RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: IFR 1600S

[Eric Vincent]

THANK YOU from VE2VXT /VE7 in British Columbia.

 

73’ Eric

 

  _  

De : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] De la part de Mike Morris WA6ILQ
Envoyé : 30 août 2009 23:19
À : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Objet : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: IFR 1600S

 

  

The IFR1600S operators manual is up at www.repeater-builder.com
along with a couple of relevant applications notes from Agilent that
a ham from NASA/JPL sent me.
Click on Test Equipment and then on Aeroflex / IFR.

As long as I am discussing IFR, it would really help others if people
would look around and see what they have that others might need.
Or what they can give. Gary had no problems with donating
something that he had that others needed (the 1600 manual).

Have you done any mods or repairs to your IFR (or any other piece
of gear for that matter) that someone might be interested in?
Can you shoot a photo and describe it in an email? That's how
repeater-builder articles get started.

As far as photos, go, we're missing front and rear exterior photos
of an IFR1000, 1100, 1200, 1600, and a COM120B. We have
interior photos of an IFR500 courtesy of a gentleman in Australia,
and we'd love to have interior photos of the rest of them.
If you have the skin off your service monitor for any reason, how hard
is it to shoot a half-dozen photos and email them to us? We've got
a 100gb allocation on the web server and we aren't even using 10% of it.

Mike WA6ILQ

At 09:11 PM 08/30/09, you wrote:
>I sent it to Mike WA6ILQ for posting on the Repeater Builder Site, It's a
>really big file, you can get it there when he gets it posted. I
>couldn't find it again on the internet but had a copy on my system.
>Gary
>
>shibukiau wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the comments Gary -- much appreciated!!
> >
> > Could you send me the link for the operators manual?? I don't have any
> > info on the unit so I'm sort of flying blind trying to run this unit!!
> >
> > Thanks again for your help!!
> >
> > Lloyd
> > VE3ERQ
> >
> > --- In Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com
> > , Gary Hoff 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a 1600S, have had it now for about 3 years. No trouble at all.
I
> > > Love it.. The operators manual is available on the net in a PDF,
> > however I
> > > got mine from the company I purchased the Monitor from in printed
form.
> > > It's
> > > several hundred pages.
> > > Gary - K7NEY
> > >
> > > shibukiau wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have a chance to acquire an IFR 1600S and would like some users
> > > > reports on their experience relative to the instruments performance
> > > > and reliability to help me make my decision!
> > > >
> > > > Are manuals available somewhere for these units other than from
IFR??
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help!!
> > > >
> > > > Lloyd
> > > > VE3ERQ
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: IFR 1600S

[Mike Morris WA6ILQ]

The IFR1600S operators manual is up at www.repeater-builder.com
along with a couple of relevant applications notes from Agilent that
a ham from NASA/JPL sent me.
Click on Test Equipment and then on Aeroflex / IFR.

As long as I am discussing IFR, it would really help others if people
would look around and see what they have that others might need.
Or what they can give.  Gary had no problems with donating
something that he had that others needed (the 1600 manual).

Have you done any mods or repairs to your IFR (or any other piece
of gear for that matter) that someone might be interested in?
Can you shoot a photo and describe it in an email?  That's how
repeater-builder articles get started.

As far as photos, go, we're missing front and rear exterior photos
of an IFR1000, 1100, 1200, 1600, and a COM120B.  We have
interior photos of an IFR500 courtesy of a gentleman in Australia,
and we'd love to have interior photos of the rest of them.
If you have the skin off your service monitor for any reason, how hard
is it to shoot a half-dozen photos and email them to us?  We've got
a 100gb allocation on the web server and we aren't even using 10% of it.

Mike WA6ILQ

At 09:11 PM 08/30/09, you wrote:
>I sent it to Mike WA6ILQ for posting on the Repeater Builder Site,  It's a
>really big file,  you can get it there when he gets it posted.  I
>couldn't find it again on the internet but had a copy on my system.
>Gary
>
>shibukiau wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the comments Gary -- much appreciated!!
> >
> > Could you send me the link for the operators manual?? I don't have any
> > info on the unit so I'm sort of flying blind trying to run this unit!!
> >
> > Thanks again for your help!!
> >
> > Lloyd
> > VE3ERQ
> >
> > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > , Gary Hoff 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a 1600S, have had it now for about 3 years. No trouble at all. I
> > > Love it.. The operators manual is available on the net in a PDF,
> > however I
> > > got mine from the company I purchased the Monitor from in printed form.
> > > It's
> > > several hundred pages.
> > > Gary - K7NEY
> > >
> > > shibukiau wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have a chance to acquire an IFR 1600S and would like some users
> > > > reports on their experience relative to the instruments performance
> > > > and reliability to help me make my decision!
> > > >
> > > > Are manuals available somewhere for these units other than from IFR??
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help!!
> > > >
> > > > Lloyd
> > > > VE3ERQ
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: IFR 1600S

[Eric Vincent]

Hello group,

 

I will try to have this document and I will save it on my system.

 

Thank you Gary for your help !

 

Eric VE2VXT /VE7

 

  _  

De : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] De la part de Gary Hoff
Envoyé : 30 août 2009 21:12
À : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Objet : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: IFR 1600S

 

  

I sent it to Mike WA6ILQ for posting on the Repeater Builder Site, It's a
really big file, youcan get it there when he gets it posted. I 
couldn't find it
again on the internet but had a copy on my system.
Gary

shibukiau wrote:
> 
>
> Thanks for the comments Gary -- much appreciated!!
>
> Could you send me the link for the operators manual?? I don't have any 
> info on the unit so I'm sort of flying blind trying to run this unit!!
>
> Thanks again for your help!!
>
> Lloyd
> VE3ERQ
>
> --- In Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com 
> , Gary Hoff  
> wrote:
> >
> > I have a 1600S, have had it now for about 3 years. No trouble at all. I
> > Love it.. The operators manual is available on the net in a PDF, 
> however I
> > got mine from the company I purchased the Monitor from in printed form.
> > It's
> > several hundred pages.
> > Gary - K7NEY
> >
> > shibukiau wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a chance to acquire an IFR 1600S and would like some users
> > > reports on their experience relative to the instruments performance
> > > and reliability to help me make my decision!
> > >
> > > Are manuals available somewhere for these units other than from IFR??
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help!!
> > >
> > > Lloyd
> > > VE3ERQ
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] IFR 1600S

[Eric Vincent]

Hello Lloyd,

 

I have this monitor, I bought it recently and I’m trying to explore the
equipment but whitout the user manual it semm’s to be a little bit dificult…

I’ve try to find more informations on the web and nothing also I call
Aeroflex and it was tough because this monitor is the Millitary upgrade of
the COM-120.  I need to fill some declarations and explain to Aeroflex why I
really need that…

 

So I’ve wait 4 month with no reply from Aeroflex, I will restart my research
soon.

 

Thank you.

Eric VE2VXT /VE7

 

  _  

De : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] De la part de shibukiau
Envoyé : 30 août 2009 09:07
À : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Objet : [Repeater-Builder] IFR 1600S

 

  

I have a chance to acquire an IFR 1600S and would like some users reports on
their experience relative to the instruments performance and reliability to
help me make my decision!

Are manuals available somewhere for these units other than from IFR??

Thanks for your help!!

Lloyd
VE3ERQ 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Nate Duehr]

On Aug 30, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:

>
> On Aug 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote:
>
> > IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located  
> amateur
> > systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering  
> deficiency
> > somewhere.
>
> Totally agreed, which is exactly why COORDINATING bodies really should
> care, either way... much less recommend or worse, mandate specific
> tones.

Typo. That was supposed to say "shouldn't".

--
Nate Duehr
n...@natetech.com

facebook.com/denverpilot
twitter.com/denverpilot

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: IFR 1600S

[Gary Hoff]

I sent it to Mike WA6ILQ for posting on the Repeater Builder Site,  It's a
really big file,  youcan get it there when he gets it posted.  I 
couldn't find it
again on the internet but had a copy on my system.
Gary

shibukiau wrote:
>  
>
> Thanks for the comments Gary -- much appreciated!!
>
> Could you send me the link for the operators manual?? I don't have any 
> info on the unit so I'm sort of flying blind trying to run this unit!!
>
> Thanks again for your help!!
>
> Lloyd
> VE3ERQ
>
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> , Gary Hoff  
> wrote:
> >
> > I have a 1600S, have had it now for about 3 years. No trouble at all. I
> > Love it.. The operators manual is available on the net in a PDF, 
> however I
> > got mine from the company I purchased the Monitor from in printed form.
> > It's
> > several hundred pages.
> > Gary - K7NEY
> >
> > shibukiau wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a chance to acquire an IFR 1600S and would like some users
> > > reports on their experience relative to the instruments performance
> > > and reliability to help me make my decision!
> > >
> > > Are manuals available somewhere for these units other than from IFR??
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help!!
> > >
> > > Lloyd
> > > VE3ERQ
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Sources of Maxtrac's

[John Sehring]

I haven't had much luck locating low band, low split Maxtrac's for use on 10m.

