Re: [Repeater-Builder] Fw: Sources of Maxtrac's

[Rich Osman]

The manual I referred to is the Motorola manual.  The FCC ids are
usually given up front near where the model table data is.  Some of the
talkies only have one FCC ID for all subranges in a band, but usually not. 

First step is Google the ID and see what you see.  Looks like 42-50 split. 

Second step is go to the FCC Site:

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

Which in turn leads us to:

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearchResult.cfm?RequestTimeout=500

Where we learn that this radio covers 29.7 - 50 Mhz and that I was sadly
mistaken.  Apparently they are now doing variants on a single
authorization. Sigh. Spectra and earlier this trick works.

Oz
[wiping egg off face and preparing the crow]


John Sehring wrote:
>  
>
> How about FCC ID ABZ89FT1620. Can you make sense of that? Thanks.
>
> --John
>
> --- On Mon, 8/31/09, John Sehring  > wrote:
>
> > From: John Sehring mailto:wb0eq%40yahoo.com>>
> > Subject: Sources of Maxtrac's
> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 8:50 PM
> > Thanks
> > for the reply, Rich.
> >
> > What "manual" are you referring to, Motorola or
> > an FCC thing?  I do have pretty much complete Maxtrac
> > paperwork, thanks to the guys at Repeater Builder.
> >
> > --- On Mon, 8/31/09, Rich Osman
> > mailto:lists%40ozindfw.net>> wrote:
> >
> > From: Rich Osman mailto:lists%40ozindfw.net>>
> > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sources of Maxtrac's
> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 8:07 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The FCC ID is band dependent. The
> > manual has a table on ranges and that
> >
> > includes the FCC IDs
> >
> >
> >
> > John Sehring wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > ,_._,___
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 


-- 
mailto:o...@ozindfw.net
Oz
POB 93167 
Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport) 

[Repeater-Builder] Fw: Sources of Maxtrac's

[John Sehring]

How about FCC ID ABZ89FT1620.  Can you make sense of that?  Thanks.

--John

--- On Mon, 8/31/09, John Sehring  wrote:

> From: John Sehring 
> Subject: Sources of Maxtrac's
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 8:50 PM
> Thanks
> for the reply, Rich.
> 
> What "manual" are you referring to, Motorola or
> an FCC thing?  I do have pretty much complete Maxtrac
> paperwork, thanks to the guys at Repeater Builder.
> 
> --- On Mon, 8/31/09, Rich Osman
>  wrote:
> 
> From: Rich Osman 
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sources of Maxtrac's
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 8:07 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   The FCC ID is band dependent.  The
> manual has a table on ranges and that
> 
> includes the FCC IDs
> 
> 
> 
> John Sehring wrote:
> 
> >  
> 
> >
> 
> > 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.
> 
> >
> 
> > 
> ,_._,___
>   
>
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   


  

[Repeater-Builder] Sources of Maxtrac's

[John Sehring]

Thanks for the reply, Rich.

What "manual" are you referring to, Motorola or an FCC thing?  I do have pretty 
much complete Maxtrac paperwork, thanks to the guys at Repeater Builder.

--- On Mon, 8/31/09, Rich Osman  wrote:

From: Rich Osman 
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sources of Maxtrac's
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 8:07 AM






 





  The FCC ID is band dependent.  The manual has a table on 
ranges and that

includes the FCC IDs



John Sehring wrote:

>  

>

> 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.

>

> 
,_._,___

 

















  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Batteries /Shelby HF (OT)

[JohnS]

Sorry,

That was supposed to be a private reply.



> He is Robin Midgett, K4IDC - 615-301-1642 Call him tomorrow evening, he
> goes to bed early.
>
> John
>
>
>
>> Some one posted a message a short while back about taking a load of
>> batteries to the Shelby HF this coming weekend.  I can't find the
>> original
>> post and am hoping he reads this post.  I'm looking for 6 of the
>> WP7.2-12
>> (7.2amp/12v)if he has any and if he will be taking them to Shelby.
>> Please
>> contact me off list @ de_n3dab at tds.net
>> Doug  N3DAB
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Batteries /Shelby HF (OT)

[JohnS]

He is Robin Midgett, K4IDC - 615-301-1642 Call him tomorrow evening, he
goes to bed early.

John



> Some one posted a message a short while back about taking a load of
> batteries to the Shelby HF this coming weekend.  I can't find the original
> post and am hoping he reads this post.  I'm looking for 6 of the WP7.2-12
> (7.2amp/12v)if he has any and if he will be taking them to Shelby. Please
> contact me off list @ de_n3dab at tds.net
> Doug  N3DAB
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Batteries /Shelby HF (OT)

[n3dab]

Some one posted a message a short while back about taking a load of batteries 
to the Shelby HF this coming weekend.  I can't find the original post and am 
hoping he reads this post.  I'm looking for 6 of the WP7.2-12 (7.2amp/12v)if he 
has any and if he will be taking them to Shelby. Please contact me off list @ 
de_n3dab at tds.net 
Doug  N3DAB

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Narrow Banding and VHF Low Band

[Gary]

Don't know where you got the "below 512Mhz" comment from (except perhaps a
sloppy comment in a recent article printed in Urgent Communications) but
here's what the R& O really says;

"Earlier in this proceeding, the Commission took the following actions in
order to bring
about a timely transition to narrowband technology: (1) set January 1, 2013,
as the deadline for Industrial/Business and Public Safety Radio Pool
licensees in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands to either migrate to 12.5
kHz technology, or utilize a technology that achieves equivalent efficiency;
(2) prohibited any applications for new systems using 25 kHz channels, or
modification applications that expand the authorized contour of an existing
25 kHz station, effective January 1, 2011; (3) prohibited the manufacture
and importation of any 150-174 MHz or 421-512 MHz band equipment capable of
operating with only one voice path per 25 kHz of spectrum, i.e., equipment
that includes a 25 kHz mode, beginning January 1, 2011; and (4) prohibited
the certification of any equipment that includes a 25 kHz mode
beginning January 1, 2011.2"

Keep in mind this applies to Part 90 services and not Part 95 or 97 radio
services.
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wmhpowell
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:49 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Narrow Banding and VHF Low Band

Help!

The FCC rules on narrow-banding seem to be contradictory when it comes to
determining if VHF low band must be converted to narrow band.

On one hand, the FCC states that "All" "below 512 MHz" which implies VHF low
but on the other they specifically mention VHF high and UHF, specifically
NOT mentioning VHF low band.

I need to come up with a specific reference from FCC docs either requiring
or exempting VHF low from narrow banding requirements.

Urban legend and "I heard" won't get the funding if VHF low must be
narrow-banded - only something form the FCC can make the $$ flow.
And, yes, I looked but found nothing definitive.

Thanks,
Bill - WB1GOT








Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[Jim WB5OXQ inb Waco, TX]

I have the big Tram dual band antenna and it works real well, however, i the 
one you have is used you may need to disassemple it and disconnect the 
junctions on the elements and clean the copper with scotchbrite or emery colth 
until shiny and reassemble the antenna.  This tarnishes with age and this will 
renue the performance.  I have no swr trouble on either band and the antenna 
performs pretty well for a cheap antenna.
  - Original Message - 
  From: n...@no6b.com 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna


At 8/31/2009 06:33, you wrote:
  >Hi Guys,
  >We spent most of yesterday working on a UHF Mastr II Exec. Repeater, we 
  >are using a TRAM 1481 Dual Band Antenna on. This is the high gain 8.3 dB 
  >VHF/11.7 UHF. The system uses UHF Repeater, VHF Simplex, and IRLP. The 
  >antenna works very poorly on UHF and much better on VHF. The SWR is about 
  >3-1 on both frequencies. The antenna is not DC Ground and there is no 
  >shorted connectors. Lack of help prevented us from taking the antenna down 
  >and apart at this time. We ran tests by putting the antenna on a portable 
  >and working a fixed base and again the VHF pinned the meter and the UHF 
  >was weak, only a couple of S units better than the portable rubber duck. 
  >Has anyone had a similar problem. I understand that the antenna is a 
  >compromise and not as good as a single band folded dipole for example, but 
  >several of us have these and they work great except for this one. I am 
  >thinking there are enough Tram 1481 out there and someone may have had the 
  >same problem.

