[Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
[Repeater-Builder] Battery Backup (adding and external to your Power Supply
For those of you wanting to add a Battery Back up to your repeater or base-station power supply... Samlex makes an external battery backup box with the model number of BBM-12100. The online available User Manual for the box contains a lot of good information and a circuit diagram. So if you wanted to buy or build your own there's enough information to do both. Samlex makes a fairly decent line of external DC control/supply products and their pricing seems very fair. Here's a copy of the User Manaul: http://www.dcpower-systems.com/uploads/documents/BBM-12100-UserManual.pdf Just reading through the Manual will provide a lot of information to persons not having experienced this type of device/connection in the past. enjoy, s.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Jeff, Speaking of the RLB, did you ever get one of the newer RLB's from Amtronix? I still interested in someone measuring the parameters of that unit against one of the more expensive RLB's, such as the Eagle brand. If the measurements are fairly close to each other, then the Amtronix RLB would be a good unit to have, especially for the price that he's asking. Also, your post below was really good information to have. Thanks! 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:46 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths I adjusted the loop positions, trying to maintain symmetry of the curve, aiming for 1 db on the analyzer. I didn't adjust the loops while looking at the RL. How would I translate RL into IL? You can't directly translate from RL to IL or vice-versa. Here's how to tune a pass cavity: 1. Ballpark the insertion loss using the stickers on the loops and/or by measuring the insertion loss at whatever frequency the cavity is presently tuned to. 2. Rough-tune the cavity to something near your desired frequency. Don't bother being too critical here - the resonant frequency is going to wander a bit as you adjust the loops in the following steps. 3. Terminate one cavity port with a high-quality 50 ohm load (high quality: = 30 dB return loss). Connect your RLB to your SA/TG, with the DUT port connected to the other port on the cavity. You *must* use a cable between the DUT port and the cavity that is known to have excellent return loss! The cables between the SA/TG and RLB should be good quality, but are nowhere near as critical as the cable between the RLB and the device under test. 4. While measuring the return loss, make minor adjustments to one of the loops to maximize the return loss. Again, ignore the frequency of the return loss dip, it's going to vary slightly as you adjust the loop, just go for maximum return loss at whatever frequency the dip happens to fall at. Keep the screws snugged down well on the loop assembly; if it's not sitting tight and flush in the top of the cavity the tuning will change when you go to tighten the screws later. There's a little chicken-and-egg here; you have to loosen the screws to adjust the loop, but when you tighten them it's going to change it a bit, so you have to emperically find the sweet spot. With most cavities, you should have no problem getting well in excess of 20 dB return loss - shoot for 30 dB if you can, even though at that point uncertainty due to the test equipment's limitations will be dominating the measurement accuracy. 5. Reverse the connections you set up in #2 above. Check to make sure the return loss is still high looking into the other port (it should be). 6. NOW, adjust the resonant frequency using the rod to put the return loss maxima it where you want it (i.e. at your pass frequency). Assuming the cavity was rough-tuned in step #2 above, the return loss should not change as you fine-tune the resonant frequency. 7. THEN, check the insertion loss through the cavity using the SA/TG. It should be fairly close to what you set it to in #1 above; if it's more/less than what you'd like, adjust ONE loop for more/less insertion loss, and then repeat again from step #3. DO NOT adjust the resonant frequency via the tuning rod during this step!!! Unless the cavity was poorly designed, tuned, or handled, the return loss maximum should align very closely with the insertion loss minimum. Once you've properly tuned the cavities individually, then cable them together and re-check return loss and insertion loss. Report back how it goes and what numbers you come up with. --- Jeff WN3A
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Yep, I did get one. I did some preliminary testing and it compares favorably to the Eagle in most regards. Rick is contemplating making some additional refinements, some of which are based on my testing, so I'm waiting to hear back from him. If he decides to make changes, I'll wait until he sends me the final version for complete testing. --- Jeff -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Kupferschmidt Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 12:26 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths Jeff, Speaking of the RLB, did you ever get one of the newer RLB's from Amtronix? I still interested in someone measuring the parameters of that unit against one of the more expensive RLB's, such as the Eagle brand. If the measurements are fairly close to each other, then the Amtronix RLB would be a good unit to have, especially for the price that he's asking. Also, your post below was really good information to have. Thanks! 