RE: [Repeater-Builder] fradulant emails

[Barry]

Simple answer run a virtual machine over nix
 Oh and thanks 

To: zr...@twcny.rr.com; zr...@twcny.rr.com; n5...@sbcglobal.net; 
n5...@sbcglobal.net; ad...@tipoftexasfishinghunting.com; 
ad...@tipoftexasfishinghunting.com; n5sli.j...@sbcglobal.net; 
n5sli.j...@sbcglobal.net; jaypatters...@hotmail.com; jaypatters...@hotmail.com; 
josand...@sbcglobal.net; josand...@sbcglobal.net; helene...@sbcglobal.net; 
helene...@sbcglobal.net; rayjr_txp...@sbcglobal.net; 
rayjr_txp...@sbcglobal.net; Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; 
Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; notify-dg-rc...@yahoogroups.com; 
notify-dg-rc...@yahoogroups.com
From: n5...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:31:59 -0800
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] fradulant emails


















 



  



  
  
  To all of my friends and family, you may have recently received an email 
or emails selling Viagra or somthing else and the email said it was from me. 
These emails were not from me. I believe that one of my computers may have been 
hit by a worm or a trojan that scanned my address book. Please ignore these 
emails. I am attempting to clean my computers to stop any further unauthorized 
emails. Unfortunately I don't know as of yet how these fake emails occured or 
if someone has a copy of my contact list. 



Patrick Patterson





 









  
_
Link all your email accounts and social updates with Hotmail. Find out now.
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/oneinbox?ocid=T162MSN05A0710G

[Repeater-Builder] WTB: VHF higher power.....

[Chris Huber]

Looking for parts, amps anything to get my PURC 5000 350 watt amp back 
to full power.I lost one of the modules and the power protection now has 
it running at a 100 watts. Darn, so much for having 7 voting receivers.

Would consider alternatives.

Thanks,

Chris N6ICW

I like to be heard down in those canyons.

[Repeater-Builder] fradulant emails

[Pat Patterson]

To all of my friends and family, you may have recently received an email or 
emails selling Viagra or somthing else and the email said it was from me. These 
emails were not from me. I believe that one of my computers may have been hit 
by a worm or a trojan that scanned my address book. Please ignore these emails. 
I am attempting to clean my computers to stop any further unauthorized emails. 
Unfortunately I don't know as of yet how these fake emails occured or if 
someone has a copy of my contact list. 


Patrick Patterson

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial-Grade Repeaters for 6m

[Eric Lemmon]

David,

Thanks for the tip- I'll drop DX a line.  Are you aware of any of their
products being used on 6m?

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Epley
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 7:06 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial-Grade Repeaters for 6m

  

Try DX radios their repeater are very flexible.

 

David Epley, N9CZV

Randolph County Emergency Coordinator

4866N 400E

Winchester, Indiana 47394

Cell765.546.2592

n9...@arrl.net

 

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] RG designations

[Ralph Mowery]

From: Larry Horlick 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 8:49:32 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] RG designations

Anyone want to take a stab at this, or point me to a good primer on this topic?

The datasheet for Belden 88240 gives it an RG58A/U designation even though it 
OD is .159". Most RG-58s are .195".  I have always thought that even though the 
materials may differ at least the cable sizes and connector compatability were 
consistent within an RG type...amongst reputable manufacturers, anyway. Such 
appears not to be the case. 

What's the scoop?

lh


__._,_The .___
The real meaning of RG went out years ago.  Now it is only RG type and that can 
mean almost anything.
Usually the diameter will be close enough the coax fittings will work.  That is 
about all the RG is good for now.





 


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully 
Featured 
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe 





  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] RG designations

[Larry Horlick]

Interresting, Eric. I never realized that everything RGXX /RGXX TYPE wasn't
the same.
Thanks.

lh

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Eric Lemmon  wrote:

>
>
> Larry,
>
> Go to the Belden home site and look at the coaxial cable catalog. Belden
> 88240 is an RG-58A/U TYPE cable which is plenum-rated and has FEP
> dielectric
> and jacket- nothing at all similar to genuine MIL-Spec RG-58A/U cable. You
> can compare Belden 88240 to the genuine RG-58 datasheet in the Files
> section
> of the Repeater-Builder group, along with several other cables.
>
> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Larry Horlick
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:50 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] RG designations
>
> Anyone want to take a stab at this, or point me to a good primer on this
> topic?
>
> The datasheet for Belden 88240 gives it an RG58A/U designation even though
> it OD is .159". Most RG-58s are .195". I have always thought that even
> though the materials may differ at least the cable sizes and connector
> compatability were consistent within an RG type...amongst reputable
> manufacturers, anyway. Such appears not to be the case.
>
> What's the scoop?
>
> lh
>
>  
>

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Commercial-Grade Repeaters for 6m

[David Epley]

Try DX radios their repeater are very flexible.

 

David Epley, N9CZV

Randolph County Emergency Coordinator

4866N 400E

Winchester, Indiana 47394

Cell765.546.2592

n9...@arrl.net

 

 

[Repeater-Builder] Commercial-Grade Repeaters for 6m

[Eric Lemmon]

Has anyone been able to run a Midland 71-0150RC or Sierra STRT50C low-band
commercial repeater on 6m?  Both of these repeaters give 50 MHz as their
upper band edge, but I wonder if that can be bypassed so that operation up
to 53 MHz can be achieved.  The repeater must be capable of 40-60 watts RF
output, continuous duty.  A simple internal controller with CWID is
mandatory.

The entire repeater must fit in a 3U or 4U rack space, which rules out a
converted Micor or Mastr repeater.  A Hamtronics REP-200 is not acceptable,
due to some compatibility and reliability issues.  Daniels equipment is also
not considered, due to the cost and uncertainty of converting it for 6m.  A
Kenwood TKR-x50 repeater would be considered, if it were made in a low-band
version.  I'd love to use a Motorola MTR2000, but I already know that it
cannot be tuned to operate in the 6m band.  The key requirement here is that
the candidate repeater must be programmable to work at 6m, without any
hardware mods or software hacks being required.  The client prefers a new,
current production repeater with a warranty.  Any ideas?

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Noise Level on a Duplexer

[Kent Chong]

Dear Nate,

They are TETRA & TETRAPOL systems. It seems like our Duplexer that is causing 
the problem, as the TETRA system bypasses the Combiner, the noise is removed.

At first, we were thinking it is the heat problem, but the system is installed 
in an air-condition room at 25 deg C, and the Duplexer is not heated up.

Best Regards,

Kent

--- On Tue, 9/3/10, Nate Duehr  wrote:

From: Nate Duehr 
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Noise Level on a Duplexer
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 9 March, 2010, 6:08 AM







 



  



  
  
  



What specific radios, and would 3 hours be enough for the radios
themselves or any other components they might be heating to return to
room-temperature (whatever that is where they're installed)?



Nate WY0X



On 3/8/2010 10:03 AM, Kent Chong wrote:
 

  
  
  

  
Hello Everybody,



Good day.



We have developed a Duplexer to combine to two signals form two systems
for in-building application. The Dupluxer (or combiner) has
specifications of 1.7dB insertion loss and >60dB isolation. When we
set up the system and power on the two systems, the combiner works fine.



However, we notice that the noise level (up link) on the two systems
will slowly increase, and until 3~4 days later, the noise level has
increased to -80~-60dBm level. We then power down the systems for 3
hours, and power them up again. The systems work fine again.