  I can't speak for the 1481 since I never had one, but I never had any 
  matching or duplexing problems with the 1480 (lower gain 8' version). I 
  also have a few Comet GP9s in service & they work fine, with advertised 
  gain on both bands - no compromise.

  >Also there has been many posts about the LMR400 used in repeater service. 
  >It is my understanding that the foil type should NEVER be used between 
  >duplexers, from the TX, RX to the Duplexers, but I am not sure about 
  >between the duplexer and the antenna. Comments please!

  You definitely don't want LMR400 any place where duplexed signals are 
  present. This means between the duplexer & antenna. Not sure why it would 
  be a problem for the TX & RX connections to the duplexer unless the 
  connectors weren't installed properly, but then again why take the chance 
  on a short jumper where loss isn't an issue? Silver-plated RG-214, RG-393, 
  RG-223, RG-400, or RG-142 is known to be safe for that application.

  Bob NO6B



  

RE: [Repeater-Builder] IFR 1600S

[R.K. Brumback]

I had two of those within a year and both failed. I finally purchased a HP
and have had no problems since. This is not to say there are not good 1600's
out there. I liked them what time they did work.

Randy

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Hoff
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:41 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] IFR 1600S

 

  

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] Re: Narrow Banding and VHF Low Band

[MCH]

"No optional 11.25 or 6"

You can always use *less* than the *maximum authorized* bandwidth. If 
you couldn't, all the radios with low deviation would be illegal.

For that matter, try finding a Low Band radio on Land Mobile that uses 
20 kHz bandwidth. All the ones I've seen use 16 kHz bandwidth.

Joe M.

ka1jfy wrote:
> 90.203 (j)3 specifies narrowband requirements ONLY for 150-174 and 421-512 
> MHz bands.
> 
> 90.210 (b)5, 'Bandwidth limitations'.
> 20 kHz is the standard 'Authorized bandwidth' for 25-50 MHz operations. No 
> optional 11.25 or 6.
> 
> WalterH
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "wmhpowell"  wrote:
>> Help!
>>
>> The FCC rules on narrow-banding seem to be contradictory when it comes to 
>> determining if VHF low band must be converted to narrow band.
>>
>> On one hand, the FCC states that "All" "below 512 MHz" which implies VHF low 
>> but on the other they specifically mention VHF high and UHF, specifically 
>> NOT mentioning VHF low band.
>>
>> I need to come up with a specific reference from FCC docs either requiring 
>> or exempting VHF low from narrow banding requirements.
>>
>> Urban legend and "I heard" won't get the funding if VHF low must be 
>> narrow-banded - only something form the FCC can make the $$ flow.
>> And, yes, I looked but found nothing definitive.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bill - WB1GOT
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

[Matthew Kaufman]

Is the interference present on your receiver when your transmitter isn't 
activated, or is it only there when your transmitter is transmitting?

I've seen several different types of TDD systems that cause near-field 
interference when subjected to high power RF in VHF or UHF.

Matthew Kaufman

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

[Nate Duehr]

 We saw some noise from a similar setup, and it went away after
three things were done.
1. The wireless ISP replaced the Unshielded Twisted-Pair they
were using for the Ethernet and Power-Over-Ethernet to the units,
with Shielded Twisted Pair and properly GROUNDED the shield.
(Some ISP's will *correctly* balk at this, since STP is NOT
within the Ethernet spec.)

2. The wireless ISP replaced their crappy $20 Chinese switching
power supply that was driving everything including their cheap
unshielded Ethernet switch in the radio room with a better
supply.

3. The wireless ISP GROUNDED their cheap Ethernet switch's case
to their cabinet, which was properly grounded to the sites
specifications.

To be honest, it didn't get rid of ALL the noise, but a ton of
it.  We still lose a dB or two at that site to their noise, but
since they provide OUR IP service, as well as the tower owner's,
as the only way to get IP to that site -- it's a little hard to
complain.

Thank Goodness multiple techs from the WISP were fluent in "RF".
 A number of them were hams.  Getting a data center geek, turned
WISP entrepreneur, to understand basic electronics and RF
physics... can be problematic, depending on how you approach
them, how you explain the problem, etc.  And if they're providing
a service to your building-mates and/or the ham stuff is on the
site as a low-cost rent or a freebie, don't expect any kind of
"urgency" on their part to make any changes if their stuff is
making them money.  The margins in that business are hideously
low.
--
  Nate Duehr, WY0X
  n...@natetech.com


On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:30 +, "ve1ii"
 wrote:


Hi Rodney and others.
The CAT5 cables are definitely shielded and I suspect that they
are properly terminated.
There are 10 CAT5 cables in total and an LMR200 cable. I suspect
the LMR200 goes to a GPS unit which is on the tower. Six of the
CAT5's go to the six panels and likely the other four are used on
dishes on the tower that pick up and relay the signals coming to
the tower.
The VHF repeater is using a Sinclair 210-C4 on the top of the
tower with the panels mounted just below that (approx. 10 feet
down)
The repeater is multicoupled to the 210-C4. All feedlines for VHF
and UHF antennas is hardline.
The power supplies for the panels are switching type. The noise
is across the VHF band.
Thanks for the comments so far.
>
> Has the Canopy system been installed using shielded cat5/cat6
cable? The EMI certification is only applicable if shielded
cables are used (and properly terminated).
>
> What sort of antenna is your system using? How much
vertical/horizontal separation from the Canopy system? Above or
below?
>
> Does the Canopy have one or two cables running to each panel?
If one, the power, sync and data is carried on the same cable. If
shielded cable has been correctly used, the cable radiation
should be minimal (provided good quality cable with 100% shield
coverage is used).
>
> If there are 2 cables, the sync signal crom the Cluster
Management Module (CMM) is on a separate cable. If that cable is
not shielded, it could be radiating.
>
> Rodney.
>
> 
=
> Rodney Baker VK5ZTV
> rodney.ba...@...
> =

>


References

1. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/message/93739;_ylc=X3oDMTM1YzZtamwyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTM3OTMEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzU0MjQ1BHRwY0lkAzkzNzM5
2. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwZDhqbDIwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTM3OTMEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzU0MjQ1?act=reply&messageNum=93793
3. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGZrcTFsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzU0MjQ1
4. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbTVnb2ZqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbXNncwRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzU0MjQ0
5. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJldTU5djV0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDZmlsZXMEc3RpbWUDMTI1MTc1NDI0NA--
6. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcDJidjk4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcGhvdARzdGltZQMxMjUxNzU0MjQ0
7. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcXBsbmg0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbGlua3MEc3RpbWUDMTI1MTc1NDI0NA--
8. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJkajZhOWs4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbWJycwRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzU0MjQ0
9. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJjcW0ybW9yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDZ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] adjacent repeaters linked

[Nate Duehr]

Serious question: Why is linking two repeaters via RF "okay" and
linking via IRLP "wasting everyone's time"?

Isn't the owner also "wasting the time" of the people in the
coverage area of Repeater #2 when a QSO is happening on Repeater
#1 by this logic?

Do you have that many users on 220 out there, that some
additional traffic from an IRLP Reflector (I assume that's what
you're talking about, and that feature CAN be turned off...)
would be detrimental to the locals (who should be able to shut
off the IRLP node if the engineering is done right, even if it's
transmitting) with a simple burst of two digits of DTMF?

What's the beef?  I'm honestly curious.

Are you beating around the bush and saying you'd prefer it sat
with zero usage than listen to particular hams?  I won't be
offended if you say that many repeaters are overrun with some
really dumb people who never put the mic down, but that's no
different than 20m SSB... so it's not news to anyone, nor
offensive, really.

I've met people who like quiet repeaters, and I'm not knocking
it.  I just find it weird.  We encourage "ragchew" on our
systems, and always have.  Either they're up there for hobby use,
or they're just up there... someone might as well be talkin' on
'em.

Plus, I have an OFF button if I want quiet, and there's ZERO
communications on ham radio that are important enough that I
*must* keep a radio on, like a commercial or public safety
system.

