Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely
On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Jerry wrote: There have been times when during events it would have been great if two different repeaters had been linked. I've been kicking around the idea of a portable repeater linker consisting of one VHF Radius, one UHF Radius, and a RICK controller in the crossband mode. I've talked to the different repeater owners and they have given me permission to give my idea a try. The 'linker' works great the first time. The receiver radio hears the output of the first repeater and keys the transmitter radio which keys up the repeater. The problem comes in when the transmitter unkeys. The receiver radio hears the tail of the second repeater and keys up. When the second machine drops, the transmitter radio hears the tail of it's repeater and keys up. This continues FOREVER. Does anyone have any ideas or additional logic I can add to solve this problem? Thanks, Jerry Kinda. First... the idea Matthew offered will work. CTCSS on user signal received on both repeaters. Kinda. Problem: ID's. The RICK isn't properly ID'ing the link transmitters. Many of us have been down this path on the list. It'll lead to an annoying discussion of Part 97 if we go too far down that road. But you DO need to ID every transmitter. 'Nuff said. Best way: Put a dedicated link TX/RX at each repeater site or some sort of VoIP linking on its own controller port. In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... If you MUST link in-band, make the link margin (RF power) high enough that if the link doubles with someone, the LINK wins and captures the repeater receiver well enough that at least one of the transmissions can be heard by all... --- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Want to buy: Mastr II Pole Mount Cabinet, with or without station
Contact Mike kb5...@arrl.net, He had some? but building a better one would be cheaper than the freight. I sold some of them to New London Tech a few Yrs ago. Its just a rack mount in a box with a door front and back. You must add protection for Dust, Rain, Insects, snakes, rats your self.Also a heater and a fan. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, pbguerlain pbguerl...@... wrote: I need to move a Mastr II repeater outdoors and would prefer to use the GE pole mount cabinet. A picture can be seen at: http://www.repeater-builder.com/ge/lbi-library/lbi-30414c.pdf Anyone happen to have one you'd be willing to part with or know where else to ask? Thank you, Peter
[Repeater-Builder] FW: unsubscibe
From: Lance Cameron-Dow Sent: 30 October 2009 11:59 AM To: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com Subject: unsubscibe Delete me from your mailing list please
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely
Make sure you Full PL BOTH tx and rxers. I have had great luck with this method. At least with the Motorolas I use as soon as the input signal is dropped, the no squelch tall...and therefore no constant keying. de KM3W --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com wrote: From: Nate Duehr n...@natetech.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 5:50 AM On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Jerry wrote: There have been times when during events it would have been great if two different repeaters had been linked. I've been kicking around the idea of a portable repeater linker consisting of one VHF Radius, one UHF Radius, and a RICK controller in the crossband mode. I've talked to the different repeater owners and they have given me permission to give my idea a try. The 'linker' works great the first time. The receiver radio hears the output of the first repeater and keys the transmitter radio which keys up the repeater. The problem comes in when the transmitter unkeys. The receiver radio hears the tail of the second repeater and keys up. When the second machine drops, the transmitter radio hears the tail of it's repeater and keys up. This continues FOREVER. Does anyone have any ideas or additional logic I can add to solve this problem? Thanks, Jerry Kinda. First... the idea Matthew offered will work. CTCSS on user signal received on both repeaters. Kinda. Problem: ID's. The RICK isn't properly ID'ing the link transmitters. Many of us have been down this path on the list. It'll lead to an annoying discussion of Part 97 if we go too far down that road. But you DO need to ID every transmitter. 'Nuff said. Best way: Put a dedicated link TX/RX at each repeater site or some sort of VoIP linking on its own controller port. In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... If you MUST link in-band, make the link margin (RF power) high enough that if the link doubles with someone, the LINK wins and captures the repeater receiver well enough that at least one of the transmissions can be heard by all... --- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech. com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] unsubscibe
lcameron...@northlink.co.za remove me from your mailing list please Ok - since you asked nicely You have been removed. Kevin Custer
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Make notch duplexer with copper tubing?