These radios' model numbers don't tell what split it is; you have to crack open 
the radio, remove a shield & read a number on a board.  So, the ebay crowd 
won't/can't do this; if the seller doesn't know what freq they were on, well 
then it's a crap shoot.

Any suggestions?  Thanx.

--John 


  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Desktrac Repeater - programming questions

[motarolla_doctor]

There is NO controller in the DeskTrac repeater. There is a interface between 
the receiver audio and the transmitter audio input, and a simple dropout timer 
in the RUS to RPPTT. None of these are in the programming/RSS.

Look for the RPTR DISABLE led on the front panel, this breaks the PTT line 
going to the TX.

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of skipp025
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 3:07 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Desktrac Repeater - programming
> questions
> 
>   
> 
> A friend brought a Motorola Desktrac Repeater over 
> with a question or two. 
> 
> It seems like he can program the receiver and 
> transmitter with frequencies and they operate as 
> normal. 
> 
> However, the unit will not duplex (act as a repeater) 
> repeat with the internal controller. Can one of you 
> provide the method to enable/disable the internal 
> controller for straight forward repeater operation? 
> 
> He wants to use this unit as a regular 462.575/467.575 
> type repeater but the unit won't repeat. The transmitter 
> keys with the front mic and lots of rf out. 
> 
> Any help? thank you in advance for your replies. 
> 
> cheers, 
> skipp
>

[Repeater-Builder] UHF MSR2000 Base Repeater to Micor Power Amp

[d_kerouac]

My club has a like new UHF MSR2000 repeater that works very well.  We have 
three 100% duty cycle "Micor" power amps.
Is there an easy way to make these two systems work together.
I think the only "gotcha" is the power control which seems to be integral to 
the MSR2000 power amp and outboard of the Micor power amp.
I don't recall what the Micor wants to see on the power control line.
I appreciate any helpful suggestions.
73, Don K9NR

[Repeater-Builder] FS: RLC-3, RLC-2, DVR-1

[kk2ed]

For Sale:

Link Comm RLC-3 controller
Includes 7 radio cards total – one newer single DB9 style card, and 6 older 
dual (separate 
radio/serial) DB9 style cards. Also includes two analog/IO cards. All cards 
have latest firmware eproms, and the main board has the latest v2.15 firmware. 
$1200 plus shipping.

Link Comm DVR-1
Max memory installed, latest version firmware (V1.52?) installed. In factory 
rack mount case
$200 plus shipping.

Link Comm RLC-2A
Latest version firmware installed (V4.30).  Right now it has the Icom version 
V4.30 installed, but I can reprogram the eprom to either Kenwood or Yaesu 
remote base upon request. In factory rack mount case (non-display version). 
$500 plus shipping.


Eric
KE2D
609-713-3742

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Nate Duehr]

On Aug 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote:

> IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur
> systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency
> somewhere.

Totally agreed, which is exactly why COORDINATING bodies really should  
care, either way... much less recommend or worse, mandate specific  
tones.

--
Nate Duehr
n...@natetech.com

facebook.com/denverpilot
twitter.com/denverpilot

[Repeater-Builder] Re: information requested re broadband internet canopy equipment interference

[larynl2]

One of our 2M receive sites is shared with Canopy operating on 900.  Our 
physical configuration is on top of a grain elevator.  Our 2m antenna was 
mounted on a 30ft. tower which put our antenna about 20ft. horizontally at 
about the same height as the Canopy panels. 

We had moderately severe interference which sounded more like digital  
than something caused by the 900 mc. transmitters themselves.  But couldn't 
tell for sure.  

We solved it by moving our antenna horizontally to 80 ft. away from Canopy.  No 
interference at all now.  

Laryn K8TVZ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[WA3GIN]

RIght they are just MARS frequencies...I get confused because here MARS holds 
HAMCRAM classes on weekends and then issues MARS CALL SIGNS.

  - Original Message - 
  From: David Murman 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:05 PM
  Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?



  There are NO MARS frequencies for HAMS.







  David



  -Original Message-
  From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:44 PM
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?





  The RACES freqs. have been closed down for some time now.  Just no need for 
them.  It wouldn't surprise me if MARS freqs. for hams also disappears. 



- Original Message - 

From: Chuck Kelsey 

To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:21 PM

Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?



  

There used to be RACES frequencies, but I think that provision went away 
years ago. Not sure.

Chuck
WB2EDV




.




  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: IFR 1600S

[shibukiau]

Thanks for the comments Gary -- much appreciated!!

Could you send me the link for the operators manual?? I don't have any info on 
the unit so I'm sort of flying blind trying to run this unit!!

Thanks again for your help!!

Lloyd
VE3ERQ


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Gary Hoff  wrote:
>
> I have a 1600S, have had it now for about 3 years.  No trouble at all.  I
> Love it..  The operators manual is available on the net in a PDF, however I
> got mine from the company I purchased the Monitor from in printed form.  
> It's
> several hundred pages.
> Gary - K7NEY
> 
> shibukiau wrote:
> >  
> >
> > I have a chance to acquire an IFR 1600S and would like some users 
> > reports on their experience relative to the instruments performance 
> > and reliability to help me make my decision!
> >
> > Are manuals available somewhere for these units other than from IFR??
> >
> > Thanks for your help!!
> >
> > Lloyd
> > VE3ERQ
> >
> >
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[WA3GIN]

4 miles

  - Original Message - 
  From: MCH 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters


What kind of spacing are we talking, out of curiosity?

  Joe M.

  WA3GIN wrote:
  > 
  > 
  > Couldn't agree more with you Joe. In all of the WDC area we are the 
  > only two repeaters that have such close spacing..we're special, haha. 
  > We've asked other repeater owners, those low power low antenna, small 
  > coverage operators who wouldn't be bothered by the close spacing to 
  > trade but seems folks are more interested in hording their repeater 
  > freqs. or should I say personal intercom systems or just too lazy to 
  > want to go through the changes.
  > 
  > 73,
  > dave
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > - Original Message -
  > *From:* MCH 
  > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
  > 
  > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:50 PM
  > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > As long as you know that the problem still exists...
  > 
  > As for the perfect world, if you accept imperfection, it never will be.
  > 
  > I take it the root of the problem is that these two repeaters were
  > coordinated too close together?
  > 
  > Joe M.
  > 
  > WA3GIN wrote:
  > >
  > >
  > > ...
  > 
  > .
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 


  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

What kind of spacing are we talking, out of curiosity?

Joe M.

WA3GIN wrote:
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more with you Joe.  In all of the WDC area we are the 
> only two repeaters that have such close spacing..we're special, haha.  
> We've asked other repeater owners, those low power low antenna, small 
> coverage operators who wouldn't be bothered by the close spacing to 
> trade but seems folks are more interested in hording their repeater 
> freqs. or should I say personal intercom systems or just too lazy to 
> want to go through the changes.
>  
> 73,
> dave
>  
>  
> 
> - Original Message -
> *From:* MCH 
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:50 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
> 
>  
> 
> As long as you know that the problem still exists...
> 
> As for the perfect world, if you accept imperfection, it never will be.
> 
> I take it the root of the problem is that these two repeaters were
> coordinated too close together?
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> WA3GIN wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: information requested re broadband internet canopy equipment interference

[ve1ii]

5 gigs
When testing, when none of the six panels were powered there was no noise.  
When only one panel was turned on the noise was not very strong but as each of 
the others were turned on the noise increased.
One of the panels seemed to cause more than the others.

Bruce, ve1ii


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Seybold"  wrote:
>
> Is the Canopy system operating in 900 MHz or 2.5 or 5 Gigs? It makes a
> difference when chasing interference and Motorola has deployed Canopy on
> all of the above unlicensed frequencies as well as some others.
> 
>  
> 
> W6AMS
> 
>  
> 
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ve1ii
> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:28 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] information requested re broadband internet
> canopy equipment interference
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to hear of any details regarding interference caused to VHF
> repeaters sharing the same site with broadband internet Canopy
> equipment.
> I have a repeater which is experiencing a frying like noise on received
> signals being transmitted by the VHF repeater.
> As the VHF received signal becomes weaker, the noise appears to
> increase. Prior to the internet canopy being turned on there was no such
> noise. 
> Any info, especially methods used to eliminate the noise would be very
> much appreciated.
> Any references to material on this problem would be especially useful
> also. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bruce, ve1ii
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Larry Wagoner]

At 05:18 PM 8/30/2009, you wrote:
Yes that is what you get, take it or leave it. So, different PLs do 
have a place in the game in situations such as this. Its not a 
technology issue, just luck of the draw.


It is simply VERY poor planning and design. This is the game of: "I 
plan to set up and operate wherever I want to no matter what problems 
I cause - and I refuse to work towards better planning or band usage.