Of course, I say that with the caveat that there's no local
emergencies going on... in those cases, any remote area linking
would be turned off anyway...

To me, linking of any sort, either controllable by the end-users
or not, is just a "coverage" issue, but to many, it brings
activity in where there was none before.  I understand if
California doesn't exactly have a problem drumming up activity
with the huge numbers of Amateur licensees out there...

Just curious why you think a user linking to something they want
to participate in, is a "waste of time"?  Isn't it just a feature
they can use, or not use, as they see fit?

I never have understood the passive agressive comments made about
Internet linking, when RF linking is "okay" in the eyes of the
same commenter?  Not a slam on you in any way, Skipp.  It's just
a curiosity to me, because it doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Ed says, "A link is a link, of course of course..."
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com


On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:17 +, "skipp025" 
wrote:


I pulled off linking two adjacent 224MHz Repeaters.
The repeaters are on different 30 mile distant mountain
top sites.
One repeater has an on-band linking radio (Alinco DR-235)
set up on the adjacent frequency. As an example... 224.960
and 224.940MHz.
With enough physical isolation, filtering and setup...
much to my surprise it works pretty well. The owner wants
to now park IRLP on it and waste everyone's time. But they
are his repeaters...
On toward part 2.
s.


References

1. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/message/93788;_ylc=X3oDMTM1cG1pbG9sBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTM3ODgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzQ5ODk4BHRwY0lkAzkzNzg4
2. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwZDQ0dGVtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTM3ODgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzQ5ODk4?act=reply&messageNum=93788
3. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJkMjRiczA5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzQ5ODk4
4. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbDN2dDc5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbXNncwRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzQ5ODk4
5. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZm5yMXBvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDZmlsZXMEc3RpbWUDMTI1MTc0OTg5OA--
6. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJkMmg5dDVkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcGhvdARzdGltZQMxMjUxNzQ5ODk4
7. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJldHNvYTE4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbGlua3MEc3RpbWUDMTI1MTc0OTg5OA--
8. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdmRrNmdtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDbWJycwRzdGltZQMxMjUxNzQ5ODk4
9. 
http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14k8tq4ae/M=493064.12016295.13271503.10835568/D=groups/S=1705063108:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1251757098/L=/B=s.O2CUPDhFo-/J=1251749898664325/K=Tr.X6ORSsY5a9ju4q9JiqQ/A=5697381/R=0/SIG=11eaa5dke/*http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mompowergroup/
  10. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJjNTdicHVhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDZ2ZwBHN0aW1lAzEyNTE3NDk4OTg-
  11. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYm9

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

[Andrew Seybold]

I would also look at the termination of the Cat 5 cables as well as
looking at any router which is in the system-we have seen, as numerous
sites, that Wi-Fi switches and routers are not very well shielded and
produce a TON of garbage in the 140-172 MHz band at least-I am not sure
what components are used by the most recent Canopy systems but would bet
there is a router or switch someone in the system

 

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ve1ii
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:30 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: information requested re broadband
internet canopy equipment interference

 

  

Hi Rodney and others.
The CAT5 cables are definitely shielded and I suspect that they are
properly terminated.
There are 10 CAT5 cables in total and an LMR200 cable. I suspect the
LMR200 goes to a GPS unit which is on the tower. Six of the CAT5's go to
the six panels and likely the other four are used on dishes on the tower
that pick up and relay the signals coming to the tower.

The VHF repeater is using a Sinclair 210-C4 on the top of the tower with
the panels mounted just below that (approx. 10 feet down) 
The repeater is multicoupled to the 210-C4. All feedlines for VHF and
UHF antennas is hardline.
The power supplies for the panels are switching type. The noise is
across the VHF band. 

Thanks for the comments so far.

> 
> Has the Canopy system been installed using shielded cat5/cat6 cable?
The EMI certification is only applicable if shielded cables are used
(and properly terminated).
> 
> What sort of antenna is your system using? How much
vertical/horizontal separation from the Canopy system? Above or below?
> 
> Does the Canopy have one or two cables running to each panel? If one,
the power, sync and data is carried on the same cable. If shielded cable
has been correctly used, the cable radiation should be minimal (provided
good quality cable with 100% shield coverage is used). 
> 
> If there are 2 cables, the sync signal crom the Cluster Management
Module (CMM) is on a separate cable. If that cable is not shielded, it
could be radiating.
> 
> Rodney.
> 
> =
> Rodney Baker VK5ZTV
> rodney.ba...@...
> =
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[Jim Cicirello]

Tom,

Thanks for the information. This gives us an idea of what to expect when we
tear it down. We might find a combination of these things that is giving us
the problem.

 

73 JIM  KA2AJH  

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom W2MN
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:32 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

 

  

JIM KA2AJH,

 

I use the TRAM 1480 (also Workman version) in several installations and they
all work well. I have not had any problems or failures. The 1481 has
additional collinear sections on top (making it about 6 ft taller).  The
TRAM and WORKMAN antennas are ELECTRICALLY similar to DIAMOND and COMET
(I've had some completely apart). There are some mechanical differences
which might make the D and C brands a little more durable in severe weather
areas. I don't think they are worth the extra price.  Now, they all are DC
ground but not in the way we all think when compared to a J Pole. The
antenna element is internally grounded through the coil in the base but
capacitively coupled to the coax center conductor. So, if you look for a DC
connection between center conductor and ground, you will think it is open
circuit (but is not). Now, all of these very tall antennas tend to be very
whippy. With the very low launch angle (particularly on 440) any strong wind
will cause the signal strength to vary considerably with the wind. 

 

You might consider taking it completely apart (easy job) and examining for
water (moisture) and any evidence of bad solder, broken connections or burn
marks from lightning discharge.

 

I have rebuilt a DIAMOND X500 that failed after many years. The problem was
that the fiberglass wore thin and allowed moist air to condense onto the
internal foam rattle insulators. They all seem to use common pieces of soft
packing foam that acts like a small sponge. Replacing these and repainting
the fiberglass (white or light gray PLASTIC spray paint) fixed the problem.
The point is, all 4 brands are at risk of the same long term problem.

 

Tom

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

[ve1ii]

Hi Rodney and others.
The CAT5 cables are definitely shielded and I suspect that they are properly 
terminated.
There are 10 CAT5 cables in total and an LMR200 cable.  I suspect the LMR200 
goes to a GPS unit which is on the tower. Six of the CAT5's go to the six 
panels and likely the other four are used on dishes on the tower that pick up 
and relay the signals coming to the tower.

The VHF repeater is using a Sinclair 210-C4 on the top of the tower with the 
panels mounted just below that (approx. 10 feet down)  
The repeater is multicoupled to the 210-C4.  All feedlines for VHF and UHF 
antennas is hardline.
The power supplies for the panels are switching type. The noise is across the 
VHF band.  

Thanks for the comments so far.

> 
> Has the Canopy system been installed using shielded cat5/cat6 cable? The EMI 
> certification is only applicable if shielded cables are used (and properly 
> terminated).
> 
> What sort of antenna is your system using? How much vertical/horizontal 
> separation from the Canopy system? Above or below?
> 
> Does the Canopy have one or two cables running to each panel? If one, the 
> power, sync and data is carried on the same cable. If shielded cable has been 
> correctly used, the cable radiation should be minimal (provided good quality 
> cable with 100% shield coverage is used). 
> 
> If there are 2 cables, the sync signal crom the Cluster Management Module 
> (CMM) is on a separate cable. If that cable is not shielded, it could be 
> radiating.
> 
> Rodney.
> 
> =
> Rodney Baker VK5ZTV
> rodney.ba...@...
> =
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[Chuck Kelsey]

I wasn't sure, but that rings a bell. I think I had to drill out the ones 
for RG58 because that's all I had on hand. You know how that goes ;-)

Chuck
WB2EDV


- Original Message - 
From: "larynl2" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:22 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex


> Chuck, if you use a reducer made for RG59 (and RG8X?) there's no need to 
> drill.  Perfect fit.
>
> Laryn K8TVZ
>
>
>
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Kelsey"  
> wrote:
>>
>> I've used 1/4" superflex with PL259 & reducer. Works fine. Seems like I 
>> had
>> to drill the reducer, but that's easy anyway.
>>
>> Chuck
>> WB2EDV
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[larynl2]

Chuck, if you use a reducer made for RG59 (and RG8X?) there's no need to drill. 
 Perfect fit.