Anybody could help?



Best Regards,



Kent


  

  
  
  
  
  









 





 



  






  New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. 
Hurry before someone else does!
http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: FS: Speaking of 200 watts on a repeater transmitter.....

[Ken Arck]

Amp has been spoken for.

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net
"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Noise Level on a Duplexer

[Kent Chong]

Dear Joe,

One system is on 380~400Mhz, and the other one is on 470~490Mhz.

Best Regards,

Kent

--- On Tue, 9/3/10, Joe  wrote:

From: Joe 
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Noise Level on a Duplexer
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 9 March, 2010, 7:29 AM







 



  



  
  
  What frequency are you on?



Joe



Kent Chong wrote:

>

>

> Hello Everybody,

>

> Good day.

>

> We have developed a Duplexer to combine to two signals form two 

> systems for in-building application. The Dupluxer (or combiner) has 

> specifications of 1.7dB insertion loss and >60dB isolation. When we 

> set up the system and power on the two systems, the combiner works fine.

>

> However, we notice that the noise level (up link) on the two systems 

> will slowly increase, and until 3~4 days later, the noise level has 

> increased to -80~-60dBm level. We then power down the systems for 3 

> hours, and power them up again. The systems work fine again.

>

> Anybody could help?

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Kent

>

>

>

>  - - - - - -

> New Email names for you! 

>  *http://mail. promotions. yahoo.com/ newdomains/ sg/> 

>

> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

> Hurry before someone else does!

>

> 






 





 



  






  New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. 
Hurry before someone else does!
http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/

RE: [Repeater-Builder] RG designations

[Eric Lemmon]

Larry,

Go to the Belden home site and look at the coaxial cable catalog.  Belden
88240 is an RG-58A/U TYPE cable which is plenum-rated and has FEP dielectric
and jacket- nothing at all similar to genuine MIL-Spec RG-58A/U cable.  You
can compare Belden 88240 to the genuine RG-58 datasheet in the Files section
of the Repeater-Builder group, along with several other cables.

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Horlick
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:50 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] RG designations

  

Anyone want to take a stab at this, or point me to a good primer on this
topic?

The datasheet for Belden 88240 gives it an RG58A/U designation even though
it OD is .159". Most RG-58s are .195".  I have always thought that even
though the materials may differ at least the cable sizes and connector
compatability were consistent within an RG type...amongst reputable
manufacturers, anyway. Such appears not to be the case.

What's the scoop?

lh

[Repeater-Builder] RG designations

[Larry Horlick]

Anyone want to take a stab at this, or point me to a good primer on this
topic?

The datasheet for Belden 88240 gives it an RG58A/U designation even though
it OD is .159". Most RG-58s are .195".  I have always thought that even
though the materials may differ at least the cable sizes and connector
compatability were consistent within an RG type...amongst reputable
manufacturers, anyway. Such appears not to be the case.

What's the scoop?

lh

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Kris Kirby]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Kevin Custer wrote:
> The antenna doesn't know if it's receiving or transmitting - so the 
> antenna has absolutely nothing to do with transmit or receive balance 
> - which is now the subject.

Kevin brings up an interesting point: If you want to verify the pattern 
of an antenna at a given frequency, RSSI may be for this purpose when 
attached to a receiver. One only need to calculate the pathloss and 
know the remote transmitter power.

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
Disinformation Analyst

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: FS: Speaking of 200 watts on a repeater transmitter.....

[Ken Arck]

At 03:18 PM 3/8/2010, Bill wrote:
>
>
>You say the amp was retuned,,are there tuning caps or how was it 
>retuned and do you know if the Glenayre vhf amps are the same way of 
>retuning to ham freqs.
>.

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Someone still loves a Motrac - Low Band Even...

[Bill Hudson]

 

I think I have crystals but I'm not sure.  Those took a crystal oven right?
I have ovens for that vintage I think.  What model or what do they look
like?  Gold square/rectangle ovens?  

 

I have some Progress Line ovens too.  

 

Help me remember and I'll look in the drawer dedicated to that old stuff.

 

BTW:  I found two TLN6824 and 1 TLN8381 reeds on 110.9 in my drawer and am
sending them out free to a really nice guy who is restoring an old LHT
Motrac.  He wanted to use genuine reeds - and I was lucky enough to have
them.  My 10 years with Motorola netted a lot of goodies stored in a safe
place.  

 

What do you need?  I don't remember between a 5v and a 41v - what was what.

 

Bill Hudson

W6CBS

 

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of w...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:34 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Someone still loves a Motrac - Low Band
Even...

 

  

I'm still working for an MSS (38 years) and just swapped out my 6 meter
Motrac for a Mitrek. I also just found a VHF TwinV that I'm going to clean
up and restore. By the way, anyone have any 2 meter crystals for a Twin V? 

 

Glenn

W8AK

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Noise Level on a Duplexer

[Joe]

What frequency are you on?

Joe

Kent Chong wrote:
>
>
> Hello Everybody,
>
> Good day.
>
> We have developed a Duplexer to combine to two signals form two 
> systems for in-building application. The Dupluxer (or combiner) has 
> specifications of 1.7dB insertion loss and >60dB isolation. When we 
> set up the system and power on the two systems, the combiner works fine.
>
> However, we notice that the noise level (up link) on the two systems 
> will slowly increase, and until 3~4 days later, the noise level has 
> increased to -80~-60dBm level. We then power down the systems for 3 
> hours, and power them up again. The systems work fine again.
>
> Anybody could help?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Kent
>
>
>
> 
> New Email names for you! 
> 
>  
>
> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
> Hurry before someone else does!
>
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: OT P25 Versus Analog Test by Maple Bluff Fire Department, Dane County WI

[skipp025]

Digital Versus Analog Radio Testing 


But what you don't hear or see... is the Latency built 
into all the radios using the digital mode. In fact the 
video has been cleverly modified/edited so the digital 
voice audio on the receive side is in real time sync with 
the video picture. 

Put two correctional or street police officers in an emergency 
situation where two more more radios (in digital mode) are 
in ear shot of each other and all he11 can break loose when 
the latency gets in the way of and and all rapid communications. 

Better than 98% of the digital radios I know are in Public 
Service run in the analog mode 100% of the time. 

Analog will be here for a while... at least in Public Safety. 

cheers, 
s. 


> "ka9qjg1"  wrote:
>
> As Scanner Listeners  And some on this group are actual users ,I found this 
> very informative. And Yes I do agree that The FD and Anyone that have to use 
> the New Radios and Put their Life on the line depending on them this is Very 
> Important 
> 
> The 2 FD Guys did a Great Job on this too
> 
> Happy Scanning 
> 
> Don KA9QJG 
> 
> Interesting audio quality tests with various p25/analog radios under various 
> noise conditions conducted by firefighters of Maple Bluff, WI FD.
> 
> http://www.mapleblufffire.com/videos/Narrowband-radio-test
> 
> Prior to January 1, 2013, emergency service departments nationwide will need 
> to comply with the new FCC narrowband guidelines. On February 24, 2010 the 
> Maple Bluff Fire Department (MBFD), in Dane County WI, performed an unbiased 
> and impartial radio test. We compared the sound quality of the Kenwood 
> TK-5210, Motorola XTS-2500, Motorola XTS-5000, Motorola APX-7000, EF Johnson 
> SL 5100, Tait 9135, and ICOM 9011 under normal firefighter work conditions. 
> These radios were tested in Digital and Analog modes. The Maple Bluff Fire 
> Department is not endorsing any particular manufacturer, vendor, or radio 
> type, and realize there are radios on the market that were not tested. The 
> radios seen in this test were selected by availability at the time of the 
> test. We hope this video is useful and informative for you and your 
> department.
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: FS: Speaking of 200 watts on a repeater transmitter.....