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

[Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[kb1req]

The RACES program and therefore RACES frequencies, is localized, depending on 
the community or state's involvement in Emergency Management/Civil Defense.  
For Example here in Massachusetts the program is quite strong, with a good 
heirarchy and community involvement.  I beleive that RACES is defined as any 
amateur radio communications supporting EM/CD, but the fact that it is defined 
so strictly may discourage some amateurs from participating. Even in a post 
9/11 enviroment of emergency preparidness, agencies like CERT tend not to find 
intrest in the strict confines of RACES programs.

As far as "EOC frequencies" are concerned, those are even more highly 
localized. Consisting of either amateur frequencies, public saftey or both. It 
would not be odd that during an activation that an EOC might not transmitt 
outside of normal PD/FD, frequencies, beceause essentially an EOC is just a 
place were those incharge of disaster mitigation meet. A good place to start 
would be with frequencies lisenced to you local or state emergency management, 
frequencies which are not active under normal circumstances.

If you are truly interested you can contact me on the side, but you should be 
able to find said frequencies easily with a little bit of searching. 
> 
> There used to be RACES frequencies, but I think that provision went away 
> years ago. Not sure.
> 
> Chuck
> WB2EDV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
>  93721/stime=1251663663/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] information requested re broadband internet canopy equipment interference

[Andrew Seybold]

Is the Canopy system operating in 900 MHz or 2.5 or 5 Gigs? It makes a
difference when chasing interference and Motorola has deployed Canopy on
all of the above unlicensed frequencies as well as some others.

 

W6AMS

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ve1ii
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:28 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] information requested re broadband internet
canopy equipment interference

 

  

Hi,

I would like to hear of any details regarding interference caused to VHF
repeaters sharing the same site with broadband internet Canopy
equipment.
I have a repeater which is experiencing a frying like noise on received
signals being transmitted by the VHF repeater.
As the VHF received signal becomes weaker, the noise appears to
increase. Prior to the internet canopy being turned on there was no such
noise. 
Any info, especially methods used to eliminate the noise would be very
much appreciated.
Any references to material on this problem would be especially useful
also. 

Thanks,

Bruce, ve1ii

[Repeater-Builder] information requested re broadband internet canopy equipment interference

[ve1ii]

Hi,

I would like to hear of any details regarding interference caused to VHF 
repeaters sharing the same site with broadband internet Canopy equipment.
I have a repeater which is experiencing a frying like noise on received signals 
being transmitted by the VHF repeater.
As the VHF received signal becomes weaker, the noise appears to increase. Prior 
to the internet canopy being turned on there was no such noise.  
Any info, especially methods used to eliminate the noise would be very much 
appreciated.
Any references to material on this problem would be especially useful also.  

Thanks,

Bruce, ve1ii

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Jim Cicirello]

Can't explain it Joe. All I can tell you is that our 7.21 2-Meter Repeater
had users in weak signal areas completely wiped out when the community
repeater and the fire transmitter came up when they were on 2-meters. As I
said we changed the PL's and that is ALL I did and now the same stations
talk away and there is NO noise on 2 meters. Also the service tech says it
cleared up noise on the fire 154.295 and I can tell you that the community
repeater is OK now, the noise that came in on 151.4 does NOT come in on any
other CTCSS. Break thru in RF physics, probably just dumb luck, which I am
not use to.

JIM  

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:02 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

Again, explain how the mixing products or intermod changed.

If that's true, maybe you're really on to something. If I can eliminate 
intermod by changing the PL tone or the CWID, that would be an 
incredible breakthrough in RF physics.

Joe M.

Jim Cicirello wrote:
> 
> 
> I can tell you that the same tones on different frequencies inside the 
> same site can cause a problem. My 2-meter repeater was on 151.4, the 
> same tone as the local high band fire and channel on the  VHF community 
> repeater. When a combination of the units with 151.4 came up, I had 
> inter-mod on my 2-meter machine. Also at times there was noise on the 
> fire that we could tell disappeared when the 2-meter dropped along with 
> the community repeater.  Luckily I own the tower so I was able to move 
> my 2-meter repeater to 123.0 and it happened that my private channel on 
> the community repeater was also 151.4 which I also changed.  Now I try 
> to make sure that every PL inside my site is different. Since there is 
> NO two PL's the same, the problem went away. Our Motorola Tech told me 
> this is common at tower sites using the same PL on different frequencies.
> 
>  
> 
> 73 JIM
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *WA3GIN
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:07 AM
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Looking for opinions. 
> 
>  
> 
> Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and 
> we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  
> Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to 
> utilze the same PL tone freq. 
> 
>  
> 
> Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase 
> the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to 
> now carry within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land 
> on the input freq. of another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad 
> practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band 
> all located within a few miles of each other?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> dave
> 
> wa3gin
> 
> 
> 
> 






Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[David Murman]

There are NO MARS frequencies for HAMS.

 

 

 

David

 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:44 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

 

  

The RACES freqs. have been closed down for some time now.  Just no need for
them.  It wouldn't surprise me if MARS freqs. for hams also disappears. 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Chuck Kelsey   

To: Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:21 PM

Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

 

  

There used to be RACES frequencies, but I think that provision went away 
years ago. Not sure.

Chuck
WB2EDV




.

 
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[WA3GIN]

Couldn't agree more with you Joe.  In all of the WDC area we are the only two 
repeaters that have such close spacing..we're special, haha.  We've asked other 
repeater owners, those low power low antenna, small coverage operators who 
wouldn't be bothered by the close spacing to trade but seems folks are more 
interested in hording their repeater freqs. or should I say personal intercom 
systems or just too lazy to want to go through the changes.

73,
dave


  - Original Message - 
  From: MCH 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters


As long as you know that the problem still exists...

  As for the perfect world, if you accept imperfection, it never will be.

  I take it the root of the problem is that these two repeaters were 
  coordinated too close together?

  Joe M.

  WA3GIN wrote:
  > 
  > 
  > ...
  Recent Activity
a..  19New Members
b..  1New Files
  Visit Your Group 
  Give Back
  Yahoo! for Good

  Get inspired

  by a good cause.

  Y! Toolbar
  Get it Free!

  easy 1-click access

  to your groups.

  Yahoo! Groups
  Start a group

  in 3 easy steps.

  Connect with others.
  . 

  

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Desktrac Repeater - programming questions

[Eric Lemmon]

Skipp,

The DeskTrac controller is programmed separately from the radios.  There is
a switch hidden behind the snap-cap in the middle of the front panel, below
the Power LED, that selects which is programmed.  Position 1 is used to
program the transmitter, position 2 is used to program the receiver, and
position 3 selects the controller.  DeskTrac RSS RVN4079 and MaxTrac RSS
RVN4019 are both required for complete programming of a DeskTrac.  The
DeskTrac Service Manual 6802993G65 is very helpful to program and set up the
station.  Fortunately, it is still available from Motorola Parts for about
$65.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of skipp025
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 3:07 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola Desktrac Repeater - programming
questions

  

A friend brought a Motorola Desktrac Repeater over 
with a question or two. 

It seems like he can program the receiver and 
transmitter with frequencies and they operate as 
normal. 

However, the unit will not duplex (act as a repeater) 
repeat with the internal controller. Can one of you 
provide the method to enable/disable the internal 
controller for straight forward repeater operation? 

He wants to use this unit as a regular 462.575/467.575 
type repeater but the unit won't repeat. The transmitter 
keys with the front mic and lots of rf out. 

Any help? thank you in advance for your replies. 

cheers, 
skipp

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

As long as you know that the problem still exists...

As for the perfect world, if you accept imperfection, it never will be.

I take it the root of the problem is that these two repeaters were 
coordinated too close together?

Joe M.