On 4th November the following discussion caught my eye.. I'm not into building 6M repeaters, but am progressing towards refabricating an old AWA 70MHz 6 bandpass duplexer into a 2M duplexer with pass/reject notches. I'm interested in what DCfluX and Josh are up to with respect to using copper tube for the notch. Is there any printed data or further tech details on the subject..? regards John/VK4JKL DCFluX wrote: Use 3/8 which has an outer diameter of .500 for the inner conductor. Use 1 1/4 Type M which has an inner diameter of 1.289. Should be close to 98% velocity factor. I don't know if home depot carries the 3/8, but a 10ft stick of 1 1/4 was $36 last I checked. On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:14 PM, pet_the_dogg pet_the_d...@yahoo.com wrote: I am getting all the materials for a 6 meter repeater, but am hung up on a solution for a duplexer. I have seen several paces showing how to make a notch duplexer with heliax made into 1/4 wave stubs. Since I am unable to locate any large heliax,I was wondering if copper tubing could be used as a similar replacement. It would seem to work since the heliax just forms a folded dipole. Any experience would be greatly appreciated. Josh KC9LGV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coiling excess coax.
What you sometimes don't want to do is make some cables too neat. I remember a repeater that had desense problems. The fix was to cut the tie wraps off the receiver and transmitter cables coming from the duplexer that were neatly dressed inside the cabinet. They were running parallel and close together for quite a few feet and it was causing coupling between the receiver and transmitter. Moving them to opposite sides of the cabinet fixed the problem. (Maybe higher quality coax might have been a better fix, but this easy fix did the trick). Rather than coil excess cables, I try to dress them along the cabinet so as to use up length, being careful not to do a parallel run with a possible problem cable. Cables that are truly too long should be shortened up. 73, Joe, K1ike ab6li wrote: Hello to the group. I would like to gather some opinions on coiling excess coax as sometimes found when interconnecting cables may be a bit too long for an application. Good idea? Bad idea? I know that the excess length would add some loss and that would be undesireable but in some cases service loops need to be a bit longer than one would like in a coax jumper so rolling it up seems to be a natural way to cleanly dress the cables. Comments? John
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coiling excess coax.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Joe wrote: What you sometimes don't want to do is make some cables too neat. I remember a repeater that had desense problems. The fix was to cut the tie wraps off the receiver and transmitter cables coming from the duplexer that were neatly dressed inside the cabinet. They were running parallel and close together for quite a few feet and it was causing coupling between the receiver and transmitter. Moving them to opposite sides of the cabinet fixed the problem. (Maybe higher quality coax might have been a better fix, but this easy fix did the trick). What kind of coax were they? I'm trying to use RG-142 for as much as I can; when I run out of 142, I'll order some RG-400. (Solid vs Stranded center conductor.) -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
[Repeater-Builder] Motorola Test Meter question
Came across a number of Motorola test sets when cleaning out a site recently. Most are set set up for Micor. Have a Motorola S1056a test meter with unusual test leads. Unit has a TEK-37 metering connector with RTK-4057a RTK-4058a modular plug test leads attached. Anyone able to advise what repeater these will test ? Thanks Chris GMRS Inc.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
Thanks for the ideas. I really can't add radios to the existing sites as we don't always know which systems will be linked. I'll have to check to see how many of our local repeaters drop their encoded pl after the input drops. If the pl drops right away, I think your solutions will be the way I go. Thanks, Jerry K8CMI --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Pointman shield1...@... wrote: Make sure you Full PL BOTH tx and rxers. I have had great luck with this method. At least with the Motorolas I use as soon as the input signal is dropped, the no squelch tall...and therefore no constant keying. de KM3W --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Nate Duehr n...@... wrote: From: Nate Duehr n...@... Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 5:50 AM Â On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Jerry wrote: There have been times when during events it would have been great if two different repeaters had been linked. I've been kicking around the idea of a portable repeater linker consisting of one VHF Radius, one UHF Radius, and a RICK controller in the crossband mode. I've talked to the different repeater owners and they have given me permission to give my idea a try. The 'linker' works great the first time. The receiver radio hears the output of the first repeater and keys the transmitter radio which keys up the repeater. The problem comes in when the transmitter unkeys. The receiver radio hears the tail of the second repeater and keys up. When the second machine drops, the transmitter radio hears the tail of it's repeater and keys up. This continues FOREVER. Does anyone have any ideas or additional logic I can add to solve this problem? Thanks, Jerry Kinda. First... the idea Matthew offered will work. CTCSS on user signal received on both repeaters. Kinda. Problem: ID's. The RICK isn't properly ID'ing the link transmitters. Many of us have been down this path on the list. It'll lead to an annoying discussion of Part 97 if we go too far down that road. But you DO need to ID every transmitter. 'Nuff said. Best way: Put a dedicated link TX/RX at each repeater site or some sort of VoIP linking on its own controller port. In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... If you MUST link in-band, make the link margin (RF power) high enough that if the link doubles with someone, the LINK wins and captures the repeater receiver well enough that at least one of the transmissions can be heard by all... --- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech. com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