Laryn K8TVZ



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Kelsey"  wrote:
>
> I've used 1/4" superflex with PL259 & reducer. Works fine. Seems like I had 
> to drill the reducer, but that's easy anyway.
> 
> Chuck
> WB2EDV

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[Chris Curtis]

I really like the 3/8 superflex.

I can usually find a 30' piece on ebay with factory n male connectors on it
for cheap.

Then I cut a length leaving an N on and put a pl-259 on the other to go from
bigger hardline to a diplexer or other UHF fitting bit.
Keep cutting from that end for other cables etc etc.

It screws together pretty nice really.
Pl-259 aren't watertight anyway but mechanically, I find the connection very
sound on the 3/8 superflex.
I like the connection much better than 1/4 with reducer.

Chris
Kb0wlf

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony KT9AC
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:31 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew
> Superflex
> 
> Thanks Chris.
>  So using 3/8" superflex and silver PL259 seems tight enough? Would be
> better than using silver connector and nickel reducer. Just trying to
> build two 3' jumpers to replace old RG9.
> 
>  How tight can you bend the 3/8? I might also need to rebuild a
> duplexer
> replacing old/missing RG142.
> 
> Tony
> 
> Chris Curtis wrote:
> >
> >
> > 3/8 superflex works pretty good with "regular" pl-259.
> > It "screws" right onto the jacket. Then solder the corrugated copper
> > "through the holes" of the pl-259
> >
> > I've used the 1/4 w/reducer as well. I also drilled the reducer to
> get
> > "all
> > the way" to the copper.
> >
> > Chris
> > Kb0wlf
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >  [mailto:Repeater-
> > > buil...@yahoogroups.com ] On
> > Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey
> > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:40 PM
> > > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew
> > > Superflex
> > >
> > > I've used 1/4" superflex with PL259 & reducer. Works fine. Seems
> like I
> > > had
> > > to drill the reducer, but that's easy anyway.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > > WB2EDV
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: mailto:kt9ac%40ameritech.net>>
> > > To:  > >
> > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:23 PM
> > > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew
> Superflex
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > > Thank you VERY much for trying this and letting me know. That will
> > > save me
> > > a lot of time with this project.
> > >
> > > I have read an article that uses 1/4" superflex with PL259 and
> UG176
> > > reducers, and will order some new cables and connectors for the
> jumpers
> > > I
> > > need. Superflex is cheaper than RG214 and probably better shielded.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > , "Jim Cicirello"
> 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tony,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I just took a piece of ½" Superflex that previously had a
> connector
> > > on it
> > > > and tried to place a PL259 UHF MALE on it. The corrugation on the
> > > > superflex
> > > > is larger than the ID of the connector. The connector will go
> over
> > > the
> > > > center dielectric but the copper corrugation on the superflex is
> > > slightly
> > > > larger than the outside of the UHF Male. The only way I can see
> it
> > > may be
> > > > possible to join the connector to the cable would be to have a
> sleeve
> > > > extend
> > > > over the superflex and the outside of the UHF connector and then
> > > solder
> > > > the
> > > > sleeve. This might not be as good of an idea as getting proper
> > > connectors
> > > > that fit the superflex like the N Male and use an adapter to get
> to
> > > UHF.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good Luck JIM KA2AJH
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > > [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > ] On Behalf Of Tony KT9AC
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:51 PM
> > > > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew
> Superflex
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello Everyone,
> > > > I need to make some short jumpers UHF-male to UHF-male and have a
> > > > length of 1/2 Andrew Superflex on order (actually eBay). Can I
> use
> > > > regular silver-teflon PL259's with this cable, similar to how
> 1/4"
> > > > superflex is used with the reducer? I can't find UHF Male
> connectors
> > > for
> > > > 1/2" superflex at Tessco.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 

[Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[Tom W2MN]

JIM KA2AJH,

 

I use the TRAM 1480 (also Workman version) in several installations and they
all work well. I have not had any problems or failures. The 1481 has
additional collinear sections on top (making it about 6 ft taller).  The
TRAM and WORKMAN antennas are ELECTRICALLY similar to DIAMOND and COMET
(I've had some completely apart). There are some mechanical differences
which might make the D and C brands a little more durable in severe weather
areas. I don't think they are worth the extra price.  Now, they all are DC
ground but not in the way we all think when compared to a J Pole. The
antenna element is internally grounded through the coil in the base but
capacitively coupled to the coax center conductor. So, if you look for a DC
connection between center conductor and ground, you will think it is open
circuit (but is not). Now, all of these very tall antennas tend to be very
whippy. With the very low launch angle (particularly on 440) any strong wind
will cause the signal strength to vary considerably with the wind. 

 

You might consider taking it completely apart (easy job) and examining for
water (moisture) and any evidence of bad solder, broken connections or burn
marks from lightning discharge.

 

I have rebuilt a DIAMOND X500 that failed after many years. The problem was
that the fiberglass wore thin and allowed moist air to condense onto the
internal foam rattle insulators. They all seem to use common pieces of soft
packing foam that acts like a small sponge. Replacing these and repainting
the fiberglass (white or light gray PLASTIC spray paint) fixed the problem.
The point is, all 4 brands are at risk of the same long term problem.

 

Tom

[Repeater-Builder] adjacent repeaters linked

[skipp025]

I pulled off linking two adjacent 224MHz Repeaters. 

The repeaters are on different 30 mile distant mountain 
top sites. 

One repeater has an on-band linking radio (Alinco DR-235) 
set up on the adjacent frequency. As an example... 224.960 
and 224.940MHz.  

With enough physical isolation, filtering and setup... 
much to my surprise it works pretty well. The owner wants 
to now park IRLP on it and waste everyone's time. But they 
are his repeaters... 

On toward part 2. 
s. 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: Narrow Banding and VHF Low Band

[ka1jfy]

90.203 (j)3 specifies narrowband requirements ONLY for 150-174 and 421-512 MHz 
bands.

90.210 (b)5, 'Bandwidth limitations'.
20 kHz is the standard 'Authorized bandwidth' for 25-50 MHz operations. No 
optional 11.25 or 6.

WalterH

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "wmhpowell"  wrote:
>
> Help!
> 
> The FCC rules on narrow-banding seem to be contradictory when it comes to 
> determining if VHF low band must be converted to narrow band.
> 
> On one hand, the FCC states that "All" "below 512 MHz" which implies VHF low 
> but on the other they specifically mention VHF high and UHF, specifically NOT 
> mentioning VHF low band.
> 
> I need to come up with a specific reference from FCC docs either requiring or 
> exempting VHF low from narrow banding requirements.
> 
> Urban legend and "I heard" won't get the funding if VHF low must be 
> narrow-banded - only something form the FCC can make the $$ flow.
> And, yes, I looked but found nothing definitive.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bill - WB1GOT
>

[Repeater-Builder] How better coax made me happy -- WAS: Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[Cort Buffington]

Not to beat a dead horse or anything (I know we talk about this a lot)  
but once I started using RG400 (I know 142 is popular, I like the  
flexibility of the 400) on everything "interconnect" (which are all  
short) and hardline to the antenna, I've had no coax induced noise.  
Period.

I'm not saying this to promote my coax choices or to say my choices  
are better than someone else's. but because I'm not sure I ever just  
said it here. This recipe has really made life better -- in the end,  
well worth the cost of the RG400. And a tip I've found for cost- 
effective RG400 and RG142: Avionics. Avionics installations often have  
to use "the good stuff". I've found it significantly cheaper from  
aviation supply houses, or getting some throw-away pieces from  
avionics shops.