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Jeff DePolo mailto:j...@broadsci.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:46 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair C-Series cable lengths I adjusted the loop positions, trying to maintain symmetry of the curve, aiming for 1 db on the analyzer. I didn't adjust the loops while looking at the RL. How would I translate RL into IL? You can't directly translate from RL to IL or vice-versa. Here's how to tune a pass cavity: 1. Ballpark the insertion loss using the stickers on the loops and/or by measuring the insertion loss at whatever frequency the cavity is presently tuned to. 2. Rough-tune the cavity to something near your desired frequency. Don't bother being too critical here - the resonant frequency is going to wander a bit as you adjust the loops in the following steps. 3. Terminate one cavity port with a high-quality 50 ohm load (high quality: = 30 dB return loss). Connect your RLB to your SA/TG, with the DUT port connected to the other port on the cavity. You *must* use a cable between the DUT port and the cavity that is known to have excellent return loss! The cables between the SA/TG and RLB should be good quality, but are nowhere near as critical as the cable between the RLB and the device under test. 4. While measuring the return loss, make minor adjustments to one of the loops to maximize the return loss. Again, ignore the frequency of the return loss dip, it's going to vary slightly as you adjust the loop, just go for maximum return loss at whatever frequency the dip happens to fall at. Keep the screws snugged down well on the loop assembly; if it's not sitting tight and flush in the top of the cavity the tuning will change when you go to tighten the screws later. There's a little chicken-and-egg here; you have to loosen the screws to adjust the loop, but when you tighten them it's going to change it a bit, so you have to emperically find the sweet spot. With most cavities, you should have no problem getting well in excess of 20 dB return loss - shoot for 30 dB if you can, even though at that point uncertainty due to the test equipment's limitations will be dominating the measurement accuracy. 5. Reverse the connections you set up in #2 above. Check to make sure the return loss is still high looking into the other port (it should be). 6. NOW, adjust the resonant frequency using the rod to put the return loss maxima it where you want it (i.e. at your pass frequency). Assuming the cavity was rough-tuned in step #2 above, the return loss should not change as you fine-tune the resonant frequency. 7. THEN, check the insertion loss through the cavity using the SA/TG. It should be fairly close to what you set it to in #1 above; if it's more/less than what you'd like, adjust ONE loop for more/less insertion loss, and then repeat again from step #3. DO NOT adjust the resonant frequency via the tuning rod during this step!!! Unless the cavity was poorly designed, tuned, or handled, the return loss maximum should align very closely with the insertion loss minimum. Once you've properly tuned the cavities individually, then cable them together and re-check return loss and insertion loss. Report back how it
[Repeater-Builder] Micor PA TLB1414C-2
Anyone know what Frequency this handles? I think its a UHF but not sure what split. Thanks! John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Micor PA TLB1414C-2
according to a post by Eric Lemmon http://www.mail-archive.com/repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com/msg02135.html The TLB1414C2 is a 100 watt continuous duty power amplifier for 42-50 MHz. Take a look at the board and you can quickly confirm whether or not it is a UHF PA. Contact me offline if your thinking of selling it, I know someone who may be interested W6 MTF --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, La Rue Communications laruec...@... wrote: Anyone know what Frequency this handles? I think its a UHF but not sure what split. Thanks! John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
1 in at 144 MHz is approx a 5% change and will affect slightly the RL esp if the source impedance isn't 50 Ohms J0. The overall electrical length technically is that of the coax at its VF plus the length of the loop (in air). Adding an elbow can make a difference at this freq. W6 MTF --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: The freq in question is 166 mHz. One chart gives me 19 and the other 18. I didn't think 1 at this freq would make much difference. I'm also not clear if the length is after the connectors are installed or the cut cable before installing the connectors. Which do you think it is? On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM, n...@... wrote: At 4/19/2010 17:24, you wrote: These are measured values using a Service Monitor. I have two charts that show the cable lengths, but the values are not the same. They differ by 1 for the same frequency. Would that produce the effect I'm seeing? Depends on what frequency band we're talking about. 1 is not enough @ 2 meters to make a significant change. Try changing the length by about a foot for 2 meters, or 4 @ 440. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor PA TLB1414C-2
TLB would be Low Band. Joe M. La Rue Communications wrote: Anyone know what Frequency this handles? I think its a UHF but not sure what split. Thanks! John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202
[Repeater-Builder] high-power VHF MSF-5000