Yes, as Jerry points out, doing all of this with ex-commercial rigs means you'll have Reverse Burst or Squelch Tail Elimination, which are both very adequately documented on the Repeater-Builder website. (They are two different things, technically... different number of degrees of phase shift on the CTCSS on un-key. Some modern commercial rigs even allow you to CHOOSE which one you'd like to detect... and the S-Com 7330 allows you to choose which one you want to transmit.) I have an in-band link (would prefer not to, but similar limitations) that's a MASTR-II talking to a MASTR-II with the stock CTCSS boards. Every unkey is perfectly silent. Which is as God intended. (LOL!) Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great! (BIG GRIN...) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:19 +, Jerry gdste...@yahoo.com wrote: Thanks for the ideas. I really can't add radios to the existing sites as we don't always know which systems will be linked. I'll have to check to see how many of our local repeaters drop their encoded pl after the input drops. If the pl drops right away, I think your solutions will be the way I go. Thanks, Jerry K8CMI --- In [1]repeater-buil...@yahoogroups. com, Pointman shield1...@... wrote: Make sure you Full PL BOTH tx and rxers. I have had great luck with this method. At least with the Motorolas I use as soon as the input signal is dropped, the no squelch tall...and therefore no constant keying. de KM3W --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Nate Duehr n...@... wrote: From: Nate Duehr n...@... Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Linking Repeaters Remotely To: [2]repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 5:50 AM Â On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Jerry wrote: There have been times when during events it would have been great if two different repeaters had been linked. I've been kicking around the idea of a portable repeater linker consisting of one VHF Radius, one UHF Radius, and a RICK controller in the crossband mode. I've talked to the different repeater owners and they have given me permission to give my idea a try. The 'linker' works great the first time. The receiver radio hears the output of the first repeater and keys the transmitter radio which keys up the repeater. The problem comes in when the transmitter unkeys. The receiver radio hears the tail of the second repeater and keys up. When the second machine drops, the transmitter radio hears the tail of it's repeater and keys up. This continues FOREVER. Does anyone have any ideas or additional logic I can add to solve this problem? Thanks, Jerry Kinda. First... the idea Matthew offered will work. CTCSS on user signal received on both repeaters. Kinda. Problem: ID's. The RICK isn't properly ID'ing the link transmitters. Many of us have been down this path on the list. It'll lead to an annoying discussion of Part 97 if we go too far down that road. But you DO need to ID every transmitter. 'Nuff said. Best way: Put a dedicated link TX/RX at each repeater site or some sort of VoIP linking on its own controller port. In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... If you MUST link in-band, make the link margin (RF power) high enough that if the link doubles with someone, the LINK wins and captures the repeater receiver well enough that at least one of the transmissions can be heard by all... --- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech. com References 1. mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com 2. mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com 3. mailto:gdste...@yahoo.com?subject=re:%20Linking%20Repeaters%20Remotely 4. mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com?subject=re:%20Linking%20Repeaters%20Remotely 5. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/message/95547;_ylc=X3oDMTM1ZGJvcHZmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTU1NTkEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjU3ODg0MzQ0BHRwY0lkAzk1NTQ3 6. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaTNpZXBqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z0bARzbGsDdm1icnMEc3RpbWUDMTI1Nzg4NDM0NA--?o=6 7. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdWl0bW05BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z0bARzbGsDdmZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzEyNTc4ODQzNDQ- 8. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcHZlcHQ5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z0bARzbGsDdmdocARzdGltZQMxMjU3ODg0MzQ0 9.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: repeater problems solved