73 DE N0MJS

On Aug 31, 2009, at 2:13 PM,   wrote:

> Thanks for the correction Bob. I think it was still a little early  
> for me
> when I typed that email.
>
> Corey N3FE
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:14:58 -0700, n...@no6b.com wrote:
> > At 8/31/2009 09:03, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Good Morning/Afternoon Jim!
> >>
> >>Not sure about the Antenna, I know Randy's (HJC) is working great!  
> Any
> >>type of double shielded coax/feedline anywhere in the system will  
> cause
> >>problems. As the temp inside or outside changes it can cause the  
> shield
> >>to rub together and make a lot of noise on the repeater. Even if  
> it is
> >>used inside on the duplexers...
> >
> > This is incorrect. Silver-plated double-shielded coax is  
> practically the
>
> > standard for duplex interconnects. Non silver-plated braided coax  
> will
> > generate noise, whether it's double shielded or not, due to the  
> eventual
> > oxidation of the copper & resulting poor intra-braid contact.
> >
> >> I had mentioned to the person you are referring to that I may be  
> able
> >> to find some 1/2" hardline but he thought it may be to weighted  
> for what
>
> >> he is doing...
> >
> > This would be a good choice for the duplexer-antenna feed, with  
> RG-214
> > jumpers between the hardline & duplexer/antenna.
> >
> > Bob NO6B
> >
> >
> >>Corey N3FE
> >>
> >>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400, "Chuck Kelsey"
> >>wrote:
> >> > Sounds like maybe a bad antenna. Don't use the foil/braid cable
> >> > anywhere in
> >> >
> >> > a repeater system.
> >> >
> >> > Chuck
> >> > WB2EDV
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - Original Message -
> >> > From: "ka2ajh"
> >> > To:
> >> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:33 AM
> >> > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Guys,
> >> >> We spent most of yesterday working on a UHF Mastr II Exec.  
> Repeater,
> >> >> we
> >> >> are using a TRAM 1481 Dual Band Antenna on. This is the high  
> gain 8.3
> >> >> dB
> >> >> VHF/11.7 UHF. The system uses UHF Repeater, VHF Simplex, and  
> IRLP.
> The
> >> >> antenna works very poorly on UHF and much better on VHF. The  
> SWR is
> >> >> about
> >> >>
> >> >> 3-1 on both frequencies. The antenna is not DC Ground and  
> there is no
> >> >> shorted connectors. Lack of help prevented us from taking the  
> antenna
> >> >> down
> >> >> and apart at this time. We ran tests by putting the antenna on a
> >> >> portable
> >> >>
> >> >> and working a fixed base and again the VHF pinned the meter  
> and the
> >> >> UHF
> >> >> was weak, only a couple of S units better than the portable  
> rubber
> >> >> duck.
> >> >> Has anyone had a similar problem. I understand that the  
> antenna is a
> >> >> compromise and not as good as a single band folded dipole for
> example,
> >> >> but
> >> >> several of us have these and they work great except for this  
> one. I
> am
> >> >> thinking there are enough Tram 1481 out there and someone may  
> have
> had
> >> >> the
> >> >> same problem.
> >> >> Also there has been many posts about the LMR400 used in repeater
> >> >> service.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is my understanding that the foil type should NEVER be used
> between
> >> >> duplexers, from the TX, RX to the Duplexers, but I am not sure  
> about
> >> >> between the duplexer and the antenna. Comments please!
> >> >> My friend has the LM400 on the repeater mentioned above and I  
> know it
> >> >> is
> >> >> NOT the present problem as even on simplex the antenna  
> performance on
> >> >> 440
> >> >>
> >> >> very poor.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks again an advance for your experiences and thoughts.
> >> >>
> >> >> 73 JIM KA2AJH
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> 

--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-838-3034
M: +1-785-865-7206










Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join
(Yaho

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[Tony KT9AC]

Thanks Chris.
 So using 3/8" superflex and silver PL259 seems tight enough? Would be 
better than using silver connector and nickel reducer. Just trying to 
build two 3' jumpers to replace old RG9.

 How tight can you bend the 3/8? I might also need to rebuild a duplexer 
replacing old/missing RG142.

Tony

Chris Curtis wrote:
>  
>
> 3/8 superflex works pretty good with "regular" pl-259.
> It "screws" right onto the jacket. Then solder the corrugated copper
> "through the holes" of the pl-259
>
> I've used the 1/4 w/reducer as well. I also drilled the reducer to get 
> "all
> the way" to the copper.
>
> Chris
> Kb0wlf
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>  [mailto:Repeater-
> > buil...@yahoogroups.com ] On 
> Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey
> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:40 PM
> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew
> > Superflex
> >
> > I've used 1/4" superflex with PL259 & reducer. Works fine. Seems like I
> > had
> > to drill the reducer, but that's easy anyway.
> >
> > Chuck
> > WB2EDV
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: mailto:kt9ac%40ameritech.net>>
> > To:  >
> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:23 PM
> > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex
> >
> >
> > Jim,
> > Thank you VERY much for trying this and letting me know. That will
> > save me
> > a lot of time with this project.
> >
> > I have read an article that uses 1/4" superflex with PL259 and UG176
> > reducers, and will order some new cables and connectors for the jumpers
> > I
> > need. Superflex is cheaper than RG214 and probably better shielded.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> , "Jim Cicirello" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Tony,
> > >
> > >
> > > I just took a piece of ½" Superflex that previously had a connector
> > on it
> > > and tried to place a PL259 UHF MALE on it. The corrugation on the
> > > superflex
> > > is larger than the ID of the connector. The connector will go over
> > the
> > > center dielectric but the copper corrugation on the superflex is
> > slightly
> > > larger than the outside of the UHF Male. The only way I can see it
> > may be
> > > possible to join the connector to the cable would be to have a sleeve
> > > extend
> > > over the superflex and the outside of the UHF connector and then
> > solder
> > > the
> > > sleeve. This might not be as good of an idea as getting proper
> > connectors
> > > that fit the superflex like the N Male and use an adapter to get to
> > UHF.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good Luck JIM KA2AJH
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> > > [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> ] On Behalf Of Tony KT9AC
> > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:51 PM
> > > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> > > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > > I need to make some short jumpers UHF-male to UHF-male and have a
> > > length of 1/2 Andrew Superflex on order (actually eBay). Can I use
> > > regular silver-teflon PL259's with this cable, similar to how 1/4"
> > > superflex is used with the reducer? I can't find UHF Male connectors
> > for
> > > 1/2" superflex at Tessco.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tony
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > 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:
> > 08/31/09 05:50:00
>
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[n3fe]

Thanks for the correction Bob.  I think it was still a little early for me
when I typed that email.

Corey  N3FE

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:14:58 -0700, n...@no6b.com wrote:
> At 8/31/2009 09:03, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>Good Morning/Afternoon Jim!
>>
>>Not sure about the Antenna, I know Randy's (HJC) is working great!  Any 
>>type of double shielded coax/feedline anywhere in the system will cause 
>>problems.  As the temp inside or outside changes it can cause the shield 
>>to rub together and make a lot of noise on the repeater.  Even if it is 
>>used inside on the duplexers...
> 
> This is incorrect.  Silver-plated double-shielded coax is practically the

> standard for duplex interconnects.  Non silver-plated braided coax will 
> generate noise, whether it's double shielded or not, due to the eventual 
> oxidation of the copper & resulting poor intra-braid contact.
> 
>>   I had mentioned to the person you are referring to that I may be able 
>> to find some 1/2" hardline but he thought it may be to weighted for what