WA3GIN wrote:
> 
> 
> ...unforatunately we don't exist in a perfect world...so waxing the 1973 
> Jeep works good enough and is less expensive than repainting 
> it...different PLs in the case in point masks the deffecency well enough 
> to allow relatively good repeater services to coexistance under less 
> than ideal circumstances.  In fact the other repeater guys have refused 
> to activate PL but they do transmit a different PL so their users can 
> simply turn up their squelch and operate happily ever after.
>  
> OH WELL ;-))
>  
> 
> - Original Message -
> *From:* MCH 
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:55 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
> 
>  
> 
> If there is interference with the same tones, there is interference
> with
> different ones, too.
> 
> Again, proper engineering (coordination in this case) is a necessary
> first step, and selecting different CTCSS tones to mask a problem is
> not
> a solution.
> 
> Overdeviation? Another engineering deficiency. Although the 15 kHz
> channels don't help, either. Still, they can be overcome to some degree.
> 
> Still waiting for a reason that doesn't involve compromised engineering.
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> WA3GIN wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing.
> Here in
>  > NOVA 146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite
> sides of
>  > WDC. Coverage is about the same. .625 users frequently bring up the
>  > .610 machine due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610
>  > machine had the same PL tone there would be no benefit from using
> the PL
>  > tone.
>  >
>  > Seems there is always an exception to the rule ;-)
>  >
>  > 73,
>  > dave
>  > wa3gin
>  >
>  >
>  > - Original Message -
>  > *From:* n...@no6b.com 
> >
>  > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  >  >
>  > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:00 PM
>  > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > At 8/30/2009 09:57, you wrote:
>  > > > >When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area
>  > all use
>  > > > >CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.
>  > > >
>  > > > Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local
>  > > > repeaters.
>  > > >
>  > > > Bob NO6B
>  > >
>  > >Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on?
>  >
>  > Because many repeaters don't repeat CTCSS. Also some older radios
> don't
>  > scan CTCSS decode very well.
>  >
>  > >I think the "one CTCSS in an area" is just a leftover from the time
>  > >when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs. No one needs this
>  > >"feature" in area repeaters anymore.
>  >
>  > No, SoCal (TASMA) just adopted a regional CTCSS plan. In some
>  > way/places
>  > it was simply a formal acknowledgement of what some regions had
> already
>  > implemented, but in others we had a mishmash of different open tone
>  > "standards" that had nothing to do with trying to avoid other system
>  > tone
>  > freqs.
>  >
>  > On 440, many repeaters in this area use the same CTCSS freq. At one
>  > site I
>  > know of about a dozen repeaters all use the same tone; AFAIK none of
>  > them
>  > bother each other. If they did, I'm sure they would quickly find the
>  > source (since it would be another ham's system) & fix the actual
>  > problem,
>  > rather than mask it with CTCSS as others have pointed out.
>  >
>  > >(No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a
> system
>  > >where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different
>  > >tones for decades. We never went with the popular, silly idea that
>  > >different tones are somehow "difficult" for someone who knows how to
>  > >operate their rig.)
>  >
>  > Perhaps that's one reason why I didn't try out many systems last
> time I
>  > passed through the Denver area.
>  >
>  > IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located
> amateur
>  > systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering
> deficiency
>  > somewhere.
>  >
>  > Bob NO6B
>  >
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[WA3GIN]

...unforatunately we don't exist in a perfect world...so waxing the 1973 Jeep 
works good enough and is less expensive than repainting it...different PLs in 
the case in point masks the deffecency well enough to allow relatively good 
repeater services to coexistance under less than ideal circumstances.  In fact 
the other repeater guys have refused to activate PL but they do transmit a 
different PL so their users can simply turn up their squelch and operate 
happily ever after. 

OH WELL ;-))

  - Original Message - 
  From: MCH 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters


If there is interference with the same tones, there is interference with 
  different ones, too.

  Again, proper engineering (coordination in this case) is a necessary 
  first step, and selecting different CTCSS tones to mask a problem is not 
  a solution.

  Overdeviation? Another engineering deficiency. Although the 15 kHz 
  channels don't help, either. Still, they can be overcome to some degree.

  Still waiting for a reason that doesn't involve compromised engineering.

  Joe M.

  WA3GIN wrote:
  > 
  > 
  > Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing. Here in 
  > NOVA 146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite sides of 
  > WDC. Coverage is about the same. .625 users frequently bring up the 
  > .610 machine due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610 
  > machine had the same PL tone there would be no benefit from using the PL 
  > tone.
  > 
  > Seems there is always an exception to the rule ;-)
  > 
  > 73,
  > dave
  > wa3gin
  > 
  > 
  > - Original Message -
  > *From:* n...@no6b.com 
  > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
  > 
  > *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:00 PM
  > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > At 8/30/2009 09:57, you wrote:
  > > > >When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area
  > all use
  > > > >CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.
  > > >
  > > > Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local
  > > > repeaters.
  > > >
  > > > Bob NO6B
  > >
  > >Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on?
  > 
  > Because many repeaters don't repeat CTCSS. Also some older radios don't
  > scan CTCSS decode very well.
  > 
  > >I think the "one CTCSS in an area" is just a leftover from the time
  > >when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs. No one needs this
  > >"feature" in area repeaters anymore.
  > 
  > No, SoCal (TASMA) just adopted a regional CTCSS plan. In some
  > way/places
  > it was simply a formal acknowledgement of what some regions had already
  > implemented, but in others we had a mishmash of different open tone
  > "standards" that had nothing to do with trying to avoid other system
  > tone
  > freqs.
  > 
  > On 440, many repeaters in this area use the same CTCSS freq. At one
  > site I
  > know of about a dozen repeaters all use the same tone; AFAIK none of
  > them
  > bother each other. If they did, I'm sure they would quickly find the
  > source (since it would be another ham's system) & fix the actual
  > problem,
  > rather than mask it with CTCSS as others have pointed out.
  > 
  > >(No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a system
  > >where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different
  > >tones for decades. We never went with the popular, silly idea that
  > >different tones are somehow "difficult" for someone who knows how to
  > >operate their rig.)
  > 
  > Perhaps that's one reason why I didn't try out many systems last time I
  > passed through the Denver area.
  > 
  > IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur
  > systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency
  > somewhere.
  > 
  > Bob NO6B
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > --
  > 
  > 
  > Internal Virus Database is out of date.
  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  > Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 07/31/09 
05:58:00
  > 


  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

Uninverted - inverted - they both try to cram 16 kHz bandwidth channels 
into 15 kHz. That is always going to create problems compared with 
proper bandplan spacing.

What's even more ironic is the Land Mobile industry (and FCC) hasn't 
learned anything from their past mistakes. They are now cramming 11 kHz 
wide channels into 7.5 kHz channels on VHF. The writing is on the wall 
for future problems.

Here's a thought along the same lines - why not put our 15 kHz bandwidth 
repeaters into 1 kHz channels. That way, frequency reuse won't be a 
problem. ;->

Joe M.

n...@no6b.com wrote:
> At 8/30/2009 14:34, you wrote:
> 
> 
>> Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing.  Here in 
>> NOVA 146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite sides of 
>> WDC.  Coverage is about the same.  .625 users frequently bring up the .610 
>> machine due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610 machine had 
>> the same PL tone there would be no benefit from using the PL tone.
> 
> Well, that's what you get with an uninverted 15 kHz spacing 
> bandplan.  Users DXing a repeater 15 kHz away from another one in their 
> backyard will interfere & there's little you can do about it except use a 
> different CTCSS tone & accept the fact that the repeater's performance will 
> be severely degraded when this happens.
> 
> Bob NO6B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 07/31/09 
> 05:58:00
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

If there is interference with the same tones, there is interference with 
different ones, too.

Again, proper engineering (coordination in this case) is a necessary 
first step, and selecting different CTCSS tones to mask a problem is not 
a solution.

Overdeviation? Another engineering deficiency. Although the 15 kHz 
channels don't help, either. Still, they can be overcome to some degree.

Still waiting for a reason that doesn't involve compromised engineering.

Joe M.

WA3GIN wrote:
> 
> 
> Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing.  Here in 
> NOVA 146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite sides of 
> WDC.  Coverage is about the same.  .625 users frequently bring up the 
> .610 machine due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610 
> machine had the same PL tone there would be no benefit from using the PL 
> tone.
>  
> Seems there is always an exception to the rule ;-)
>  
> 73,
> dave
> wa3gin
>  
> 
> - Original Message -
> *From:* n...@no6b.com 
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:00 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
> 
>  
> 
> At 8/30/2009 09:57, you wrote:
>  > > >When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area
> all use
>  > > >CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.
>  > >
>  > > Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local
>  > > repeaters.
>  > >
>  > > Bob NO6B
>  >
>  >Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on?
> 
> Because many repeaters don't repeat CTCSS. Also some older radios don't
> scan CTCSS decode very well.
> 
>  >I think the "one CTCSS in an area" is just a leftover from the time
>  >when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs. No one needs this
>  >"feature" in area repeaters anymore.
> 
> No, SoCal (TASMA) just adopted a regional CTCSS plan. In some
> way/places
> it was simply a formal acknowledgement of what some regions had already
> implemented, but in others we had a mishmash of different open tone
> "standards" that had nothing to do with trying to avoid other system
> tone
> freqs.
> 
> On 440, many repeaters in this area use the same CTCSS freq. At one
> site I
> know of about a dozen repeaters all use the same tone; AFAIK none of
> them
> bother each other. If they did, I'm sure they would quickly find the
> source (since it would be another ham's system) & fix the actual
> problem,
> rather than mask it with CTCSS as others have pointed out.
> 
>  >(No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a system
>  >where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different
>  >tones for decades. We never went with the popular, silly idea that
>  >different tones are somehow "difficult" for someone who knows how to
>  >operate their rig.)
> 
> Perhaps that's one reason why I didn't try out many systems last time I
> passed through the Denver area.
> 
> IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur
> systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency
> somewhere.
> 
> Bob NO6B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 
> 07/31/09 05:58:00
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] FS: KTM FMC0.5B Isocoupler

[Ron _]

What are you asking for it?