Anyone know where a high power MSF-5000 VHF station can be found? I was thinking the model *may* be: C83CXB7106BT, but there could be some other odd ball models out there, like version A's or Rack mouunts, or different control than tone control. Thanks, -- James Adkins, KB0NHX
[Repeater-Builder] Micor PA TLB1414C-2
Hi John, If you don't have a need for it, drop me a line. Just putting up a 6 meter repeater have the rest of the guts. Thanks, Tim W5FN
[Repeater-Builder] OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
Hi group, First off, hopefully this post is not going to conflict with Kevin's restrictions on the FCC rules regs on this forum. I'm looking for some information from others, that in the past, have had situations with local / county / state governments concerning antenna height and what their outcomes were. There's a situation right now in southeastern Wisconsin where a 10 year old ham is having issues with neighbors and the local government about his tower height. You can read the full story here: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/91663619.html Specifically I'm looking for any situation that happened in the past with you and your government that you had and how it was resolved, both bad and good. Kevin, if this conflicts with your rules then please direct the membership to my private email, dkupfers at sbcglobal dot net. TIA in advance to all that respond. Don, KD9PT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
Don, The ARRL would be a good place to start on this, but it probably will have nothing to do with the FCC. PRB-1 requires reasonable accommodation by locals. It doesn't give hams carte blanche. If the family didn't dot the i's and cross the T's with the locals, which in many cases requires filing engineering data to support choices in foundation design and guying schemes, etc., PRB-1 won't help. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Don Kupferschmidt To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:24 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1 Hi group, First off, hopefully this post is not going to conflict with Kevin's restrictions on the FCC rules regs on this forum. I'm looking for some information from others, that in the past, have had situations with local / county / state governments concerning antenna height and what their outcomes were. There's a situation right now in southeastern Wisconsin where a 10 year old ham is having issues with neighbors and the local government about his tower height. You can read the full story here: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/91663619.html Specifically I'm looking for any situation that happened in the past with you and your government that you had and how it was resolved, both bad and good. Kevin, if this conflicts with your rules then please direct the membership to my private email, dkupfers at sbcglobal dot net. TIA in advance to all that respond. Don, KD9PT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
Around here the County doesn't care about towers, as long as they are 40' and under and will fall on your property.
[Repeater-Builder] Motorola R100 lowband on 6?
Hi Does anyone know of a lowband R100 that has successfully been converted to 6m? 73 Martin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola R100 lowband on 6?
I was a Radius dealer for quite a few years and only saw VHF and UHF R100 versions. Bill KB1MGH From: cruizzer77 atlant...@gmx.ch To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, April 21, 2010 5:50:45 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola R100 lowband on 6? Hi Does anyone know of a lowband R100 that has successfully been converted to 6m? 73 Martin Yahoo! Groups Links http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
Well...it probably would be considered off topic but I'd respectfully request Kevin maybe let this continue briefly considering we're dealing with a 10 year old handicapped child who's probably being a little more sensible and mature than his adult neighbors. I'd probably go to the ham-law reflector too and see if there's a PRB-1 attorney in his area who can help. The ARRL might have a Volunteer Consel as well. Despite your best intentions, you sometimes need an attorney who's well versed in land use law as it pertains to towers to make sure all i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Best of luck to the young fellowChuck On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Don Kupferschmidt dkupf...@sbcglobal.netwrote: Hi group, First off, hopefully this post is not going to conflict with Kevin's restrictions on the FCC rules regs on this forum. I'm looking for some information from others, that in the past, have had situations with local / county / state governments concerning antenna height and what their outcomes were. There's a situation right now in southeastern Wisconsin where a 10 year old ham is having issues with neighbors and the local government about his tower height. You can read the full story here: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/91663619.html Specifically I'm looking for any situation that happened in the past with you and your government that you had and how it was resolved, both bad and good. Kevin, if this conflicts with your rules then please direct the membership to my private email, dkupfers at sbcglobal dot net. TIA in advance to all that respond. Don, KD9PT -- = Charles L. Mills Westmoreland Co. ARES EC Amateur Radio Callsign W3YNI Email: w3y...@gmail.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola R100 lowband on 6?