Thanks, I will check that. It is funny that out of the guys that hear it most are using mobile rigs. But, then the other night they said hey it is gone. Then ten minutes later it is back. All I know is with the fixes I was given by a great bunch of hams on here and the GE site and the with the new antenna and coax the repeater works like it is suppose to and sounds great to me. Of course, I am losing my hearing so I don't hear the tone. Thanks and 73 John --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wd8chl wd8...@... wrote: W3ML wrote: If it is not the grounded negative terminal I will just put in high pass filter on the PL cable. That should help reduce it or remove it. Thanks all. 73 John I wouldn't do that. FIRST-unplug the encoder audio out lead and see if it's still there (maybe the voltage in lead too, then ground). Then check levels. It should be between 500 and 800 Hz deviation. Then look for a good clean sine wave. Com-Spec SS-32's and TS-32's are known to have a less than perfect sine wave and can sound a bit raspy sometimes. If all that is OK, the problem is on the receiving end.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
It's been since the late 1950's that reverse burst has been around for PL tones. So for over 50 years the ham manufacturers haven't gotten on board yet. -- Original Message -- Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
That is because it is patented by Motorola. Please refer to US Patent #3,584,304 US Patent #3,628,058 also describes the squelch circuit used in the Micor and even gives a schematic for the M6709. On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:15 PM, JOHN MACKEY jmac...@usa.net wrote: It's been since the late 1950's that reverse burst has been around for PL tones. So for over 50 years the ham manufacturers haven't gotten on board yet.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:29:23PM -0700, DCFluX wrote: That is because it is patented by Motorola. Please refer to US Patent #3,584,304 US Patent #3,628,058 also describes the squelch circuit used in the Micor and even gives a schematic for the M6709. Patents are only a 17 year umbrella. Anything numbered in the 3 millions has been expired for at least 20 years or so. 73, Majdi, N0RMZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coiling excess coax.
--- On Tue, 11/10/09, ab6li johnever...@sbcglobal.net wrote: From: ab6li johnever...@sbcglobal.net Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Coiling excess coax. To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 1:39 AM Hello to the group. I would like to gather some opinions on coiling excess coax as sometimes found when interconnecting cables may be a bit too long for an application. Good idea? Bad idea? I know that the excess length would add some loss and that would be undesireable but in some cases service loops need to be a bit longer than one would like in a coax jumper so rolling it up seems to be a natural way to cleanly dress the cables. Comments? John The old it depends answer. If only a few feet (say under 10 or maybe 20 if used below 30 mhz) then coil it up in a big loop. You may want to move the shack around. I would say it depends on how much loss you want to take. Mostly depends on how much aditional loss you want to take. Unless you are into moon bounce or other very weak signals, then you could probably take about a half of a db loss in the excess coax and never notice it. Sometime just add in about 50 feet of rg-8 and see if you notice any differace.
[Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 coax lengths
I'm working on re-fitting a Wacom WP-639 for re-use. There are two remaining jumpers on this four cavity filter set, located between the cavities on each respective side; there is no coax between the High side of the Low side, only coax between each of the two low side cans and the two high side cans. Due to the age of the jumpers, and with parts available on hand, I am replacing the jumpers with RG-142. My questions are these: Are the side pieces frequency specific or middle of the road. (i.e.: 146.01 and 146.61 MHz for each side or 146.31MHz for both)? How much length does a connector add to the length of the cable when making a frequency-specific or critical jumper? Is the distance between the high-side and the low-side of the duplexer 1/2 wavelength? I believe that from the tee in the middle of the set, there should be 1/4 wavelength to the first high-side can, and 1/4 wavelength to the first low-side can. Is this correct? I know that I have to factor for velocity factor, but I am at a loss as to what to add or subtract for crimp N-type or PL-259 connectors. Thoughts, comments, information are greatly appreciated. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Nate Duehr wrote: Sure wish ham manufacturers would get on the ball on this feature and get it in the ham rigs. It's only been a decade or so now... all of our repeaters do it... the rigs don't know how to decode it, and I refuse to mess with chicken burst. I just use real radios, and it all sounds great! (BIG GRIN...) I had a Huh? moment the other day when playing with a repeater on the bench. I couldn't figure out why I was hearing a squelch crash when the key was dropped. Then I realized the service monitor doesn't have PL squelch. =) -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
At 11/10/2009 15:29, you wrote: That is because it is patented by Motorola. Please refer to US Patent #3,584,304 US Patent #3,628,058 also describes the squelch circuit used in the Micor and even gives a schematic for the M6709. The latter really gives you a new appreciation for the engineering that went into that chip. Things you probably never thought of like temperature compensation were accounted for in the design. Of course, you have to get through the patentlegalize: means coupling said output of said filter means with said input means of said first switch means;. Sheesh! Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coiling excess coax.