[Bill]

You say the amp was retuned,,are there tuning caps or how was it retuned and do 
you know if the Glenayre vhf amps are the same way of retuning to ham freqs.
.
thanks  
.
Bill
.


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ken Arck  wrote:
>
> I have for sale a Glenayre Series 90 250 watt UHF repeater amp along 
> with 2 of the matching power supplies (the amp runs on 28 VDC).
> 
> The amp has been retuned for the ham band (440-449) and can be 
> adjusted for CLEAN power from approx 80 to 250 watts (if only 
> interested in less than 150, one of the supplied power supplies is 
> needed. For higher power, both are).
> 
> Before I put it on Ebay, thought I'd offer it up here. First $225 
> takes it PLUS shipping (the amp and supplies are around 50 pounds).
> 
> Ken
> --
> President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
> http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
> Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> we offer complete repeater packages!
> AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> http://www.irlp.net
> "We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - what's an alligator

[Steve]

OH, yes commonly know as leeches, suck you dry
of money, property etc.
Iam slowly learning American English :-)
Was in the states many years ago and I enjoyed it but being
English, and from Liverpool as well got some funny looks when
I ordered food, like fish and chips with mushy peas

73

Steve
- Original Message - 
From: "skipp025" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:06 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - what's 
an alligator


>> "Steve"  wrote:
>
>> ermmm, being in the UK, what's an alligator ?
>
> What..?  You don't have or know any "mother in law" or
> "ex-wife" people in the UK..?
>
> s.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - what's an alligator

[skipp025]

> "Steve"  wrote:

> ermmm, being in the UK, what's an alligator ?

What..?  You don't have or know any "mother in law" or 
"ex-wife" people in the UK..? 

s. 

[Repeater-Builder] OT P25 Versus Analog Test by Maple Bluff Fire Department, Dane County WI

[ka9qjg1]

As Scanner Listeners  And some on this group are actual users ,I found this 
very informative. And Yes I do agree that The FD and Anyone that have to use 
the New Radios and Put their Life on the line depending on them this is Very 
Important 

The 2 FD Guys did a Great Job on this too

Happy Scanning 

Don KA9QJG 

Interesting audio quality tests with various p25/analog radios under various 
noise conditions conducted by firefighters of Maple Bluff, WI FD.

http://www.mapleblufffire.com/videos/Narrowband-radio-test

Prior to January 1, 2013, emergency service departments nationwide will need to 
comply with the new FCC narrowband guidelines. On February 24, 2010 the Maple 
Bluff Fire Department (MBFD), in Dane County WI, performed an unbiased and 
impartial radio test. We compared the sound quality of the Kenwood TK-5210, 
Motorola XTS-2500, Motorola XTS-5000, Motorola APX-7000, EF Johnson SL 5100, 
Tait 9135, and ICOM 9011 under normal firefighter work conditions. These radios 
were tested in Digital and Analog modes. The Maple Bluff Fire Department is not 
endorsing any particular manufacturer, vendor, or radio type, and realize there 
are radios on the market that were not tested. The radios seen in this test 
were selected by availability at the time of the test. We hope this video is 
useful and informative for you and your department.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Richard Fletcher]

Hi guys,

 I think this is getting off track mostly becouse of many peoples 
missconception about RF Power. Seems that if you have 50 watts, and can talk 50 
miles, then 200w would there for talk 200 miles right? Wrong! 200w over 50 watt 
is only 6db so if in tern you had a 1/4 wave on your car and can talk 50 miles 
with your 50 watt radio, would you then expect to talk about 200 miles if you 
changed it to a 5/8 antenna? Of cours not right? (Most 5/8 are typicaly 4 
to 5db, so you kinda ket the idea right)? 

 Richard





From: Kevin Custer 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 3:03:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was 
something else...

  
Kris Kirby wrote: 
I think that one would be better served by choosing an antenna 
>appropriate to the purpose of the repeater. If you need urban coverage, 
>choose an antenna with more null-fill, or less gain. 
>
>If you have to pay for power (or make your own power!), you'll spend 
>more time working on an antenna that will cover what you need so your 
>transmitter can be ten watts or less.

The antenna doesn't know if it's receiving or transmitting - so the antenna has 
absolutely nothing to do with transmit or receive balance - which is now the 
subject.

Kevin Custer




  

[Repeater-Builder] FS: Speaking of 200 watts on a repeater transmitter.....

[Ken Arck]

I have for sale a Glenayre Series 90 250 watt UHF repeater amp along 
with 2 of the matching power supplies (the amp runs on 28 VDC).

The amp has been retuned for the ham band (440-449) and can be 
adjusted for CLEAN power from approx 80 to 250 watts (if only 
interested in less than 150, one of the supplied power supplies is 
needed. For higher power, both are).

Before I put it on Ebay, thought I'd offer it up here. First $225 
takes it PLUS shipping (the amp and supplies are around 50 pounds).

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net
"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"

Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF repeater antenna recommendations

[Nate Duehr]

Sinclair HD (heavy duty) folded-dipoles (various models - how many bays 
and how much gain do you want?) have served well for decades around here.


Have also seen DB products arrays last similarly long lifespans in other 
clubs/groups in the area.


One of those (dual-mast, 8-bay folded-dipole variety) only died when it 
took a direct lightning strike, welded itself together at the joint 
between the two masts, and had holes the size of dimes in it where the 
lightning jumped from mast to tower.  It was still working, but SWR was 
crazy, and of course, radiation pattern was anything but "normal"... but 
the repeater (with an isolator) was still on-air and usable.


Similar lightning blew fiberglass "stick" antennas taller than me into 
so many tiny little white bits, that the remainder of the antenna other 
than the bottom mount, fit nicely in a kitchen-sized garbage bag, for 
one unlucky group out here.  They were NOT on-air until they replaced 
it, of course.


The only "killer" out here besides lightning... bad weatherproofing.  Go 
ALL OUT on weather-proofing connections.  Have seen more instances of 
water ingress killed the hardline feeding the antenna, than the antennas 
themselves failing.


We also tend to have almost zero issues with heavy icing -- it's 
typically too dry here -- but the few times I've seen it, the arrays 
were so covered that system performance was actually degraded, but no 
physical damage from the ice hanging from the antennas.


Ice FALLING from antennas/platforms/etc when the weather turned warmer 
and started it melting... from ABOVE... has broken antennas... has 
sliced hardline, etc.


Nate WY0X

On 3/8/2010 2:06 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote:


Comprod makes an extra heavy-duty folded dipole array. It won't be cheap,
but then again you want it to survive for a long time. Tower work at that
elevation isn't cheap either.