Moto. never made a low band version. We were moto. dealers for many years, only VHF and UHF, DPL or PL... - Original Message - From: Bill Smith To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola R100 lowband on 6? I was a Radius dealer for quite a few years and only saw VHF and UHF R100 versions. Bill KB1MGH -- From: cruizzer77 atlant...@gmx.ch To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, April 21, 2010 5:50:45 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Motorola R100 lowband on 6? Hi Does anyone know of a lowband R100 that has successfully been converted to 6m? 73 Martin Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
Pretty much the same as in my area (NE Ohio). Limit of 35 feet, building permit ($40.00) and sketch by owner/builder of proposed installation (professional engineering data not required). Over 35 feet can be accommodated by a request for variance. That starts to get a bit more costly, though not out of line, at about $350.00. If you're in pretty good standing with your neighbors, you probably won't have a problem. I might add that even these requirements were brought about by some idiot that tried to put up a 100 foot tower for a commercial WiFi venture and call it a ham tower. The city found out and instituted the above requirements. Before that, only good judgment applied. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, DCFluX dcf...@... wrote: Around here the County doesn't care about towers, as long as they are 40' and under and will fall on your property.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
The article was written very poorly and the facts skewed to bully a handicapped child. “They started off with just a little antenna which was fine then the monstrosity came about the big tower and that's the one we were really worried about. We do see it rocking back and forth,” Eric Scott said. Of course it rocks back and forth...that's what the guy with the PE stamp designed it to do. I somehow don't see a Pulitzer in that journalist's future. Sorry again Kevin for the bandwidth here. Chuck On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM, wb6dgn tallins...@yahoo.com wrote: Pretty much the same as in my area (NE Ohio). Limit of 35 feet, building permit ($40.00) and sketch by owner/builder of proposed installation (professional engineering data not required). Over 35 feet can be accommodated by a request for variance. That starts to get a bit more costly, though not out of line, at about $350.00. If you're in pretty good standing with your neighbors, you probably won't have a problem. I might add that even these requirements were brought about by some idiot that tried to put up a 100 foot tower for a commercial WiFi venture and call it a ham tower. The city found out and instituted the above requirements. Before that, only good judgment applied. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, DCFluX dcf...@... wrote: Around here the County doesn't care about towers, as long as they are 40' and under and will fall on your property. -- = Charles L. Mills Westmoreland Co. ARES EC Amateur Radio Callsign W3YNI Email: w3y...@gmail.com
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
Chuck, I actually got just the opposite intent. The mention of his handicap and community contribution through amateur radio paint a clear, sympathetic position. The reporter's job is to present both sides of the story. Accurately reporting the position of an opposing neighbor is required for fairness, and while the neighbor is obviously not well-versed in engineering principles, there were no facts skewed by the reporter. For anyone in the town not living in this thing's shadow, this story will tug the heartstrings in the boy's direction, not against him. I have a background in news, and also some experience being misquoted. This reporter did a way-above-average job of getting it right, especially for local media in a small market. Most coverage of ham issues villifies us from the start. We should all hope for something this fair. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Charles Mills To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1 The article was written very poorly and the facts skewed to bully a handicapped child. “They started off with just a little antenna which was fine then the monstrosity came about the big tower and that's the one we were really worried about. We do see it rocking back and forth,” Eric Scott said. Of course it rocks back and forth...that's what the guy with the PE stamp designed it to do. I somehow don't see a Pulitzer in that journalist's future. Sorry again Kevin for the bandwidth here. Chuck On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM, wb6dgn tallins...@yahoo.com wrote:
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
Fair enough. I guess we can all interpret things different ways. Maybe I'm the one without a Pulitzer in my future. :-D Thanks for pointing out my skewed judgment considering the news background. Chuck On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com wrote: Chuck, I actually got just the opposite intent. The mention of his handicap and community contribution through amateur radio paint a clear, sympathetic position. The reporter's job is to present both sides of the story. Accurately reporting the position of an opposing neighbor is required for fairness, and while the neighbor is obviously not well-versed in engineering principles, there were no facts skewed by the reporter. For anyone in the town not living in this thing's shadow, this story will tug the heartstrings in the boy's direction, not against him. I have a background in news, and also some experience being misquoted. This reporter did a way-above-average job of getting it right, especially for local media in a small market. Most coverage of ham issues villifies us from the start. We should all hope for something this fair. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - *From:* Charles Mills w3y...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1 The article was written very poorly and the facts skewed to bully a handicapped child. “They started off with just a little antenna which was fine then the monstrosity came about the big tower and that's the one we were really worried about. We do see it rocking back and forth,” Eric Scott said. Of course it rocks back and forth...that's what the guy with the PE stamp designed it to do. I somehow don't see a Pulitzer in that journalist's future. Sorry again Kevin for the bandwidth here. Chuck On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM, wb6dgn tallins...@yahoo.com wrote: -- = Charles L. Mills Westmoreland Co. ARES EC Amateur Radio Callsign W3YNI Email: w3y...@gmail.com