 

Ron


 


To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
From: kk...@comcast.net
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:12:36 +
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] FS: KTM FMC0.5B Isocoupler

  



FS: KTM Model FMC-0.5B Isocoupler

Brand new in the box. Currently tuned for 152-153MHz. Can be retuned for ham 
band. Perfect to install your repeater antenna on an AM broadcast tower.

Eric
KE2D









_
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[WA3GIN]

Yes that is what you get, take it or leave it. So, different PLs do have a 
place in the game in situations such as this. Its not a technology issue, just 
luck of the draw.

  - Original Message - 
  From: n...@no6b.com 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters


At 8/30/2009 14:34, you wrote:


  Recent Activity
a..  18New Members
b..  1New Files
  Visit Your Group 
  Give Back
  Yahoo! for Good

  Get inspired

  by a good cause.

  Y! Toolbar
  Get it Free!

  easy 1-click access

  to your groups.

  Yahoo! Groups
  Start a group

  in 3 easy steps.

  Connect with others.
  . 

  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[no6b]

At 8/30/2009 14:34, you wrote:


>Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing.  Here in 
>NOVA 146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite sides of 
>WDC.  Coverage is about the same.  .625 users frequently bring up the .610 
>machine due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610 machine had 
>the same PL tone there would be no benefit from using the PL tone.

Well, that's what you get with an uninverted 15 kHz spacing 
bandplan.  Users DXing a repeater 15 kHz away from another one in their 
backyard will interfere & there's little you can do about it except use a 
different CTCSS tone & accept the fact that the repeater's performance will 
be severely degraded when this happens.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[WA3GIN]

The RACES freqs. have been closed down for some time now.  Just no need for 
them.  It wouldn't surprise me if MARS freqs. for hams also disappears. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: Chuck Kelsey 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?


There used to be RACES frequencies, but I think that provision went away 
  years ago. Not sure.

  Chuck
  WB2EDV


  Recent Activity
a..  17New Members
b..  1New Files
  Visit Your Group 
  Give Back
  Yahoo! for Good

  Get inspired

  by a good cause.

  Y! Toolbar
  Get it Free!

  easy 1-click access

  to your groups.

  Yahoo! Groups
  Start a group

  in 3 easy steps.

  Connect with others.
  . 

  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[WA3GIN]

Here is one reason to have a different PL Tone...close spacing.  Here in NOVA 
146.625 and 146.610 are two repeaters spaced on opposite sides of WDC.  
Coverage is about the same.  .625 users frequently bring up the .610 machine 
due to intermittant over deviation, etc. If the .610 machine had the same PL 
tone there would be no benefit from using the PL tone.

Seems there is always an exception to the rule ;-)

73,
dave
wa3gin

  - Original Message - 
  From: n...@no6b.com 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters


At 8/30/2009 09:57, you wrote:
  > > >When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area all use
  > > >CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.
  > >
  > > Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local
  > > repeaters.
  > >
  > > Bob NO6B
  >
  >Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on?

  Because many repeaters don't repeat CTCSS. Also some older radios don't 
  scan CTCSS decode very well.

  >I think the "one CTCSS in an area" is just a leftover from the time
  >when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs. No one needs this
  >"feature" in area repeaters anymore.

  No, SoCal (TASMA) just adopted a regional CTCSS plan. In some way/places 
  it was simply a formal acknowledgement of what some regions had already 
  implemented, but in others we had a mishmash of different open tone 
  "standards" that had nothing to do with trying to avoid other system tone 
  freqs.

  On 440, many repeaters in this area use the same CTCSS freq. At one site I 
  know of about a dozen repeaters all use the same tone; AFAIK none of them 
  bother each other. If they did, I'm sure they would quickly find the 
  source (since it would be another ham's system) & fix the actual problem, 
  rather than mask it with CTCSS as others have pointed out.

  >(No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a system
  >where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different
  >tones for decades. We never went with the popular, silly idea that
  >different tones are somehow "difficult" for someone who knows how to
  >operate their rig.)

  Perhaps that's one reason why I didn't try out many systems last time I 
  passed through the Denver area.

  IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur 
  systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency 
  somewhere.

  Bob NO6B



  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] NHRC 3+ CW ID'ing problem

[WA3GIN]

You can email the vendor, even on the weekends.  He is very helpful and 
responsivel

  - Original Message - 
  From: va3wxm 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 3:21 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] NHRC 3+ CW ID'ing problem


We recently put a new 6m repeater on the air using a NHRC 3+ controller. We 
programmed in the CW ID and set an interval of 10 minutes (the controller 
responded "OK" when we set it). However, the CW ID is not working at the 
desired interval and, actually, seems kind of random as to when the repeater 
ID's. Other than this issue, the repeater and controller are working fine.

  Does anyone have a suggestion on how to address this problem?

  Thanks.



  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] IFR 1600S

[Gary Hoff]

I have a 1600S, have had it now for about 3 years.  No trouble at all.  I
Love it..  The operators manual is available on the net in a PDF, however I
got mine from the company I purchased the Monitor from in printed form.  
It's
several hundred pages.
Gary - K7NEY

shibukiau wrote:
>  
>
> I have a chance to acquire an IFR 1600S and would like some users 
> reports on their experience relative to the instruments performance 
> and reliability to help me make my decision!
>
> Are manuals available somewhere for these units other than from IFR??
>
> Thanks for your help!!
>
> Lloyd
> VE3ERQ
>
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola CDR700 Repeater

[Eric Lemmon]

Mike,

The CDR700 Service/Programming Manual 6864110R66 (still available from
Motorola Parts for about $15) makes no mention of any ID capability when
equipped with the basic (R*I*C*K) controller.  The optional ZR340 controller
does include CWID capability.

I find it odd that the manual repeatedly mentions that the CDR700 cannot
meet FCC stability requirements for narrow band (12.5 kHz) channels on UHF,
but is silent on failing to meet FCC requirements for station
identification.  However, it is not too difficult to install an ID-8 or
similar CWID device.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY


-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:50 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola CDR700 Repeater

  

Hi All,

Have the club portable CDR700 using two CDM750 radios. Question is how and
where do add the call sign for cwid or is it not available.

Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

Why do you cringe? Don't you have any faith in ham's ability to put on 
quality repeaters or fix problems?

As has been noted, many areas have used the same tone with great 
success. The only ones who haven't had great success have issues that 
using different tones only masks and doesn't solve. Those are the ones 
that should be making you cringe - the ones who 'have' to use different 
tones to hide their problems.

I for one would rather have an issue I can hear, diagnose, and solve 
rather than solve a symptom and pretend it doesn't exist. Letting 
problems continue is what gives hams a bad reputation as second-rate 
site users.

Joe M.

Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:06 AM, WA3GIN wrote:
> 
>> Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq.  
>> increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed  
>> signal to now carry within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone  
>> that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater?  Is it  
>> considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous  
>> repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each  
>> other?
> 
> Bad engineering design, yes.  But the fact that it's commonly done, is  
> also true.  Not sure why.
> 
> When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area all use  
> CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.
> 
> --
> Nate Duehr, WY0X
> n...@natetech.com
> 
> http://facebook.com/denverpilot
> http://twitter.com/denverpilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[Chuck Kelsey]

There used to be RACES frequencies, but I think that provision went away 
years ago. Not sure.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: "druhe614" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:09 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?


> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "afa5tp"  wrote:
>>
>> Hello Group
>>
>> This is slightly "OT", but I have exhausted all resources, and am at a 
>> dead end!
>>
>> About a year ago (on this list), some folks were chatting about "EOC 
>> Frequencies" Are they really in existance? I am familiar with SEMNET low 
>> band fxs, but are there any VHF/UHF federal fxs available?
>>
>> Here, on Vashon Island Wa, we have a great EOC, with about thirty Hams on 
>> the team.(ARES). Our club W7VMI, has a UHF rpt. on the Island.
>> Yes, we utilize Ham frequencies, but during a major earthquake, or other 
>> large disaster, I am afraid that the bands will become over 
>> crowded!Besides the large main fire station/EOC, we have four satillite 
>> stations, all equipped to talk to the EOC, over HAM fxs. I would like to 
>> utilize "Federal EOC" fxs., if available.
>>
>> Any info as to the existance of "EOC" frequencies would be greatly 
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Tim W7TRH
>>
>
> Tim,
>
> There are no "Federal EOC" frequencies that I have ever heard of. This 
> type of frequency is usually licensed by the municipality in which the EOC 
> serves, be it a state, county or local government.
>
> Now there are "Interoperability frequencies" this maybe what you are 
> thinking. There are several in VHF, UHF, 700 & 800 mhz. See here
>
> http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Common_Public_Safety
>
> These still need to licensed by the municipality. In theory outside 
> agencies should be able to communicate with you on these.
>
> Not sure if this is the information you are looking for or not.
>
> -- Dan --
> KE3UC
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[druhe614]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "afa5tp"  wrote:
>
> Hello Group
> 
> This is slightly "OT", but I have exhausted all resources, and am at a dead 
> end!
> 
> About a year ago (on this list), some folks were chatting about "EOC 
> Frequencies" Are they really in existance? I am familiar with SEMNET low band 
> fxs, but are there any VHF/UHF federal fxs available?
> 
> Here, on Vashon Island Wa, we have a great EOC, with about thirty Hams on the 
> team.(ARES). Our club W7VMI, has a UHF rpt. on the Island.
> Yes, we utilize Ham frequencies, but during a major earthquake, or other 
> large disaster, I am afraid that the bands will become over crowded!Besides 
> the large main fire station/EOC, we have four satillite stations, all 
> equipped to talk to the EOC, over HAM fxs. I would like to utilize "Federal 
> EOC" fxs., if available.
> 
> Any info as to the existance of "EOC" frequencies would be greatly 
> appreciated. 
> 
> Tim W7TRH
>

Tim,

There are no "Federal EOC" frequencies that I have ever heard of. This type of 
frequency is usually licensed by the municipality in which the EOC serves, be 
it a state, county or local government.