>> he is doing...
> 
> This would be a good choice for the duplexer-antenna feed, with RG-214 
> jumpers between the hardline & duplexer/antenna.
> 
> Bob NO6B
> 
> 
>>Corey  N3FE
>>
>>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400, "Chuck Kelsey"
>>wrote:
>> > Sounds like maybe a bad antenna. Don't use the foil/braid cable
>> > anywhere in
>> >
>> > a repeater system.
>> >
>> > Chuck
>> > WB2EDV
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> > From: "ka2ajh"
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:33 AM
>> > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi Guys,
>> >> We spent most of yesterday working on a UHF Mastr II Exec. Repeater,
>> >> we
>> >> are using a TRAM 1481 Dual Band Antenna on. This is the high gain 8.3
>> >> dB
>> >> VHF/11.7 UHF. The system uses UHF Repeater, VHF Simplex, and IRLP.
The
>> >> antenna works very poorly on UHF and much better on VHF. The SWR is
>> >> about
>> >>
>> >> 3-1 on both frequencies. The antenna is not DC Ground and there is no
>> >> shorted connectors. Lack of help prevented us from taking the antenna
>> >> down
>> >> and apart at this time. We ran tests by putting the antenna on a
>> >> portable
>> >>
>> >> and working a fixed base and again the VHF pinned the meter and the
>> >> UHF
>> >> was weak, only a couple of S units better than the portable rubber
>> >> duck.
>> >> Has anyone had a similar problem. I understand that the antenna is a
>> >> compromise and not as good as a single band folded dipole for
example,
>> >> but
>> >> several of us have these and they work great except for this one. I
am
>> >> thinking there are enough Tram 1481 out there and someone may have
had
>> >> the
>> >> same problem.
>> >> Also there has been many posts about the LMR400 used in repeater
>> >> service.
>> >>
>> >> It is my understanding that the foil type should NEVER be used
between
>> >> duplexers, from the TX, RX to the Duplexers, but I am not sure about
>> >> between the duplexer and the antenna. Comments please!
>> >> My friend has the LM400 on the repeater mentioned above and I know it
>> >> is
>> >> NOT the present problem as even on simplex the antenna performance on
>> >> 440
>> >>
>> >> very poor.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again an advance for your experiences and thoughts.
>> >>
>> >> 73 JIM  KA2AJH
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[Chris Curtis]

3/8 superflex works pretty good with "regular" pl-259.
It "screws" right onto the jacket.  Then solder the corrugated copper
"through the holes" of the pl-259

I've used the 1/4 w/reducer as well.  I also drilled the reducer to get "all
the way" to the copper.

Chris
Kb0wlf

> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
> buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:40 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew
> Superflex
> 
> I've used 1/4" superflex with PL259 & reducer. Works fine. Seems like I
> had
> to drill the reducer, but that's easy anyway.
> 
> Chuck
> WB2EDV
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:23 PM
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex
> 
> 
> Jim,
>  Thank you VERY much for trying this and letting me know. That will
> save me
> a lot of time with this project.
> 
>  I have read an article that uses 1/4" superflex with PL259 and UG176
> reducers, and will order some new cables and connectors for the jumpers
> I
> need. Superflex is cheaper than RG214 and probably better shielded.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Cicirello" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> >
> > I just took a piece of ½" Superflex that previously had a connector
> on it
> > and tried to place a PL259 UHF MALE  on it. The corrugation on the
> > superflex
> > is larger than the ID of the connector. The connector will go over
> the
> > center dielectric but the copper corrugation on the superflex is
> slightly
> > larger than the outside of the UHF Male. The only way I can see it
> may be
> > possible to join the connector to the cable would be to have a sleeve
> > extend
> > over the superflex and the outside of the UHF connector and then
> solder
> > the
> > sleeve. This might not be as good of an idea as getting proper
> connectors
> > that fit the superflex like the N Male and use an adapter to get to
> UHF.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good Luck  JIM  KA2AJH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony KT9AC
> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:51 PM
> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Everyone,
> > I need to make some short jumpers UHF-male to UHF-male and have a
> > length of 1/2 Andrew Superflex on order (actually eBay). Can I use
> > regular silver-teflon PL259's with this cable, similar to how 1/4"
> > superflex is used with the reducer? I can't find UHF Male connectors
> for
> > 1/2" superflex at Tessco.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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:
> 08/31/09 05:50:00

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[Chuck Kelsey]

I've used 1/4" superflex with PL259 & reducer. Works fine. Seems like I had 
to drill the reducer, but that's easy anyway.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: 
To: 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:23 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex


Jim,
 Thank you VERY much for trying this and letting me know. That will save me 
a lot of time with this project.

 I have read an article that uses 1/4" superflex with PL259 and UG176 
reducers, and will order some new cables and connectors for the jumpers I 
need. Superflex is cheaper than RG214 and probably better shielded.

Tony



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Cicirello"  wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
> I just took a piece of ½" Superflex that previously had a connector on it
> and tried to place a PL259 UHF MALE  on it. The corrugation on the 
> superflex
> is larger than the ID of the connector. The connector will go over the
> center dielectric but the copper corrugation on the superflex is slightly
> larger than the outside of the UHF Male. The only way I can see it may be
> possible to join the connector to the cable would be to have a sleeve 
> extend
> over the superflex and the outside of the UHF connector and then solder 
> the
> sleeve. This might not be as good of an idea as getting proper connectors
> that fit the superflex like the N Male and use an adapter to get to UHF.
>
>
>
>
>
> Good Luck  JIM  KA2AJH
>
>
>
>
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony KT9AC
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:51 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
> I need to make some short jumpers UHF-male to UHF-male and have a
> length of 1/2 Andrew Superflex on order (actually eBay). Can I use
> regular silver-teflon PL259's with this cable, similar to how 1/4"
> superflex is used with the reducer? I can't find UHF Male connectors for
> 1/2" superflex at Tessco.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
>








Yahoo! Groups Links

[Repeater-Builder] Re: UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[kt...@ameritech.net]

Jim,
 Thank you VERY much for trying this and letting me know. That will save me a 
lot of time with this project.

 I have read an article that uses 1/4" superflex with PL259 and UG176 reducers, 
and will order some new cables and connectors for the jumpers I need. Superflex 
is cheaper than RG214 and probably better shielded.

Tony



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Cicirello"  wrote:
>
> Tony,
> 
> 
> I just took a piece of ½" Superflex that previously had a connector on it
> and tried to place a PL259 UHF MALE  on it. The corrugation on the superflex
> is larger than the ID of the connector. The connector will go over the
> center dielectric but the copper corrugation on the superflex is slightly
> larger than the outside of the UHF Male. The only way I can see it may be
> possible to join the connector to the cable would be to have a sleeve extend
> over the superflex and the outside of the UHF connector and then solder the
> sleeve. This might not be as good of an idea as getting proper connectors
> that fit the superflex like the N Male and use an adapter to get to UHF. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Good Luck  JIM  KA2AJH  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony KT9AC
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:51 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> I need to make some short jumpers UHF-male to UHF-male and have a 
> length of 1/2 Andrew Superflex on order (actually eBay). Can I use 
> regular silver-teflon PL259's with this cable, similar to how 1/4" 
> superflex is used with the reducer? I can't find UHF Male connectors for 
> 1/2" superflex at Tessco.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tony
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[Jim Cicirello]

Tony,


I just took a piece of ½” Superflex that previously had a connector on it
and tried to place a PL259 UHF MALE  on it. The corrugation on the superflex
is larger than the ID of the connector. The connector will go over the
center dielectric but the copper corrugation on the superflex is slightly
larger than the outside of the UHF Male. The only way I can see it may be
possible to join the connector to the cable would be to have a sleeve extend
over the superflex and the outside of the UHF connector and then solder the
sleeve. This might not be as good of an idea as getting proper connectors
that fit the superflex like the N Male and use an adapter to get to UHF. 


 


Good Luck  JIM  KA2AJH  


 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony KT9AC
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:51 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

 

  

Hello Everyone,
I need to make some short jumpers UHF-male to UHF-male and have a 
length of 1/2 Andrew Superflex on order (actually eBay). Can I use 
regular silver-teflon PL259's with this cable, similar to how 1/4" 
superflex is used with the reducer? I can't find UHF Male connectors for 
1/2" superflex at Tessco.

Thanks,
Tony

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[no6b]

At 8/31/2009 09:03, you wrote:



>Good Morning/Afternoon Jim!
>
>Not sure about the Antenna, I know Randy's (HJC) is working great!  Any 
>type of double shielded coax/feedline anywhere in the system will cause 
>problems.  As the temp inside or outside changes it can cause the shield 
>to rub together and make a lot of noise on the repeater.  Even if it is 
>used inside on the duplexers...

This is incorrect.  Silver-plated double-shielded coax is practically the 
standard for duplex interconnects.  Non silver-plated braided coax will 
generate noise, whether it's double shielded or not, due to the eventual 
oxidation of the copper & resulting poor intra-braid contact.