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Just looked up the settings in my files. 9dB notch at 160MHz produces 1.4dB. 11 to 11.5 will produce your desired 0.9dB Insertion Loss. 14 to 15 dB produces the 0.40dB IL. The cable adds 0.2dB. The settings of 2 cans from Sinclair are typically 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0dB. Larry, are you still up in Iqaluit? Harold, VA3HF --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
OK. That makes sense. How did you arrive at 9dB for .9 IL? And about the cable lengths between the pass cavites, I have found 3 different documents from Sinclair that gives me 3 different lengths for the same frequency. One document shows only 2 different cable lengths for the entire VHF band. If these are all correct it tells me that the lengths are not that critical. lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:32 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Are they for top mounted loops or side mounted. The side mounted loops had different loop lengths for the different insertion losses and hence the cable lengths were different. Unless the top loops were extra large for making a wider pass window, they should be very close in lengths (within an inch or so) for a given frequency. See my previous post for the correct notch depths. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: OK. That makes sense. How did you arrive at 9dB for .9 IL? And about the cable lengths between the pass cavites, I have found 3 different documents from Sinclair that gives me 3 different lengths for the same frequency. One document shows only 2 different cable lengths for the entire VHF band. If these are all correct it tells me that the lengths are not that critical. lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:32 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
Harold, I used 2 cans in my initial post for simplicity. What I'm working on is a 2037, 3 pass and one notch and I need 3 dB, so 1 dB per can. I'm not moving them very far from the original setup, but I want to verify the IL. Is there a published chart for these settings? Indeed, still in VY0 land... lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:54 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: Just looked up the settings in my files. 9dB notch at 160MHz produces 1.4dB. 11 to 11.5 will produce your desired 0.9dB Insertion Loss. 14 to 15 dB produces the 0.40dB IL. The cable adds 0.2dB. The settings of 2 cans from Sinclair are typically 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0dB. Larry, are you still up in Iqaluit? Harold, VA3HF --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
These cans are recent vintage and have top mounted loops. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:24 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@yahoo.ca wrote: Are they for top mounted loops or side mounted. The side mounted loops had different loop lengths for the different insertion losses and hence the cable lengths were different. Unless the top loops were extra large for making a wider pass window, they should be very close in lengths (within an inch or so) for a given frequency. See my previous post for the correct notch depths. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: OK. That makes sense. How did you arrive at 9dB for .9 IL? And about the cable lengths between the pass cavites, I have found 3 different documents from Sinclair that gives me 3 different lengths for the same frequency. One document shows only 2 different cable lengths for the entire VHF band. If these are all correct it tells me that the lengths are not that critical. lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:32 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: No, using a T connector on the loop, you have a notch cavity although it is a non symmetrical notch - doesn't matter. You adjust the loop for a notch depth of say 9dB using the T one loop at a time and that balances the impedances of the loops in and out so that they are the same. The notch depths will vary on the frequency of the cavity for a given insertion loss. This is how the cavities are set up at Sinclair. They know what depth of notch to set the loop at to give a particular pass response. Quick, repeatable and reliable. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorlick@ wrote: So you actually come up with an RL value and equate to an IL value? lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenkopf@ wrote: Here is how you do it.. Take a T connector and put it on one of the pass loops. Leave the other loop unterminated. Adjust the loop position so that the notch depth is about 9dB for 0.9dB IL through if I remember correctly - this is done like measuring a notch cavity with the spectrum analyzer and tracking generator on the T. Adjust the other loop the same way but ensure that the loops are rotated the same way from the maximum coupling position as observed by the weld mark on the loop (rotated clockwise or counterclockwise). Recheck the first loop's depth and adjust so it is the same. This process makes the in and out loops symmetrically tuned. Measure the pass insertion loss to ensure you have the desired insertion loss. If not, readjust the loop's notch again to a slightly different depth - more for less pass loss and less depth for more insertion loss. Once both cavities are tuned to frequency, the cable length between them is somewhat critical in length. With the correct length, the individual pass curves add without the need to retune the frequency and the return loss curve will show 2 dips approximately equal and above and below the pass frequency. If you don't get 2.0dB IL with the 2 cans at 0.9dB, then the cable is incorrect. Enjoy!