Chuck
WB2EDV

- Original Message -
From: "camper161" mailto:camper161%40yahoo.com>>
To: >

Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:50 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF repeater antenna recommendations

> Hello all, looking for amateur UHF repeater antenna recommendations. 
The

> antenna will be over 700ft in the air, looking for something that will
> hold up in the wind and what ever Mother Nature might dish out.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Nate Duehr]

On 3/8/2010 1:22 PM, MCH wrote:


That's just it. Everyone likes to throw names out such as 'alligator' or
'elephant', but few people realize it's all relative to the station
*using* the repeater, too. What repeater may be an alligator for one
person is an elephant to another depending on *their* equipment.

The repeater itself is neither an alligator or an elephant.

Joe M.



Absolutely.  You can design a system that is nicely balanced for 5W HT's 
with factory-stock rubber ducks, or nicely-balanced for mobile radios 
with 50W transmitters and higher gain antennas, of course.  The trick is 
to actually *design* the desired coverage and then stick to "the plan"...


Or the other method... which is usually more practical...

Don't worry about transmitter power at all at first.  Make the thing 
receive just as darn well as ALL of the variables allow considering what 
it can "see", and only then design the transmitter power to match, 
including any additional desense (hopefully not!) by additional TX 
power.  (Which would likely drive you to do a filtering system re-design.)


In this discussion, method #2 might be called "Try to build an Elephant 
for your desired coverage area -- you do have a desired coverage area 
don't you? If you don't, how are you measuring your success? -- then use 
more than average power for the TX to match. If your system truly ends 
up behaving like a pachyderm, adding TX power after that can be done if 
a) time, b) money, c) willpower, d) other needs permit.


At high mountain sites with tons of RF, it's just usually impossible to 
"build the perfect Elephant" even with top-notch filtering, pre-amps, 
antennas, feedline, etc... due to the overall "site noise floor".  You 
do the best you can and then "road test" it a bit to see if the TX is 
covering the same places a high system can "hear".  We've had more than 
one occasion to think "the repeater sounds a little weak", drive to the 
site, and find it's operating on exciter power alone... Height Above 
Average Terrain trumps ALL in VHF+ repeater work, and we're quite 
"spoiled" by our large granite "towers" 20 or so miles to the West.


The other thing we all *should* do, but don't: Part of that initial 
design/trial process should be measuring a "baseline" performance level.


We quite literally have sites that everyone *remembers* performing 
slightly better over 10 years ago, and the *assumption* is that the 
freshly-measured noise-floor at those sites is higher than it was many 
years ago... but in many cases, the technician working on the site 10+ 
years ago didn't a) write it down, b) put it where someone could find 
it, c) care.  (GRIN)


We have *partially* "fixed" this problem by making sure every site has a 
"site book"... just a spiral wound notebook where all pertinent changes, 
measurements, and other items are noted in the book.  It's simple, it 
works... the only downside is... the book is up at the site when you 
might want to reference it.  A better solution today would be something 
digital stored off-site, but that no matter what... you *always* have 
some data entry method available at every site.  We have talked about 
this Utopia now for a while, in hopes that we'll find the time to finish 
getting IP/Internet access to all of our sites, and a PC at each, such 
that no tech would ever have the excuse ("I couldn't put it in the 
system" or, "I couldn't get data cell service at the site" or... well, 
you get the idea.)


Seriously though -- measure, and then set a goal to try to increase the 
performance.  Often-times over many years, little problems sneak in (the 
infamous GE MASTR II "whisker" problem comes to mind) that seriously 
degrade the performance of a receiver, but without regular measurements 
and historical data, just becomes "wow, that site seems worse than it 
used to be", and even that is only noticed by the techs/people who 
really pay close attention.


An example of it done wrong, is a local group who also has a number of 
older members who "remember when the repeater worked better" up on a 
particular mountain.  The original techs may or may not be members of 
that aging group, who can no longer get to the site to see for 
themselves just how noisy it is.


A new gung-ho tech from somewhere else, moves into town -- gets asked by 
the repeater group's vocal minority to "go fix the repeater" and strange 
site shenannigans start happening, like split-antennas, etc... with no 
idea what the "baseline" was, the new tech tries to "fix" the problem, 
each time realizing (by proper measuring) that they made no significant 
effect -- or worse, starts causing an interference problem in an 
environment laden with PIM problems that haven't been hunted down yet, 
and may never be -- eventually they throw their hands up in disgust 
after multiple folks say, "That's been tried. It won't help."


And the cycle starts over again in a few years with a new tech.  All 
because nothing's been WRITTEN down, a

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Noise Level on a Duplexer

[Nate Duehr]

What specific radios, and would 3 hours be enough for the radios 
themselves or any other components they might be heating to return to 
room-temperature (whatever that is where they're installed)?


Nate WY0X

On 3/8/2010 10:03 AM, Kent Chong wrote:


Hello Everybody,

Good day.

We have developed a Duplexer to combine to two signals form two 
systems for in-building application. The Dupluxer (or combiner) has 
specifications of 1.7dB insertion loss and >60dB isolation. When we 
set up the system and power on the two systems, the combiner works fine.


However, we notice that the noise level (up link) on the two systems 
will slowly increase, and until 3~4 days later, the noise level has 
increased to -80~-60dBm level. We then power down the systems for 3 
hours, and power them up again. The systems work fine again.


Anybody could help?

Best Regards,

Kent

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[wd8chl]

On 3/8/2010 3:22 PM, MCH wrote:
> That's just it. Everyone likes to throw names out such as 'alligator' or
> 'elephant', but few people realize it's all relative to the station
> *using* the repeater, too. What repeater may be an alligator for one
> person is an elephant to another depending on *their* equipment.
>
> The repeater itself is neither an alligator or an elephant.
>
> Joe M.

heh-I hate to say how many people I hear can be right under a receiver 
and still be noisy...and stay noisy all the time, no matte where they 
are...you just know that when you hear a noisy signal, it's 'so-and-so'.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF repeater antenna recommendations

[Chuck Kelsey]

Comprod makes an extra heavy-duty folded dipole array. It won't be cheap, 
but then again you want it to survive for a long time. Tower work at that 
elevation isn't cheap either.

Chuck
WB2EDV



- Original Message - 
From: "camper161" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:50 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] UHF repeater antenna recommendations


> Hello all, looking for amateur UHF repeater antenna recommendations. The 
> antenna will be over 700ft in the air, looking for something that will 
> hold up in the wind and what ever Mother Nature might dish out.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2730 - Release Date: 03/08/10 
02:34:00

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Steve]

Thanks for info
we don't have such problems in the UK as we can't use voters
etc, our rptrs are just that, all in one place no remote rx,s, uhf
links and silly freqs with 1.6Mhz split, 25w max


73

Steve
- Original Message - 
From: "Kevin Custer" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - 
was something else...