Now there are "Interoperability frequencies" this maybe what you are thinking. 
There are several in VHF, UHF, 700 & 800 mhz. See here

http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Common_Public_Safety

These still need to licensed by the municipality. In theory outside agencies 
should be able to communicate with you on these.

Not sure if this is the information you are looking for or not.

-- Dan --
KE3UC  

[Repeater-Builder] Re: NHRC 3+ CW ID'ing problem

[otterson]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "va3wxm"  wrote:
>
> We recently put a new 6m repeater on the air using a NHRC 3+ controller.  We 
> programmed in the CW ID and set an interval of 10 minutes (the controller 
> responded "OK" when we set it).  However, the CW ID is not working at the 
> desired interval and, actually, seems kind of random as to when the repeater 
> ID's.  Other than this issue, the repeater and controller are working fine.
> 
My guess is that you either did not record the speech IDs, or did not disable 
them.

The controller always tries to play the recorded speech ID messages instead of 
the CW ID, unless you disable the voice messages.  
 
You either need to record the speech ID messages, or turn them off.

Look at section 3.11 of the manual to record the speech IDs, and section 4.3 if 
you want to disable the speech messages.

Jeff

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[no6b]

At 8/30/2009 09:57, you wrote:
> > >When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area all use
> > >CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.
> >
> > Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local
> > repeaters.
> >
> > Bob NO6B
>
>Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on?

Because many repeaters don't repeat CTCSS.  Also some older radios don't 
scan CTCSS decode very well.

>I think the "one CTCSS in an area" is just a leftover from the time
>when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs.  No one needs this
>"feature" in area repeaters anymore.

No, SoCal (TASMA) just adopted a regional CTCSS plan.  In some way/places 
it was simply a formal acknowledgement of what some regions had already 
implemented, but in others we had a mishmash of different open tone 
"standards" that had nothing to do with trying to avoid other system tone 
freqs.

On 440, many repeaters in this area use the same CTCSS freq.  At one site I 
know of about a dozen repeaters all use the same tone; AFAIK none of them 
bother each other.  If they did, I'm sure they would quickly find the 
source (since it would be another ham's system) & fix the actual problem, 
rather than mask it with CTCSS as others have pointed out.

>(No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a system
>where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different
>tones for decades.  We never went with the popular, silly idea that
>different tones are somehow "difficult" for someone who knows how to
>operate their rig.)

Perhaps that's one reason why I didn't try out many systems last time I 
passed through the Denver area.

IMO, if different CTCSS freqs. are required to keep co-located amateur 
systems from talking to each other, there is an engineering deficiency 
somewhere.

Bob NO6B

[Repeater-Builder] Motorola CDR700 Repeater

[Mike Mullarkey]

Hi All,

 

Have the club portable CDR700 using two CDM750 radios. Question is how and
where do add the call sign for cwid or is it not available.

 

 

Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ

6886 Sage Ave

Firestone, Co 80504

303-954-9695 Home

303-954-9693 Home Office & Fax

303-718-8052 Cellular

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Wanted: IFR FM/AM 1500 Owners Manual

[ve1rcf]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "surf_boy82"  wrote:
>
> Does anyone have an owners manual for the IFR FM/AM 1500 that is surplus to 
> their needs? I've had one for quite a while and I'm familiar with most of 
> it's operation but wouldn't mind having the proper manuals for it. My unit 
> has the digital attenuator with LCD display on it.
> 
> Would prefer not to pay a small fortune for it, but if anyone has the manual, 
> please e-mail me off-list at surf_bo...@... and let me know what you're 
> asking.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Chris/KF6AJM
>
You could try this site 
http://www.repeater-builder.com/aeroflex/aeroflex-index.html

[Repeater-Builder] IFR 1600S

[shibukiau]

I have a chance to acquire an IFR 1600S and would like some users reports on 
their experience relative to the instruments performance and reliability to 
help me make my decision!

Are manuals available somewhere for these units other than from IFR??

Thanks for your help!!

Lloyd
VE3ERQ 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Wanted: IFR FM/AM 1500 Owners Manual

[ve1rcf]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "surf_boy82"  wrote:
>
> Does anyone have an owners manual for the IFR FM/AM 1500 that is surplus to 
> their needs? I've had one for quite a while and I'm familiar with most of 
> it's operation but wouldn't mind having the proper manuals for it. My unit 
> has the digital attenuator with LCD display on it.
> 
> Would prefer not to pay a small fortune for it, but if anyone has the manual, 
> please e-mail me off-list at surf_bo...@... and let me know what you're 
> asking.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Chris/KF6AJM
>
This site probably has what you need.  
http://www.repeater-builder.com/aeroflex/aeroflex-index.html

RE: [Repeater-Builder] NHRC 3+ CW ID'ing problem

[Chris Curtis]

Are you wanting the cwid to act like a beacon?
i.e. id every 10 minutes regardless of activity?

You'd have to "schedule" that.  Id timers don't handle that way.

Chris
Kb0wlf

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of va3wxm
> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 2:21 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] NHRC 3+ CW ID'ing problem
> 
> We recently put a new 6m repeater on the air using a NHRC 3+
> controller.  We programmed in the CW ID and set an interval of 10
> minutes (the controller responded "OK" when we set it).  However, the
> CW ID is not working at the desired interval and, actually, seems kind
> of random as to when the repeater ID's.  Other than this issue, the
> repeater and controller are working fine.
> 
> Does anyone have a suggestion on how to address this problem?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.67/2326 - Release Date:
> 08/30/09 06:36:00

[Repeater-Builder] NHRC 3+ CW ID'ing problem

[va3wxm]

We recently put a new 6m repeater on the air using a NHRC 3+ controller.  We 
programmed in the CW ID and set an interval of 10 minutes (the controller 
responded "OK" when we set it).  However, the CW ID is not working at the 
desired interval and, actually, seems kind of random as to when the repeater 
ID's.  Other than this issue, the repeater and controller are working fine.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to address this problem?

Thanks.

[Repeater-Builder] FS: KTM FMC0.5B Isocoupler

[kk2ed]

FS: KTM Model FMC-0.5B Isocoupler

Brand new in the box. Currently tuned for 152-153MHz. Can be retuned for ham 
band.  Perfect to install your repeater antenna on an AM broadcast tower.



Eric
KE2D

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Yaesu VXR-7000 & CAT 300DXL with no repeat audio

[n4zkf]

Bingo... polarity jumper. Thanks much!


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, DCFluX  wrote:
>
> In that case make sure the COR polarity jumper on the DL-1000 is on
> the right setting and that the cable between the controller and the
> board is installed correctly.
> 
> Also you may try installing the jumper back on J5 if you have bad delay board.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM, n4zkf wrote:
> > I have the DL-1000C Audio delay board installed and had Note 11 with me at 
> > the time. But thanks for the advise.
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Jim WB5OXQ inb Waco, TX]

Here in central Texas we typically use 123.0 for all repeaters for uniformity,. 
 It makes it easier for folks to remember.  there are quite a few on 2 meters 
and they never cause any problems with each other.  WB5OXQ.

  - Original Message - 
  From: WA3GIN 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:06 AM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters



  Looking for opinions.  

  Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we 
picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  Recently two 
other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone 
freq.  

  Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the 
probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within 
the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land on the input freq. of 
another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL 
for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each 
other?

  Thanks,
  dave
  wa3gin

  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Nate Duehr]

On Aug 30, 2009, at 10:39 AM, n...@no6b.com wrote:

> At 8/30/2009 09:25, you wrote:
>
> >On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:06 AM, WA3GIN wrote:
> >
> > > Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq.
> > > increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed
> > > signal to now carry within the produced signal a correct PL tone
> > > that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater? Is it
> > > considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous
> > > repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each
> > > other?
> >
> >Bad engineering design, yes. But the fact that it's commonly done, is
> >also true. Not sure why.
> >
> >When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area all use
> >CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.
>
> Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local  
> repeaters.
>
> Bob NO6B

Who's so dumb that they SCAN with CTCSS Decode turned on?