[Repeater-Builder] TKR-850 Series I Interface Question
I'm attempting to update an existing repeater system that currently uses a Hall voter in tandem with a ComSpec TP-38 CTCSS repeater tone panel. The replacement RF deck is a Kenwood TKR-850 Series I. The previous RF deck was a KSG-4500, operating in a plain, dumb, duplexed TX / RX mode with no internal controller, PL decode, etc. I used the ComSpec TP-38 in the repeat audio path following the Hall voted audio to handle PL encode-decode, TOT, carrier delay/squelch tail, etc. Reading from the Repeater-Builder site, I came across the following comment regarding use of an 850: If you are using an external controller you set it to duplex base mode, with COR on Aux out #1 and TOR (tone decode) on Aux out #2. I would very much like to eliminate the need for the TP-38 external CTCSS unit if at all possible, instead utilizing the TKR-850's INTERNAL PL encode/decode capabilities, carrier delay, CW ID, etc. My questions is: If I program the 850 from repeater into duplex operation, do I lose all those features normally found in repeater mode, rendering the 850 back to a dumb radio like its predecessor? Assuming those features DO remain, how does one break the normal, internal repeat audio path, since it will be necessary to route local receiver audio out to the Hall voter for comparator operation? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mike Simpson MIDCOM, Inc.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Radius P50
Several weeks ago it seemed that someone had an interest in acquiring UHF Motorola P50 radio sets. If anyone is interested, email me directly I have a fair assortment compact / standard and keypad equipped p50+ complete units, boards, chargers and I would love to clear away some space. BRIAN
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Radius P50
Brian, Please confirm, are these P50+ or SP50+ radios? They are not the same. A list of the complete model numbers would be very helpful to those having interest in your radios. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Alesio Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:54 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola Radius P50 Several weeks ago it seemed that someone had an interest in acquiring UHF Motorola P50 radio sets. If anyone is interested, email me directly I have a fair assortment compact / standard and keypad equipped p50+ complete units, boards, chargers and I would love to clear away some space. BRIAN
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Sinclair C-Series cable lengths
I don't know if it was published.. Set your cans for 0.9dB IL each and your end result will be 3.2dB. The notch cavity should be set to maximum depth unless you have a very close frequency down the chain (0.5MHz away).The notch is tuned to the pass frequency. The 3 pass cans will produce 3 return loss dips - remember to use a load on the unterminated ports of the filter when using the RTB. I can't locate the length of the cable between the pass cans but I think my memory is saying 23 inches tip to tip. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Larry Horlick llhorl...@... wrote: Harold, I used 2 cans in my initial post for simplicity. What I'm working on is a 2037, 3 pass and one notch and I need 3 dB, so 1 dB per can. I'm not moving them very far from the original setup, but I want to verify the IL. Is there a published chart for these settings? Indeed, still in VY0 land... lh On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:54 PM, hfarrenkopf hfarrenk...@... wrote: Just looked up the settings in my files. 9dB notch at 160MHz produces 1.4dB. 11 to 11.5 will produce your desired 0.9dB Insertion Loss. 14 to 15 dB produces the 0.40dB IL. The cable adds 0.2dB. The settings of 2 cans from Sinclair are typically 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0dB. Larry, are you still up in Iqaluit? Harold, VA3HF
Re: [Repeater-Builder] TKR-850 Series I Interface Question
At 05:41 PM 4/21/2010, midcom.audio wrote: I'm attempting to update an existing repeater system that currently uses a Hall voter in tandem with a ComSpec TP-38 CTCSS repeater tone panel. The replacement RF deck is a Kenwood TKR-850 Series I. The previous RF deck was a KSG-4500, operating in a plain, dumb, duplexed TX / RX mode with no internal controller, PL decode, etc. I used the ComSpec TP-38 in the repeat audio path following the Hall voted audio to handle PL encode-decode, TOT, carrier delay/squelch tail, etc. Reading from the Repeater-Builder site, I came across the following comment regarding use of an 850: If you are using an external controller you set it to duplex base mode, with COR on Aux out #1 and TOR (tone decode) on Aux out #2. I would very much like to eliminate the need for the TP-38 external CTCSS unit if at all possible, instead utilizing the TKR-850's INTERNAL PL encode/decode capabilities, carrier delay, CW ID, etc. My questions is: If I program the 850 from repeater into duplex operation, do I lose all those features normally found in repeater mode, rendering the 850 back to a dumb radio like its predecessor? Assuming those features DO remain, how does one break the normal, internal repeat audio path, since it will be necessary to route local receiver audio out to the Hall voter for comparator operation? ---Bottom line Mike is yes. You retain all the features (multitable, etc) when the TKR is programmed for duplex operation and you let an external controller do its thing. 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!