> Steve wrote:
>> It seems logical that if a rptr tx is running 200w, and the mobile is 
>> running say 50w then it is going to be one way ie mobile hears rptr but 
>> rptr don't hear mobile too well
>
> Common misconception.
>
> Lets say the mobile radio has a receive sensitivity of -116 dBm and 50
> watts of transmitter power.  The repeater has a receive sensitivity of
> -122 dBm - how much power will it take to balance out the receive
> advantage of the repeater?  If you said 6 dB, you are correct.  50 watts
> with a 6 dB improvement is 200 watts.
>
> I have seen several VHF and UHF repeater systems with -125 dBm actual
> sensitivity on air - connected to the antenna and duplexing.  You do the
> math...
>
> 400 watts is the answer.
>
> The original poster mentioned an LDG voter and remote links.  If the
> repeater has remote receivers that will increase the distance of
> operation from the transmitter, he'll need all of his 200 watts.
>
> Kevin Custer
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] UHF repeater antenna recommendations

[camper161]

Hello all, looking for amateur UHF repeater antenna recommendations. The 
antenna will be over 700ft in the air, looking for something that will hold up 
in the wind and what ever Mother Nature might dish out. 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Oz-in-DFW]

On 3/8/2010 2:33 PM, Kevin Custer wrote:
>  
>
> Steve wrote:
> > It seems logical that if a rptr tx is running 200w, and the mobile
> is running say 50w then it is going to be one way ie mobile hears rptr
> but rptr don't hear mobile too well
>
> Common misconception.
>
> Lets say the mobile radio has a receive sensitivity of -116 dBm and 50
> watts of transmitter power. The repeater has a receive sensitivity of
> -122 dBm - how much power will it take to balance out the receive
> advantage of the repeater? If you said 6 dB, you are correct. 50 watts
> with a 6 dB improvement is 200 watts.
>
> I have seen several VHF and UHF repeater systems with -125 dBm actual
> sensitivity on air - connected to the antenna and duplexing. You do the
> math...
>
> 400 watts is the answer.
>
> The original poster mentioned an LDG voter and remote links. If the
> repeater has remote receivers that will increase the distance of
> operation from the transmitter, he'll need all of his 200 watts.
>
> Kevin Custer
>
And a /properly /configured voter can easily add 4-6 dB to efffective
sensitivity just though diversity effects, never mind getting the
receiver closer to the user.

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

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Kevin Custer]

Steve wrote:
> It seems logical that if a rptr tx is running 200w, and the mobile is running 
> say 50w then it is going to be one way ie mobile hears rptr but rptr don't 
> hear mobile too well

Common misconception. 

Lets say the mobile radio has a receive sensitivity of -116 dBm and 50 
watts of transmitter power.  The repeater has a receive sensitivity of 
-122 dBm - how much power will it take to balance out the receive 
advantage of the repeater?  If you said 6 dB, you are correct.  50 watts 
with a 6 dB improvement is 200 watts.

I have seen several VHF and UHF repeater systems with -125 dBm actual 
sensitivity on air - connected to the antenna and duplexing.  You do the 
math...

400 watts is the answer.

The original poster mentioned an LDG voter and remote links.  If the 
repeater has remote receivers that will increase the distance of 
operation from the transmitter, he'll need all of his 200 watts.

Kevin Custer

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Kevin Custer]

Kris Kirby wrote:


I think that one would be better served by choosing an antenna 
appropriate to the purpose of the repeater. If you need urban coverage, 
choose an antenna with more null-fill, or less gain. 

If you have to pay for power (or make your own power!), you'll spend 
more time working on an antenna that will cover what you need so your 
transmitter can be ten watts or less.



The antenna doesn't know if it's receiving or transmitting - so the 
antenna has absolutely nothing to do with transmit or receive balance - 
which is now the subject.


Kevin Custer

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[MCH]

That's just it. Everyone likes to throw names out such as 'alligator' or 
'elephant', but few people realize it's all relative to the station 
*using* the repeater, too. What repeater may be an alligator for one 
person is an elephant to another depending on *their* equipment.

The repeater itself is neither an alligator or an elephant.

Joe M.

NORM KNAPP wrote:
> ...and it was pretty well balanced if you had a 60 watt mobile with a 5/8 
> wave ant on your roof.

[Repeater-Builder] Amphenol Connex RF connectors

[la88y]

Anyone care to comment on the quality of the Amphenol Connex line of RF 
connectors? They have a pretty good price point, but only if they aren't junk.

lh

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Steve]

many thanks, a bit wiser now :-)
Oh how I wish we had the same tx pwrs and freq,s here in the
UK. We are limited to 25w erp and can only use dipole ants
Our 70Cm amateur band is in 2 parts, 433/434 with 1.6Mhz
split, so duplexers are hard to come by at an affordable price
The other bit is 430/438

73

Steve
- Original Message - 
From: "AA8K73 GMail" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - 
was something else...


>
> An alligator is a critter will a big mouth and tiny ears;
> an elephant has bigger ears.
>
> An alligator repeater is heard further that it can receive.
>
> An elephant repeater receives further than the repeater
> transmitter can be heard.
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>> ermmm, being in the UK, what's an aligator ?
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[NORM KNAPP]

I had a vhf repeater up and running for a little while. Had 180 watts out of 
the cans and it was pretty well balanced if you had a 60 watt mobile with a 5/8 
wave ant on your roof. I would say it may have been leaning just a bit to being 
like an alligator, but for the most part if you could hear it, you could work 
it as well.
73
Norm

- Original Message -
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Mon Mar 08 11:12:57 2010
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was 
something else...

  

Thanks for that, saw them in the Keys many years ago.
It seems logical that if a rptr tx is running 200w, and the
mobile is running say 50w then it is going to be one way
ie mobile hears rptr but rptr don't hear mobile too well

73

Steve
- Original Message - 
From: "NORM KNAPP" mailto:nknapp%40twowayradio.net> >
To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - 
was something else...

> An alligator is a cayman or crocodile like creature that has a massive 
> mouth and marginal ears. The implication is that the repeater talks better 
> and or farther that it hears or receives.
> 73
> Norm
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>   
> mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> 
> >
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>   
> mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> 
> >
> Sent: Mon Mar 08 11:03:57 2010
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - 
> was something else...
>
>
>
> ermmm, being in the UK, what's an aligator ?
>
> Steve
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Kris Kirby" mailto:kris%40catonic.us>  
>  >
> To:    
>  >
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter -
> was something else...
>
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, nj902 wrote:
>>> It should also be noted that he is planning a system with voting
>>> receivers. It is very possible that these receivers will improve the
>>> talk-in sufficiently that the system will be talk-out limited even
>>> with 200 Watts.
>>
>> Until he has those recievers deployed and working, it's an alligator.
>>
>>>
>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>>>   
>>>  , Kevin Custer  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> " We have been over this many times. If a system is balanced with a
>>> receiver at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be
>>> balanced with 200 watts and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of
>>> gain. The added power level on the repeater transmitter helps with
>>> noise that is common in urban locations experienced by the mobile;
>>> noise that is not experienced by the repeater receiver. ..."
>>
>> I think that one would be better served by choosing an antenna
>> appropriate to the purpose of the repeater. If you need urban coverage,
>> choose an antenna with more null-fill, or less gain.
>>
>> If you have to pay for power (or make your own power!), you'll spend
>> more time working on an antenna that will cover what you need so your
>> transmitter can be ten watts or less.
>>
>> --
>> Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
>> Disinformation Analyst
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GE Voter Lamps Don't Work

[Mike Morris]

At 06:45 AM 03/08/10, you wrote:

>On Mar 7, 2010, at 3:44 PM, KE4ZDG wrote:
>
> > I figured out out. The local/remote switch on the back of the 
> power supply was on local. That disabled the 25V necessary to run 
> the lights. Also, turns out that all the fail lights' bulbs had 
> blown. All is working now.
>
>Just a thought: Kinda sounds like a lightning hit.  Might be very 
>suspicious of that voter's other operations until you know why all 
>the bulbs blew.
>
>--
>Nate Duehr, WY0X
>n...@natetech.com
>
>facebook.com/denverpilot
>twitter.com/denverpilot

The clueless ones put 24v bulbs in the GE voters and
they burn out on a regular basis.   If you specifically
buy the 28v bulbs they last a long time.
Or modify the card with a LED and a series resistor.