>   I had mentioned to the person you are referring to that I may be able 
> to find some 1/2" hardline but he thought it may be to weighted for what 
> he is doing...

This would be a good choice for the duplexer-antenna feed, with RG-214 
jumpers between the hardline & duplexer/antenna.

Bob NO6B


>Corey  N3FE
>
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400, "Chuck Kelsey"
>wrote:
> > Sounds like maybe a bad antenna. Don't use the foil/braid cable anywhere in
> >
> > a repeater system.
> >
> > Chuck
> > WB2EDV
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "ka2ajh"
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:33 AM
> > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna
> >
> >
> >> Hi Guys,
> >> We spent most of yesterday working on a UHF Mastr II Exec. Repeater, we
> >> are using a TRAM 1481 Dual Band Antenna on. This is the high gain 8.3 dB
> >> VHF/11.7 UHF. The system uses UHF Repeater, VHF Simplex, and IRLP. The
> >> antenna works very poorly on UHF and much better on VHF. The SWR is about
> >>
> >> 3-1 on both frequencies. The antenna is not DC Ground and there is no
> >> shorted connectors. Lack of help prevented us from taking the antenna
> >> down
> >> and apart at this time. We ran tests by putting the antenna on a portable
> >>
> >> and working a fixed base and again the VHF pinned the meter and the UHF
> >> was weak, only a couple of S units better than the portable rubber duck.
> >> Has anyone had a similar problem. I understand that the antenna is a
> >> compromise and not as good as a single band folded dipole for example,
> >> but
> >> several of us have these and they work great except for this one. I am
> >> thinking there are enough Tram 1481 out there and someone may have had
> >> the
> >> same problem.
> >> Also there has been many posts about the LMR400 used in repeater service.
> >>
> >> It is my understanding that the foil type should NEVER be used between
> >> duplexers, from the TX, RX to the Duplexers, but I am not sure about
> >> between the duplexer and the antenna. Comments please!
> >> My friend has the LM400 on the repeater mentioned above and I know it is
> >> NOT the present problem as even on simplex the antenna performance on 440
> >>
> >> very poor.
> >>
> >> Thanks again an advance for your experiences and thoughts.
> >>
> >> 73 JIM  KA2AJH
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[no6b]

At 8/31/2009 06:33, you wrote:
>Hi Guys,
>We spent most of yesterday working on a UHF Mastr II Exec. Repeater, we 
>are using a TRAM 1481 Dual Band Antenna on. This is the high gain 8.3 dB 
>VHF/11.7 UHF. The system uses UHF Repeater, VHF Simplex, and IRLP. The 
>antenna works very poorly on UHF and much better on VHF. The SWR is about 
>3-1 on both frequencies. The antenna is not DC Ground and there is no 
>shorted connectors. Lack of help prevented us from taking the antenna down 
>and apart at this time. We ran tests by putting the antenna on a portable 
>and working a fixed base and again the VHF pinned the meter and the UHF 
>was weak, only a couple of S units better than the portable rubber duck. 
>Has anyone had a similar problem. I understand that the antenna is a 
>compromise and not as good as a single band folded dipole for example, but 
>several of us have these and they work great except for this one. I am 
>thinking there are enough Tram 1481 out there and someone may have had the 
>same problem.

I can't speak for the 1481 since I never had one, but I never had any 
matching or duplexing problems with the 1480 (lower gain 8' version).  I 
also have a few Comet GP9s in service & they work fine, with advertised 
gain on both bands - no compromise.

>Also there has been many posts about the LMR400 used in repeater service. 
>It is my understanding that the foil type should NEVER be used between 
>duplexers, from the TX, RX to the Duplexers, but I am not sure about 
>between the duplexer and the antenna. Comments please!

You definitely don't want LMR400 any place where duplexed signals are 
present.  This means between the duplexer & antenna.  Not sure why it would 
be a problem for the TX & RX connections to the duplexer unless the 
connectors weren't installed properly, but then again why take the chance 
on a short jumper where loss isn't an issue?  Silver-plated RG-214, RG-393, 
RG-223, RG-400, or RG-142 is known to be safe for that application.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sources of Maxtrac's

[Rich Osman]

The FCC ID is band dependent.  The manual has a table on ranges and that
includes the FCC IDs

John Sehring wrote:
>  
>
> 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
>
> 


-- 
mailto:o...@ozindfw.net
Oz
POB 93167 
Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport) 

[Repeater-Builder] UHF Connectors for 1/2 Andrew Superflex

[Tony KT9AC]

Hello Everyone,
 I need to make some short jumpers UHF-male to UHF-male and have a 
length of 1/2 Andrew Superflex on order (actually eBay). Can I use 
regular silver-teflon PL259's with this cable, similar to how 1/4" 
superflex is used with the reducer? I can't find UHF Male connectors for 
1/2" superflex at Tessco.

Thanks,
Tony

[Repeater-Builder] Narrow Banding and VHF Low Band

[wmhpowell]

Help!

The FCC rules on narrow-banding seem to be contradictory when it comes to 
determining if VHF low band must be converted to narrow band.

On one hand, the FCC states that "All" "below 512 MHz" which implies VHF low 
but on the other they specifically mention VHF high and UHF, specifically NOT 
mentioning VHF low band.

I need to come up with a specific reference from FCC docs either requiring or 
exempting VHF low from narrow banding requirements.

Urban legend and "I heard" won't get the funding if VHF low must be 
narrow-banded - only something form the FCC can make the $$ flow.
And, yes, I looked but found nothing definitive.

Thanks,
Bill - WB1GOT

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[n3fe]

Good Morning/Afternoon Jim!

Not sure about the Antenna, I know Randy's (HJC) is working great! Any
type of double shielded coax/feedline anywhere in the system will cause
problems. As the temp inside or outside changes it can cause the shield to
rub together and make a lot of noise on the repeater. Even if it is used
inside on the duplexers... I had mentioned to the person you are referring
to that I may be able to find some 1/2" hardline but he thought it may be
to weighted for what he is doing...

Corey N3FE

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400, "Chuck Kelsey" 
wrote:
> Sounds like maybe a bad antenna. Don't use the foil/braid cable anywhere
in
> 
> a repeater system.
> 
> Chuck
> WB2EDV
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "ka2ajh" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:33 AM
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna
> 
> 
>> Hi Guys,
>> We spent most of yesterday working on a UHF Mastr II Exec. Repeater, we

>> are using a TRAM 1481 Dual
Band Antenna on. This is the high gain 8.3
dB 
>> VHF/11.7 UHF. The system uses UHF Repeater, VHF Simplex, and IRLP. The 
>> antenna works very poorly on UHF and much better on VHF. The SWR is
about
>>
>> 3-1 on both frequencies. The antenna is not DC Ground and there is no 
>> shorted connectors. Lack of help prevented us from taking the antenna
>> down
>> and apart at this time. We ran tests by putting the antenna on a
portable
>>
>> and working a fixed base and again the VHF pinned the meter and the UHF

>> was weak, only a couple of S units better than the portable rubber
duck. 
>> Has anyone had a similar problem. I understand that the antenna is a 
>> compromise and not as good as a single band folded dipole for example,
>> but
>> several of us have these and they work great except for this one. I am 
>> thinking there are enough Tram 1481 out there and someone may have had
>> the
>> same problem.
>> Also there has been many posts about the LMR400 used in
repeater
service.
>>
>> It is my understanding that the foil type should NEVER be used between 
>> duplexers, from the TX, RX to the Duplexers, but I am not sure about 
>> between the duplexer and the antenna. Comments please!
>> My friend has the LM400 on the repeater mentioned above and I know it
is 
>> NOT the present problem as even on simplex the antenna performance on
440
>>
>> very poor.
>>
>> Thanks again an advance for your experiences and thoughts.
>>
>> 73 JIM KA2AJH
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>

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

[vk5ztv]

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "ve1ii"  wrote:
>
> 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
> 

Has the Canopy system been installed using shielded cat5/cat6 cable? The EMI 
certification is only applicable if shielded cables are used (and properly 
terminated).