I think the "one CTCSS in an area" is just a leftover from the time  
when we all had single-tone boards in our rigs.  No one needs this  
"feature" in area repeaters anymore.

(No one has trouble finding repeaters out here, and we've had a system  
where every large club and small backyard repeater is on different  
tones for decades.  We never went with the popular, silly idea that  
different tones are somehow "difficult" for someone who knows how to  
operate their rig.)

All my club's repeaters are on 107.2, another large club is on 103.5,  
yet another 123.0.  No one here has any difficulty "finding" the  
repeaters.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
n...@natetech.com

http://facebook.com/denverpilot
http://twitter.com/denverpilot

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[no6b]

At 8/30/2009 09:25, you wrote:

>On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:06 AM, WA3GIN wrote:
>
> > Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq.
> > increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed
> > signal to now carry within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone
> > that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater?  Is it
> > considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous
> > repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each
> > other?
>
>Bad engineering design, yes.  But the fact that it's commonly done, is
>also true.  Not sure why.
>
>When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area all use
>CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.

Sure makes it a lot easier for travelers to find all the local repeaters.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Nate Duehr]

On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:06 AM, WA3GIN wrote:

> Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq.  
> increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed  
> signal to now carry within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone  
> that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater?  Is it  
> considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous  
> repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each  
> other?

Bad engineering design, yes.  But the fact that it's commonly done, is  
also true.  Not sure why.

When "area plans" show something like "repeaters in this area all use  
CTCSS tone X" I always cringe a little.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
n...@natetech.com

http://facebook.com/denverpilot
http://twitter.com/denverpilot

Fw: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wanted: IFR FM/AM 1500 Owners Manual

[John Sehring]

Thanks vy much for doing this, Joe.  What a lot of work!

--John

--- On Sun, 8/30/09, Joe  wrote:

From: Joe 
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wanted: IFR FM/AM 1500 Owners Manual
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 30, 2009, 6:14 AM






 





  I scanned the IFR1500 Application Notes a couple of months 
ago and 

posted it to:



http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Repeater- Builder/files/ IFR1500/


  

Fw: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 2M Vertical Dipoles

[John Sehring]

I think there are advantage to all metal "plumber's delight" antennas for VHF & 
UHF.  I would go for an all copper folded dipole.  Split the "far end" dipole 
element & feed it there using a balun made using a 1/2-wavelength piece of 
coax; run the coax feedline in from the grouinded antenna clamp.  It'll give 
4:1 Z transform but then you need to fiddle with the diameters of the dipole 
elements & their spacing to get 200 ohms feedpoint Z.  Then whole thing will be 
at DC ground & vy sturdy & broadbanded too, esp. if you use thick (say, 3/4") 
elements.

Cheap too. I'd model it carefully using Eznec before-hand, get it maybe a bit 
long so you can cut it down when built (can't so easily _add_ pipe!) to get to 
resonance.  Also, don't use a ruler to measure out the 1/2-wave piece of coax.  
Measure it out using an RF bridge or SWR "analyzer", always more accurate.

--John

--- On Sat, 8/29/09, wb8vlc  wrote:

From: wb8vlc 
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 2M Vertical Dipoles
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 9:39 PM






 





  I found some Plans on this groups page for a home made 4 pole 
array

http://forums. radioreference. com/antennas- coax-forum/ 109144-4- 
bay-vhf-dipole- array-project. html



scroll down a few responses and download the PDF document, I'm building one at 
this time.



I just started to look at the spacings in EZNEC and it looks nice.



Mike



--- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com, Eric Grabowski  
wrote:

>

> I have used schedule 40 PVC for several antennas from HF thru 440 MHz without 
> a problem. It does have a dielectric effect however that you must take into 
> account.

> 

> There is another plastic pipe called CPVC that does absorb RF at the higher 
> frequencies. You don't want to use that.

> 

> To make sure your plastic pipe will work ok, do the microwave test. Put a 
> short length of the plastic pipe in a microwave along with a coffee mug 
> filled with water. Run the microwave for a while. Then see if the plastic 
> gets hot. If it does, you don't want to use it for RF.

> 

> 73 and aloha, Eric KH6CQ

> 

> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, AJ  wrote:

> 

> From: AJ 

> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 2M Vertical Dipoles

> To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:05 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   Does really PVC absorb or RF or just act as a dielectric?

>  

> The reason I ask is I'm looking at encasing an antenna project for the sake 
> of weatherproofing and PVC would fit the bill rather easily.

>  

> 73,

> AJ, K6LOR

> 

> 

> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM, AA8K73 GMail  wrote:

> 

> 

> AJ, if you replace the steel mast with a fiberglass one,

> won't you still have the metallic feed line there?

> 

> 

> Doesn't PVC absorb RF?

> 

> 

> 73,

> Mike 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> AJ wrote:

> 

>  

> On this same topic of the mast-less Antennex/Laird dipole arrays, has anyone 
> attempted to top mount these from a fiberglass mast to minimize interaction 
> with the normal steel pole? I have quite a few surplus fiberglass poles left 
> that would likely work, even for side mounting on 1/2 wave spacing from the 
> tower...

> 

>  On that same note, does anyone have construction plans for a dipole array 
> (not necessarily folded dipoles)? I remember seeing a set of plans somewhere 
> quite a while ago - we're thinking of constructing one but encasing the 
> dipoles in fiberglass or PVC to try to protect from the weather and debris at 
> our site (top of a large farm field)...

> 

>  73,

> AJ, K6LOR

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

>   

>

>   

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>   

>   

> 

>  _ _ _ _ __

> Do You Yahoo!?

> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

> http://mail. yahoo.com

>




 

  




 

















  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

Again, explain how the mixing products or intermod changed.

If that's true, maybe you're really on to something. If I can eliminate 
intermod by changing the PL tone or the CWID, that would be an 
incredible breakthrough in RF physics.

Joe M.

Jim Cicirello wrote:
> 
> 
> I can tell you that the same tones on different frequencies inside the 
> same site can cause a problem. My 2-meter repeater was on 151.4, the 
> same tone as the local high band fire and channel on the  VHF community 
> repeater. When a combination of the units with 151.4 came up, I had 
> inter-mod on my 2-meter machine. Also at times there was noise on the 
> fire that we could tell disappeared when the 2-meter dropped along with 
> the community repeater.  Luckily I own the tower so I was able to move 
> my 2-meter repeater to 123.0 and it happened that my private channel on 
> the community repeater was also 151.4 which I also changed.  Now I try 
> to make sure that every PL inside my site is different. Since there is 
> NO two PL’s the same, the problem went away. Our Motorola Tech told me 
> this is common at tower sites using the same PL on different frequencies.
> 
>  
> 
> 73 JIM
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *WA3GIN
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:07 AM
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Looking for opinions. 
> 
>  
> 
> Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and 
> we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  
> Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to 
> utilze the same PL tone freq. 
> 
>  
> 
> Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase 
> the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to 
> now carry within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land 
> on the input freq. of another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad 
> practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band 
> all located within a few miles of each other?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> dave
> 
> wa3gin
> 
> 
> 
> 






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] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

OK, you'll have to explain how a different tone on the TX changed the 
mixing products of the RF frequencies.

I bet it's more of a case where the problem was still there, just 
hidden. At least if the problem is seen/heard, you can fix it. If you 
don't know it's there, then you have minimal chance of fixing it (truly 
fixing the problem, not just fixing the symptom).

Joe M.

Eric Lemmon wrote:
>  Even with complicated
> multicoupler and combiner systems in place, there were instances of
> interference between them.  Once the unrelated systems were given different
> PL tones, the problems went away.

[Repeater-Builder] "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[afa5tp]

Hello Group

This is slightly "OT", but I have exhausted all resources, and am at a dead end!

About a year ago (on this list), some folks were chatting about "EOC 
Frequencies" Are they really in existance? I am familiar with SEMNET low band 
fxs, but are there any VHF/UHF federal fxs available?

Here, on Vashon Island Wa, we have a great EOC, with about thirty Hams on the 
team.(ARES). Our club W7VMI, has a UHF rpt. on the Island.
Yes, we utilize Ham frequencies, but during a major earthquake, or other large 
disaster, I am afraid that the bands will become over crowded!Besides the large 
main fire station/EOC, we have four satillite stations, all equipped to talk to 
the EOC, over HAM fxs. I would like to utilize "Federal EOC" fxs., if available.

Any info as to the existance of "EOC" frequencies would be greatly appreciated. 

Tim W7TRH

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Larry Wagoner]

At 08:06 AM 8/30/2009, you wrote:
Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. 
increase the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed 
signal to now carry within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone 
that may land on the input freq. of another local repeater?  Is it 
considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL for numerous 
repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each other?



No and no. Most of the time, most repeaters in a generalized area all 
use the same PL tone. That is so that coordinating bodies can have 
some assurance that they know what tones are being used in an area - 
and can maintain separation between machines on the same frequency 
and with the same tone.
For instance - in south Mississippi (say Hattiesburg south to the 
coast) - essentially all machines use 136.5.