Mike WA6ILQ

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Steve]

Thanks for that, saw them in the Keys many years ago.
It seems logical that if a rptr tx is running 200w, and the
mobile is running say 50w then it is going to be one way
ie mobile hears rptr but rptr don't hear mobile too well

73

Steve
- Original Message - 
From: "NORM KNAPP" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - 
was something else...


> An alligator is a cayman or crocodile like creature that has a massive 
> mouth and marginal ears. The implication is that the repeater talks better 
> and or farther that it hears or receives.
> 73
> Norm
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Mon Mar 08 11:03:57 2010
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - 
> was something else...
>
>
>
> ermmm, being in the UK, what's an aligator ?
>
> Steve
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Kris Kirby" mailto:kris%40catonic.us> >
> To:   >
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter -
> was something else...
>
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, nj902 wrote:
>>> It should also be noted that he is planning a system with voting
>>> receivers. It is very possible that these receivers will improve the
>>> talk-in sufficiently that the system will be talk-out limited even
>>> with 200 Watts.
>>
>> Until he has those recievers deployed and working, it's an alligator.
>>
>>>
>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>>>  , Kevin Custer  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> " We have been over this many times. If a system is balanced with a
>>> receiver at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be
>>> balanced with 200 watts and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of
>>> gain. The added power level on the repeater transmitter helps with
>>> noise that is common in urban locations experienced by the mobile;
>>> noise that is not experienced by the repeater receiver. ..."
>>
>> I think that one would be better served by choosing an antenna
>> appropriate to the purpose of the repeater. If you need urban coverage,
>> choose an antenna with more null-fill, or less gain.
>>
>> If you have to pay for power (or make your own power!), you'll spend
>> more time working on an antenna that will cover what you need so your
>> transmitter can be ten watts or less.
>>
>> --
>> Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
>> Disinformation Analyst
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Noise Level on a Duplexer

[Kent Chong]

Hello Everybody,

Good day.

We have developed a Duplexer to combine to two signals form two systems for 
in-building application. The Dupluxer (or combiner) has specifications of 1.7dB 
insertion loss and >60dB isolation. When we set up the system and power on the 
two systems, the combiner works fine.

However, we notice that the noise level (up link) on the two systems will 
slowly increase, and until 3~4 days later, the noise level has increased to 
-80~-60dBm level. We then power down the systems for 3 hours, and power them up 
again. The systems work fine again.

Anybody could help?

Best Regards,

Kent







 



  






  New Email names for you! 
Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. 
Hurry before someone else does!
http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[AA8K73 GMail]

An alligator is a critter will a big mouth and tiny ears;
an elephant has bigger ears.

An alligator repeater is heard further that it can receive.

An elephant repeater receives further than the repeater
transmitter can be heard.



Steve wrote:
>  
> 
> ermmm, being in the UK, what's an aligator ?
> 
> Steve

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[NORM KNAPP]

An alligator is a cayman or crocodile like creature that has a massive mouth 
and marginal ears. The implication is that the repeater talks better and or 
farther that it hears or receives.
73
Norm

- Original Message -
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Mon Mar 08 11:03:57 2010
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was 
something else...

  

ermmm, being in the UK, what's an aligator ?

Steve
- Original Message - 
From: "Kris Kirby" mailto:kris%40catonic.us> >
To: mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - 
was something else...

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, nj902 wrote:
>> It should also be noted that he is planning a system with voting
>> receivers. It is very possible that these receivers will improve the
>> talk-in sufficiently that the system will be talk-out limited even
>> with 200 Watts.
>
> Until he has those recievers deployed and working, it's an alligator.
>
>>
>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>>  , Kevin Custer  
>> wrote:
>>
>> " We have been over this many times. If a system is balanced with a
>> receiver at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be
>> balanced with 200 watts and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of
>> gain. The added power level on the repeater transmitter helps with
>> noise that is common in urban locations experienced by the mobile;
>> noise that is not experienced by the repeater receiver. ..."
>
> I think that one would be better served by choosing an antenna
> appropriate to the purpose of the repeater. If you need urban coverage,
> choose an antenna with more null-fill, or less gain.
>
> If you have to pay for power (or make your own power!), you'll spend
> more time working on an antenna that will cover what you need so your
> transmitter can be ten watts or less.
>
> --
> Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
> Disinformation Analyst
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Steve]

ermmm, being in the UK, what's an aligator ?

Steve
- Original Message - 
From: "Kris Kirby" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - 
was something else...


> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, nj902 wrote:
>> It should also be noted that he is planning a system with voting
>> receivers.  It is very possible that these receivers will improve the
>> talk-in sufficiently that the system will be talk-out limited even
>> with 200 Watts.
>
> Until he has those recievers deployed and working, it's an alligator.
>
>>
>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Custer  wrote:
>>
>> " We have been over this many times.  If a system is balanced with a
>> receiver at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be
>> balanced with 200 watts and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of
>> gain.  The added power level on the repeater transmitter helps with
>> noise that is common in urban locations experienced by the mobile;
>> noise that is not experienced by the repeater receiver. ..."
>
> I think that one would be better served by choosing an antenna
> appropriate to the purpose of the repeater. If you need urban coverage,
> choose an antenna with more null-fill, or less gain.
>
> If you have to pay for power (or make your own power!), you'll spend
> more time working on an antenna that will cover what you need so your
> transmitter can be ten watts or less.
>
> --
> Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
> Disinformation Analyst
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Repeater-Builder] Maxon SP-5050C Low Band Hand Held Data?

[tahrens301]

Hi Folks,

Came across a low band handheld... price was right! :-)

Looks like it is programmable.. even has a EEPROM in 8pin
minidip in a socket!

Anybody know if it'll go 'up' to 6 meters?

thanks,

Tim  W5FN

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Kris Kirby]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, nj902 wrote:
> It should also be noted that he is planning a system with voting 
> receivers.  It is very possible that these receivers will improve the 
> talk-in sufficiently that the system will be talk-out limited even 
> with 200 Watts.

Until he has those recievers deployed and working, it's an alligator.

> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Custer  wrote:
> 
> " We have been over this many times.  If a system is balanced with a 
> receiver at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be 
> balanced with 200 watts and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of 
> gain.  The added power level on the repeater transmitter helps with 
> noise that is common in urban locations experienced by the mobile; 
> noise that is not experienced by the repeater receiver. ..."

I think that one would be better served by choosing an antenna 
appropriate to the purpose of the repeater. If you need urban coverage, 
choose an antenna with more null-fill, or less gain. 

If you have to pay for power (or make your own power!), you'll spend 
more time working on an antenna that will cover what you need so your 
transmitter can be ten watts or less. 

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
Disinformation Analyst

[Repeater-Builder] Re: 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[nj902]

It should also be noted that he is planning a system with voting receivers.  It 
is very possible that these receivers will improve the talk-in sufficiently 
that the system will be talk-out limited even with 200 Watts.

-


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Custer  wrote:

" We have been over this many times.  If a system is balanced with a receiver 
at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be balanced with 200 watts 
and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of gain.  The added power level on 
the repeater transmitter helps with noise that is common in urban locations 
experienced by the mobile; noise that is not experienced by the repeater 
receiver. ..."

RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GE Voter Lamps Don't Work

[Andrew Seybold]

As I recall I used to replace the voter lamps with 28Vdc lamps and they
were not as bright but lasted for a very long time, the 12V lamps run
hot-we used to replace all GE and Motorola Grain of wheat bulbs with 28V
versions to save on service calls for burnt out lights

 

Andy

 

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Oliver
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 7:14 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GE Voter Lamps Don't Work

 

  

I wonder if you ran them at slightly lower voltage they would last much 
longer?

tom

wd8chl wrote:
> On 3/7/2010 5:44 PM, KE4ZDG wrote:
> 
>> I figured out out. The local/remote switch on the back of the power
supply was on local. That disabled the 25V necessary to run the lights.
Also, turns out that all the fail lights' bulbs had blown. All is
working now.
>>
>> BTW, it's the old school gray voter w/ 6 cards.
>>
>> Jared
>> 
>
> Yeah, those bulbs are notorious for burning out on a regular basis. 
> Either get a stockpile, or it should be possible to convert them to
LED's.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GE Voter Lamps Don't Work

[Thomas Oliver]

I wonder if you ran them at slightly lower voltage they would last much 
longer?

tom

wd8chl wrote:
> On 3/7/2010 5:44 PM, KE4ZDG wrote:
>   
>> I figured out out.  The local/remote switch on the back of the power supply 
>> was on local.  That disabled the 25V necessary to run the lights.  Also, 
>> turns out that all the fail lights' bulbs had blown.  All is working now.
>>
>> BTW, it's the old school gray voter w/ 6 cards.
>>
>> Jared
>> 
>
> Yeah, those bulbs are notorious for burning out on a regular basis. 
> Either get a stockpile, or it should be possible to convert them to LED's.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable

[Nate Duehr]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Larry Horlick wrote:

> So in a "duplex" application, if the supply of the better cable is limited, 
> it's better to use it on the rx side?

I think other folks have said this as well, but the answer is... if the supply 
of the right kind of cable to do the job is limited, get the right cable.  :-)

PIM doesn't always hit YOUR receiver at a busy RF site.  Installation of 
anything other than top-quality cables and connectors can become a nightmare 
for the guy in the cabinet down the row.

In other words, "If you don't have the money to do it right the first time, 
what makes you think you'll have the money to fix it the second time?" ... as 
the old saw goes.

(Been there, done that. Didn't appreciate the cheap people that didn't do a 
proper installation of their gear making their lack of funds MY technical 
problem.)

There's a price to be paid for "living" at a high-RF multiple-transmitter site. 
 That price includes using proper installation components.  

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

facebook.com/denverpilot
twitter.com/denverpilot

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GE Voter Lamps Don't Work

[wd8chl]

On 3/7/2010 5:44 PM, KE4ZDG wrote:
> I figured out out.  The local/remote switch on the back of the power supply 
> was on local.  That disabled the 25V necessary to run the lights.  Also, 
> turns out that all the fail lights' bulbs had blown.  All is working now.
>
> BTW, it's the old school gray voter w/ 6 cards.
>
> Jared

Yeah, those bulbs are notorious for burning out on a regular basis. 
Either get a stockpile, or it should be possible to convert them to LED's.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[wd8chl]

On 3/8/2010 7:50 AM, Kevin Custer wrote:
> We have been over this many times.  If a system is balanced with a
> receiver at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be balanced
> with 200 watts and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of gain.  The
> added power level on the repeater transmitter helps with noise that is
> common in urban locations experienced by the mobile; noise that is not
> experienced by the repeater receiver.  Most commercial vendors will tell
> you a system is balanced with 100 watts and a receiver at -116 dBm.
> That mentality would require 400 watts to remain balanced with a mere 6
> dB (easy) preamp improvement.
>
> Why is it that folks think that if you are running more than 100 watts
> of power that AUTOMATICALLY it qualifies as an alligator?  I have two
> repeaters that run in excess of 200 watts - neither of them have EVER
> been considered an alligator.  In fact, both are nicely balanced with a
> rural run 50 watt Japanese mobile.
>
> Kevin Custer


Agreed. And conversely, I have seen 'alligators' running at 30-50W 
out...deaf as a doornail...

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: GE Voter Lamps Don't Work

[Nate Duehr]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 3:44 PM, KE4ZDG wrote:

> I figured out out. The local/remote switch on the back of the power supply 
> was on local. That disabled the 25V necessary to run the lights. Also, turns 
> out that all the fail lights' bulbs had blown. All is working now.

Just a thought: Kinda sounds like a lightning hit.  Might be very suspicious of 
that voter's other operations until you know why all the bulbs blew.

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

facebook.com/denverpilot
twitter.com/denverpilot

Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT,,some gel on board!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Steven M Hodell]

O for the dreaded Kenwood TS-440 DOTS!  Thank you!

  - Original Message - 
  From: John King 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 12:51 AM
  Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT,,some gel on board




  http://www.dynaloy.com/Products/tech_data_sheets/UresolveBlue411.pdf

  73,
john WA1ABI


  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Icom OPC-617 Interconnect Cable

[Larry Horlick]

Try ebay.

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:21 AM, m0hbk  wrote:

>
>
> Does anyone know where I can source a couple of OPC-617 interconnect
> cables? Is Preston Moore still selling them? I have contacted him at
> www.prestonmoore.com without success.
>
> Any other sources?
>
> Thanks!
>
> 73,
>
> Carlos
> m0hbk
>
>  
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] 200 watts on a repeater transmitter - was something else...

[Kevin Custer]

We have been over this many times.  If a system is balanced with a 
receiver at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be balanced 
with 200 watts and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of gain.  The 
added power level on the repeater transmitter helps with noise that is 
common in urban locations experienced by the mobile; noise that is not 
experienced by the repeater receiver.  Most commercial vendors will tell 
you a system is balanced with 100 watts and a receiver at -116 dBm.  
That mentality would require 400 watts to remain balanced with a mere 6 
dB (easy) preamp improvement.

Why is it that folks think that if you are running more than 100 watts 
of power that AUTOMATICALLY it qualifies as an alligator?  I have two 
repeaters that run in excess of 200 watts - neither of them have EVER 
been considered an alligator.  In fact, both are nicely balanced with a 
rural run 50 watt Japanese mobile.

Kevin Custer




> The question that pops into my mind concerns the proposed 200 watt power
> amplifier.  I have to wonder where the notion to run an alligator system
> originated.  I see four possible answers:
> 1.  We have this 200 watt amplifier, so we are duty-bound to use it
> regardless of whether it is necessary or not.
> 2.  We subscribe to the policy that more power is always better, and it
> always increases coverage.
> 3.  We have performed a thorough analysis of coverage, and have determined
> that less power will result in insufficient coverage.
> 4.  We know that 50 watts is enough, but a real powerhouse station will give
> us bragging rights.
>
> Once again, I must recall my favorite repeater-coverage dictum:  Repeater
> coverage is determined by receiver performance, not by transmitter power.
>
> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY

[Repeater-Builder] Icom OPC-617 Interconnect Cable

[m0hbk]

Does anyone know where I can source a couple of OPC-617 interconnect cables?  
Is Preston Moore still selling them?  I have contacted him at 
www.prestonmoore.com without success.

