about using bandpass only duplexers? I didn't think they were sharp enough for 600khz split. How many cans would you need to accomplish this and what are the advantages! I recently aquired another set of sinclair duplexers. They have no model info on them. They are high band VHF and are in the 154-158 range now. They were connected to a 250watt micor repeater. They apear to be hybrid ring type but they are small like 1/2 gallon milk carton sized and the harness has exposed braid between the cans (cartons) and the T's. They are mounted on a 19 rack panel with a cover. The cover is missing. The rack panel has the Sinclar tag and logo with ERP and the atom on it... Very strange. Again, I thank you for the wisdom and advice. 73 de N5NPO Norm - Original Message - From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater- Builder%40yahoog roups.com Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater- Builder%40yahoog roups.com To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater- Builder%40yahoog roups.com Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater- Builder%40yahoog roups.com Sent: Sun Jul 26 11:20:33 2009 Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Q202 duplexers (frankenstein series) Norm, Thanks for the update on your quest. The loops have two adjustments, and they are not complementary. The degree of coupling, and the amount of insertion loss, is adjusted by loosening the three screws that secure the loop mounting plate, and turning the plate slightly to achieve the