At 11/9/2009 22:39, you wrote: Hello to the group. I would like to gather some opinions on coiling excess coax as sometimes found when interconnecting cables may be a bit too long for an application. Good idea? Bad idea? I know that the excess length would add some loss and that would be undesireable but in some cases service loops need to be a bit longer than one would like in a coax jumper so rolling it up seems to be a natural way to cleanly dress the cables. Comments? Shouldn't matter if it's coiled up or not, provided it has adequate shielding (Superflex, RG-214 or RG-223). If you do get desense when the cables are near each other, it might indicate RF coupling to the outside of the coax from the TX or RX. This indicates a bad/improperly installed connector, or shielding problems at the TX or RX. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@... Nate, just a comment on the above. We've used in-band on-channel (IBOC??) linking to a nearby repeater for weather nets for many moons now. It has worked absolutely great for us. Sure, it's not elegant; a dedicated link is probably the better way. And, users are going to double anyway. Can't get away from that. We've not found any timing problems you refer to... Laryn K8TVZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 coax lengths
Pretty much you want an electrical 1/4 wavelength or 3/4 wave of coax cavity to cavity and from the cavities to the antenna tee. This should be the distance measured to the center of the Tee including connectors. You will need to know the velocity factor of the coax and calculate it in. But no one ever said what the velocity factor of the connectors and Tees are, so your going to have to dead recon it the rest of the way. I'd calculate both sides for 146.00 length wise and it should be close enough to cover the whole ham band, if you calculate to exact frequencies you cn probably get .5dB of additional rejection. for ultimate precision you can use a line stretcher, but then you get additional cable and connector loss. http://www.repeater-builder.com/wacom/wp6xx-vhf-tuning-instructions-remec.pdf http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/duplexer-cabling-lengths.html On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Kris Kirby k...@catonic.us wrote: I'm working on re-fitting a Wacom WP-639 for re-use. There are two remaining jumpers on this four cavity filter set, located between the cavities on each respective side; there is no coax between the High side of the Low side, only coax between each of the two low side cans and the two high side cans. Due to the age of the jumpers, and with parts available on hand, I am replacing the jumpers with RG-142. My questions are these: Are the side pieces frequency specific or middle of the road. (i.e.: 146.01 and 146.61 MHz for each side or 146.31MHz for both)? How much length does a connector add to the length of the cable when making a frequency-specific or critical jumper? Is the distance between the high-side and the low-side of the duplexer 1/2 wavelength? I believe that from the tee in the middle of the set, there should be 1/4 wavelength to the first high-side can, and 1/4 wavelength to the first low-side can. Is this correct? I know that I have to factor for velocity factor, but I am at a loss as to what to add or subtract for crimp N-type or PL-259 connectors. Thoughts, comments, information are greatly appreciated. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Linking Repeaters Remotely
On Nov 10, 2009, at 6:38 PM, larynl2 wrote: In-band RF linking on the user input frequencies is a kludge at best. It can double with users, and has other timing problems... Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@... Nate, just a comment on the above. We've used in-band on-channel (IBOC??) linking to a nearby repeater for weather nets for many moons now. It has worked absolutely great for us. Sure, it's not elegant; a dedicated link is probably the better way. And, users are going to double anyway. Can't get away from that. We've not found any timing problems you refer to... Laryn K8TVZ Usually the timing problems are related to bounce-back on fluttery/weak signals... signals that usually aren't all that copyable anyway, so it doesn't affect communications in general. But go kerchunk an in-band linked system 10 times fast and see if you get all ten kerchunks on the other end, etc. You'll see it. Subtle, but not right from an engineering standpoint. No big deal. Just not as elegant as dedicated links... Whatever works. I wouldn't trust a Public Safety Officer's life to it, but for ham junk... sure, why not? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