What sort of antenna is your system using? How much vertical/horizontal 
separation from the Canopy system? Above or below?

Does the Canopy have one or two cables running to each panel? If one, the 
power, sync and data is carried on the same cable. If shielded cable has been 
correctly used, the cable radiation should be minimal (provided good quality 
cable with 100% shield coverage is used). 

If there are 2 cables, the sync signal crom the Cluster Management Module (CMM) 
is on a separate cable. If that cable is not shielded, it could be radiating.

Rodney.

=
Rodney Baker VK5ZTV
rodney.ba...@iinet.net.au
=

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[Chuck Kelsey]

Sounds like maybe a bad antenna. Don't use the foil/braid cable anywhere in 
a repeater system.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: "ka2ajh" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:33 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna


> Hi Guys,
> We spent most of yesterday working on a UHF Mastr II Exec. Repeater, we 
> are using a TRAM 1481 Dual Band Antenna on. This is the high gain 8.3 dB 
> VHF/11.7 UHF. The system uses UHF Repeater, VHF Simplex, and IRLP. The 
> antenna works very poorly on UHF and much better on VHF. The SWR is about 
> 3-1 on both frequencies. The antenna is not DC Ground and there is no 
> shorted connectors. Lack of help prevented us from taking the antenna down 
> and apart at this time. We ran tests by putting the antenna on a portable 
> and working a fixed base and again the VHF pinned the meter and the UHF 
> was weak, only a couple of S units better than the portable rubber duck. 
> Has anyone had a similar problem. I understand that the antenna is a 
> compromise and not as good as a single band folded dipole for example, but 
> several of us have these and they work great except for this one. I am 
> thinking there are enough Tram 1481 out there and someone may have had the 
> same problem.
> Also there has been many posts about the LMR400 used in repeater service. 
> It is my understanding that the foil type should NEVER be used between 
> duplexers, from the TX, RX to the Duplexers, but I am not sure about 
> between the duplexer and the antenna. Comments please!
> My friend has the LM400 on the repeater mentioned above and I know it is 
> NOT the present problem as even on simplex the antenna performance on 440 
> very poor.
>
> Thanks again an advance for your experiences and thoughts.
>
> 73 JIM  KA2AJH
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: IFR 1600S

[shibukiau]

Thanks again Gary --- I got the manual off the Repeater Builder site and 
started to read through it -- looks like I'll be at it for quite a while!!!

Thanks to you, Mike, for the posting and the excellent Repeater site and 
everyone else who have shared their experiences with me!!

Great bunch of folks here!!

Cheers!
Lloyd
VE3ERQ/VK4ERQ


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Gary Hoff  wrote:
>
> 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] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[Richard]

Navy MARS is also requiring a general license.
 
Richard
  www.n7tgb.net
 
"When they call the roll in the Senate,
the Senators do not know whether to
answer 'present' or 'not guilty.'"
--President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)

 

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dmur...@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:34 AM
To: dmur...@verizon.net
Cc: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?


  


Per the new training from Cheif ARMY MARS the new requirement is to have a
General class amateur ticket. Right now they are giving 1 year for
Technicians to up-grade to General.
Not sure what Air Force or NAVY are requiring.
 
 
David

 August 2009 01:22:41 PM, Repeater-Builder@
 yahoogroups.com wrote:


  




I think the requirement over here is Technician class.

 


  _  


From: Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@
 yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
dmur...@verizon.  net
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:20 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com
Cc: Repeater-Builder@ 
yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

 

  

True, MARS has changed with the times and now they are making it a
requirement to have at least a General license. When I first got into MARS
in the 60s I was able to start off with my NOVICE class license.

MARS has had some hard times with frequency allocations sharing some of the
spectrum with cross the border comms but today they are a valuable part of
DOMS and FEMA for comms support.

 

 

 

David

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

[David Jordan]

That was a good recommendation whoever made it.  

 

I heard NAVY MARS has been shut-down.

 

Please go direct on further discussion about MARS.doesn't have much to do
with repeaters.

 

dave

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dmur...@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:34 AM
To: dmur...@verizon.net
Cc: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

 

  

Per the new training from Cheif ARMY MARS the new requirement is to have a
General class amateur ticket. Right now they are giving 1 year for
Technicians to up-grade to General.

Not sure what Air Force or NAVY are requiring.

 

[Repeater-Builder] Tram 1481 Dual Band UHF/VHF Antenna

[ka2ajh]

Hi Guys,
We spent most of yesterday working on a UHF Mastr II Exec. Repeater, we are 
using a TRAM 1481 Dual Band Antenna on. This is the high gain 8.3 dB VHF/11.7 
UHF. The system uses UHF Repeater, VHF Simplex, and IRLP. The antenna works 
very poorly on UHF and much better on VHF. The SWR is about 3-1 on both 
frequencies. The antenna is not DC Ground and there is no shorted connectors. 
Lack of help prevented us from taking the antenna down and apart at this time. 
We ran tests by putting the antenna on a portable and working a fixed base and 
again the VHF pinned the meter and the UHF was weak, only a couple of S units 
better than the portable rubber duck. Has anyone had a similar problem. I 
understand that the antenna is a compromise and not as good as a single band 
folded dipole for example, but several of us have these and they work great 
except for this one. I am thinking there are enough Tram 1481 out there and 
someone may have had the same problem.
Also there has been many posts about the LMR400 used in repeater service. It is 
my understanding that the foil type should NEVER be used between duplexers, 
from the TX, RX to the Duplexers, but I am not sure about between the duplexer 
and the antenna. Comments please! 
My friend has the LM400 on the repeater mentioned above and I know it is NOT 
the present problem as even on simplex the antenna performance on 440 very poor.

Thanks again an advance for your experiences and thoughts.

73 JIM  KA2AJH   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[MCH]

When all the engineering deficiencies are addressed, it doesn't matter 
what the tones are.

Joe M.

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.
> 
> --
> Nate Duehr
> n...@natetech.com
> 
> facebook.com/denverpilot
> twitter.com/denverpilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

[David Jordan]

I think the requirement over here is Technician class.

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dmur...@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:20 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: "EOC" Frequencies Available?

 

  

True, MARS has changed with the times and now they are making it a
requirement to have at least a General license. When I first got into MARS
in the 60s I was able to start off with my NOVICE class license.

MARS has had some hard times with frequency allocations sharing some of the
spectrum with cross the border comms but today they are a valuable part of
DOMS and FEMA for comms support.

 

 

 

David

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

[Rick Szajkowski]

when I get my 1200 back from a friend I will snap you some shots ...
wish I had some way of making a odf of the manuals I have for it ..  4
binders !

RIck

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote:
>
>
> 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] Motorola CDR700 Repeater

[Scannr]

 Howdy Mike

What controller does your CDR700 have?

Steve 


 


 

-Original Message-
From: Mike Mullarkey 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:50 pm
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



6886
Sage Ave



Firestone,
Co 80504



303-954-9695
Home



303-954-9693
Home Office & Fax



303-718-8052
Cellular











 


  













 

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

[Paul Kelley N1BUG]

Hi Bruce,

I am currently experiencing similar problems with a Canopy system 
that went on a nearby tower. However in my case it turns out to be 
their 900 MHz not the 5.8 GHz backhaul. It appears to be intermod 
since it only happens when my 147 MHz transmitter is up.

There have been other instances of similar problems at nearby sites 
that were cured by replacing a switching power supply on the Canopy 
stuff. I'm assuming mine won't be that easy since it appears to be 
intermod not just switching PS crud.

Paul N1BUG



ve1ii wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Paul Kelley, N1BUG
http://www.n1bug.com

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters

[Ralph Mowery]

--- On Sun, 8/30/09, WA3GIN  wrote:


From: WA3GIN 
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Nearby Repeaters
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 30, 2009, 10:37 PM









4 miles
***
 
If I understand it correctly you have 2 repeaters 15 khz apart seperated by 
only 4 miles.  This is usually way too close.  The SERA co-ordiantors usually 
recommend a 75 mile spacing of repeaters this close together and 25 miles with 
20 khz spacing.