Any other sources?

Thanks!

73,

Carlos
m0hbk

Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT,,some gel on board!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gervais]

Hi Kevin
some of the stuff are harder then others .
the rectifier on my skidoo is using an harder stuff than a gel 
compound,,,

i will check in my dictionnary for the translation of your MEK .
thanks many times
gervais ve2ckn



From: kevin valentino 
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 10:56 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT,,some gel on board




  Is it a "gel" or more like a potting compound ?

  I used Methyl Ethyl Keytone (MEK) to open potted circuits from 
competitors when i was in design and manufacturing engineering.

  Worked great and even left identification of parts intact.

  I don't suggest you specifically use MEK without further investigation.

  The stuff I was dissolving, which actually took hours depending on 
volume, was potting compound, (very similar to injection molding materials) not 
a gel.

  Worth an investigation anyway.
  --- On Sun, 3/7/10, gervais  wrote:


From: gervais 
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] OT,,some gel on board
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 10:14 PM


  
hi all
i am working on my snowmobile,i have to work on a special board that 
has a kind of GEL to protect the circuit from
humidity...
i remember some years ago in a radio-mobile shop they add a kind of 
liquid that you drop over this gel and it would melt it
someone maybe know what i am talking about ,?
i dont remember what it was.
thanks for your help

i need it to repair my board,,, if i can

73/s
gervais ve2ckn
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable

[Larry Horlick]

Eric,

Most duplexers and multi-couplers that I have come across are from either
Rx/Tx or Sinclair and all use the RG-214 with copper rather than silver
plated conductors. You would think that if the difference was significant
those guys would use the better of the two. Someone had suggested that small
diameter LDF or FSJ be used as interconnecting cables for duplexers,
multi-couplers and the like, but doesn't the "weakest link in the chain"
principle apply? In other words, if even one piece of "crap cable" is used
isn't it just as well as it all be "crap-cable"?

Your comments about the RG-142 are interesting. I use a short jumper as a
rotation loop because it IS so flexible and tolerant to low temps. But this
is for HF so maybe the dandruff issue isn't as important?

Thanks for chiming in on this. Interesting stuff!

lh

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Eric Lemmon  wrote:

>
>
> Larry,
>
> Real RG-214/U is genuine military specification cable, while "un-real"
> RG-214 is ersatz, make-believe crap that fails to meet many or all of the
> Mil-Spec requirements. Although such cable is supposed to have the work
> "TYPE" following the part number, there are dishonest vendors who omit that
> word and hope that the buyers are too focused on price to know that they're
> buying junk.
>
> That said, I will admit that some reputable cable manufacturers do offer a
> line of RG-214/U TYPE cable that is double-shielded with tinned or bare
> copper braids and center conductor, rather than silver-plated braids and
> silver-plated center conductor. Naturally, this cable costs much less than
> the silver-plated variety. I would never shop for cable based solely on
> price, but many people do.
>
> RG-142/U coaxial cable is good stuff, provided it will not be flexed after
> installation. RG-142/U is identical to RG-400/U, except that the former has
> a silver-plated solid steel center conductor, while the latter has a
> silver-plated stranded copper center conductor.
>
> I have attached the Military Specification for RG-214/U cable as an
> example.
> It is also posted in the Files section of this Group.
>
> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Larry Horlick
> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 3:25 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable
>
> What is the difference between real and un-real RG214? And what is the
> problem with RG-142?
>
> lh
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, NORM KNAPP 
> 
>  > wrote:
>
>
>
> Those are usually the preferred types of cables. You should have no
> problems with either of those. I prefer REAL RG214/U., but RG400/U, RG393
> or
> RG223/U will work. Avoid RG-142 and RG-9/U. Superflex is also a good
> choice.
> Don't even think about any LMR type or
> similar.
> N5NPO Norm
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>  >
> 
> 
> >
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>  >
> 
> 
> >
> Sent: Sun Mar 07 16:54:30 2010
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable
>
>
>
>
> Any problems with RG-214 or RG223 for
> duplexers/multi-couplers/combiners?
>
> lh
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Dan Saputo 
> 
>   dan17...@yahoo.com 
>  > > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> well-documented and caused mainly by the use of foil shielding as in
> the lmr series. gets worse as cable ages and internal braid-foil contact
> degrades. Although not as big of a problem with lmr due to an insulating
> layer over the actual foil. beware of belden 9913 and lmr look-alikes.
> trouble when used duplex.
>
> Dan
> k8plw
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/7/10, Chuck Kelsey 
> 
>   wb2...@roadrunner.com 
>  > > wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Chuck Kelsey 
>   wb2...@roadrunner.com 
>  > >
>
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: LMR Cable
>
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>  >
>  
> >
>
> Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 4:56 PM
>
>
>
> Passive Intermod. In other words, it tends to be a source in which
> intermod
> can be generated easily.
>
> Chuck
> WB2EDV
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "rffun"   
> >
> >
> To:  <
> http://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups
> .com
> <
> http://us.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups
> .com> > 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder

[Larry Horlick]

So the give away here was the word "TYPE", which by its presence, negated
any comfort that one could derive from concurrent use of the term
"MIL-SPEC"?

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Eric Lemmon  wrote:

>
>
> Yes. In fact, only those manufacturers who are listed in the "QPL"
> (Qualified Products List) as making approved cable that meets the
> specification are allowed to mark it in such a way as to lead the buyer to
> assume that the cable is genuine Military Specification cable. Any cable
> that does not meet the applicable specification must have the word "TYPE"
> following the part number. Of course, the makers of counterfeit cable are
> depending upon the ignorance and/or naïveté of potential buyers, who
> perhaps
> may be clueless about coaxial cable quality variations.
>
> A case in point: Several years ago, a local Ham who is known for pinching
> pennies (aren't we all?) spread the word that he had found a source for
> "Genuine MIL-SPEC RG-213/U Coaxial Cable" for an incredibly low price, if
> bought in 1,000 foot spools. I challenged him to prove that it really was
> genuine Mil-Spec cable, and he showed me a sample of the cable on which was
> printed "MIL-C-17 RG-213/U TYPE" without any manufacturer's name or CAGE
> code. I stripped off some jacket and noted that the shield braid was
> minimal, and coverage was probably less than 40%- the dielectric was
> visible
> through the gaps in the braid. I told him that he had been scammed, and he
> said "Look right here, it is stamped MIL-C-17 RG-213/U TYPE, and that means
> it is genuine Mil-Spec cable!" Yeah, as comedian Ron White often says, you
> can't fix stupid!
>
> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Larry Horlick
> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 5:02 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder
>
> So does that mean that in order for a cable to be labeled RG-223 it must
> meet this mil-spec?
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:57 PM, 
> 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Repeater-Builder
> group.
>
> File : /Coaxial Cable Specifications/MIL-C-17_84B RG-223 Cable.pdf
> Uploaded by : wb6fly 
>  >
> Description : MIL-C-17_RG-223 Cable
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Coaxial%20Cable%20Speci
> fications/MIL-C-17_84B%20RG-223%20Cable.pdf
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Coaxial%20Cable%20Spec
> ifications/MIL-C-17_84B%20RG-223%20Cable.pdf>
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
>
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlf
> iles
> <
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.html
> files>
>
> Regards,
>
> wb6fly   wb6fly%40verizon.net > >
>
>
>
>
>  
>