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

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Nearby Repeaters

[nj902]

"...Since there is NO two PL's the same, the problem went away..."



The problem [intermod] did not go away - you just masked it so you don't hear 
it.  It is still causing degradation of the receiver's effective sensitivity.  

---


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

I can tell you that the same tones on different frequencies inside the same 
site can cause a problem. My 2-meter repeater was on 151.4, the same tone as 
the local high band fire and channel on the  VHF community repeater. When a 
combination of the units with 151.4 came up, I had inter-mod on my 2-meter 
machine. Also at times there was noise on the fire that we could tell 
disappeared when the 2-meter dropped along with the community repeater. Luckily 
I own the tower so I was able to move my 2-meter repeater to 123.0 and it 
happened that my private channel on the community repeater was also 151.4 which 
I also changed.  Now I try to make sure that every PL inside my site is 
different. Since there is NO two PL's the same, the problem went away. Our 
Motorola Tech told me this is common at tower sites using the same PL on 
different frequencies.
 
  
 
 73 JIM 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Nearby Repeaters with the same CTCSS/DCS Codes.

[skipp025]

Same CTCSS (PL) codes can and sometimes do contribute 
toward some very weird repeater and site mix problems. If you 
look at a spectral display of a busy repeater site... you'll 
often see a lot of oscillators, injection chain signals, 
microprocessor signals, yadda, yadda. When the wrong 
combination of signals mix, you end up with a gremlin. 

Keep in mind that using a different CTSCC/DCS Code won't 
fix a bad mix or a gremlin, but it can and will sometimes 
"mask it" so it's not an "in you face" problem.  If there's 
an interfering mix  blocking your receiver, your system 
operation will still suffer. 

Relative to grand scheme of things... it's a great idea to 
go with a different CTCSS/DCS (Signaling) code in busy 
locations.  But also keep in mind... if there's a real 
serious problem... you'd probably want to know about it if 
a gremlin signal is causing grief. 

s.
 

> "Jim Cicirello"  wrote:
>
> I can tell you that the same tones on different frequencies inside the same
> site can cause a problem. My 2-meter repeater was on 151.4, the same tone as
> the local high band fire and channel on the  VHF community repeater. When a
> combination of the units with 151.4 came up, I had inter-mod on my 2-meter
> machine. Also at times there was noise on the fire that we could tell
> disappeared when the 2-meter dropped along with the community repeater.
> Luckily I own the tower so I was able to move my 2-meter repeater to 123.0
> and it happened that my private channel on the community repeater was also
> 151.4 which I also changed.  Now I try to make sure that every PL inside my
> site is different. Since there is NO two PL's the same, the problem went
> away. Our Motorola Tech told me this is common at tower sites using the same
> PL on different frequencies.
> 
>  
> 
> 73 JIM 
> 
>  
> 
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN
> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:07 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Looking for opinions.  
> 
>  
> 
> Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we
> picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  Recently
> two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same
> PL tone freq.  
> 
>  
> 
> Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the
> probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry
> within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land on the input
> freq. of another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad practice to utilize
> the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few
> miles of each other?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> dave
> 
> wa3gin
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Eric Lemmon]

Dave,

Actually, it's a good idea for all Amateur repeaters in a geographic area to
use the same CTCSS tone.  With very few exceptions, all 6m, 2m, 220, and 440
repeaters in Santa Barbara County use 131.8 Hz.  We don't have interference
problems, and it makes it easy for travelers to contact local Hams.  Many
repeaters with voice ID announce the PL tone as well.

There is a potential problem with more than one repeater at a site sharing
the same PL tone, if they are the same make and model.  For example, Santa
Barbara County had more than a dozen Micor repeaters and base stations at
one mountaintop site, and all had 82.5 Hz tones.  Even with complicated
multicoupler and combiner systems in place, there were instances of
interference between them.  Once the unrelated systems were given different
PL tones, the problems went away.  One of the issues with Micor stations is
that exciter leakage can occur if all of the shield plates are not
reinstalled, with every screw tight.  There were also a few instances of
leakage from an exciter in one UHF station leaking into an adjacent VHF
station, since the UHF station uses a VHF exciter that is then tripled.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:07 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

  

Looking for opinions.  
 
Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we
picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  Recently
two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same
PL tone freq.  
 
Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the
probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry
within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land on the input
freq. of another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad practice to utilize
the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few
miles of each other?
 
Thanks,
dave
wa3gin

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Wanted: IFR FM/AM 1500 Owners Manual

[John Transue]

>-Original Message-
>From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
>buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of surf_boy82
>Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 9:11 PM
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Wanted: IFR FM/AM 1500 Owners Manual
>
>Does anyone have an owners manual for the IFR FM/AM 1500 that is
>surplus to their needs? I've had one for quite a while and I'm
>familiar with most of it's operation but wouldn't mind having the
>proper manuals for it. My unit has the digital attenuator with LCD
>display on it.
>
>Would prefer not to pay a small fortune for it, but if anyone has the
>manual, please e-mail me off-list at surf_bo...@yahoo.com and let me
>know what you're asking.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Chris/KF6AJM
>

Chris,
  I had the same need a few months ago. Sal had a copy and sent it to
me. I do not have a means to copy it but if all else fails I can get
it copied commercially. My copy is not perfect; it would be much
better to copy an original if one can be found.
  The application notes are very useful but the "Operator's Guide" has
a lot more information in it. 
John AF4PD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>__ NOD32 4380 (20090829) Information __
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Jim Cicirello]

I can tell you that the same tones on different frequencies inside the same
site can cause a problem. My 2-meter repeater was on 151.4, the same tone as
the local high band fire and channel on the  VHF community repeater. When a
combination of the units with 151.4 came up, I had inter-mod on my 2-meter
machine. Also at times there was noise on the fire that we could tell
disappeared when the 2-meter dropped along with the community repeater.
Luckily I own the tower so I was able to move my 2-meter repeater to 123.0
and it happened that my private channel on the community repeater was also
151.4 which I also changed.  Now I try to make sure that every PL inside my
site is different. Since there is NO two PL's the same, the problem went
away. Our Motorola Tech told me this is common at tower sites using the same
PL on different frequencies.

 

73 JIM 

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WA3GIN
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:07 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

 

  

Looking for opinions.  

 

Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we
picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  Recently
two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same
PL tone freq.  

 

Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the
probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry
within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land on the input
freq. of another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad practice to utilize
the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few
miles of each other?

 

Thanks,

dave

wa3gin

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

Technically, yes, but in SWPA nearly all ham repeaters use the same tone 
and I've never heard of it being a problem.

Besides, if all the hams run the same tone, and the commercial users 
avoid that tone, it makes intra-service intermod problems much less 
likely, and I would much rather have only ham-to-ham problems to solve.

Joe M.

WA3GIN wrote:
> 
> 
> Looking for opinions. 
>  
> Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and 
> we picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  
> Recently two other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to 
> utilze the same PL tone freq. 
>  
> Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase 
> the probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to 
> now carry within the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land 
> on the input freq. of another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad 
> practice to utilize the same PL for numerous repeaters in the same band 
> all located within a few miles of each other?
>  
> Thanks,
> dave
> wa3gin
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Maire-Radios]

If you look at the Florida band plan  repeaters in areas of Florida have the 
same PL   there is no problem  with that and ham operators then know in I am 
area 1 to use PL XX  area is PL XZ and so on it keeps it simple and help others 
to know what to use.

John


  - Original Message - 
  From: WA3GIN 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:06 AM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters



  Looking for opinions.  

  Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we 
picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  Recently two 
other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone 
freq.  

  Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the 
probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within 
the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land on the input freq. of 
another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL 
for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each 
other?

  Thanks,
  dave
  wa3gin

  

[Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[WA3GIN]

Looking for opinions.  

Our club has a couple of 2m repeaters; we chose to run them with PL and we 
picked 107.2 because that tone freq. was not in use in the area.  Recently two 
other clubs who also have 2m repeaters have decided to utilze the same PL tone 
freq.  

Does having numerous repeaters PL'd with the same tone freq. increase the 
probability of the normally generated intermod/mixed signal to now carry within 
the produced signal  a correct  PL tone that may land on the input freq. of 
another local repeater?  Is it considered a bad practice to utilize the same PL 
for numerous repeaters in the same band all located within a few miles of each 
other?

Thanks,
dave
wa3gin

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wanted: IFR FM/AM 1500 Owners Manual

[Joe]

I scanned the IFR1500 Application Notes a couple of months ago and 
posted it to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/IFR1500/

You may find this helpful.  I'm interested in information about the 
digital attenuator and LCD display that you have Was that and IFR 
product or something after market?  Those are the two items that a 
failure can mean disaster to a 1500 owner.

Joe

surf_boy82 wrote:
> Does anyone have an owners manual for the IFR FM/AM 1500 that is surplus to 
> their needs?