[Repeater-Builder] To DVP or not to DVP
Hmmm... I didn't realize the DVP has a wider IF. I gather DVP requires up to 6 Khz of audio. So now I'm thinking that this receiver is not suitable for my busy hill (Santiago Peak). What do you think? -- Tim :wq On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Jeff DePolo wrote: > The SP docs show it being a DVP station. DVP receivers have wider (and > flatter) IF filtering than standard Micor Sensitron receivers. They need a > flatter IF passband to decode DVP properly. I'm wondering if that's why the > 20 dBQ reading comes out higher than normal.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity
Yes, meter 4 shows the channel element is on frequency. If by IF alignment you mean injecting 11.7 Mhz and setting meter 4 to zero, yes I checked that. It was not far off. -- Tim :wq On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Milt wrote: > Is the meter 4 circuit showing that the channel element is on frequency, and > have you checked the alignment of the IF?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity
Yes, it is a DVP station. I have the DVP manual and I just checked the spec. It's the same < 0.5 uV for 20 dBQ. The test procedure does say to load the speaker. I'll give that a try tomorrow. -- Tim :wq On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Jeff DePolo wrote: > The SP docs show it being a DVP station. DVP receivers have wider (and > flatter) IF filtering than standard Micor Sensitron receivers. They need a > flatter IF passband to decode DVP properly. I'm wondering if that's why the > 20 dBQ reading comes out higher than normal. I *thought* the A/S board was > the same between DVP and standard stations, so the AF circuitry should be > the same between the discriminator and the speaker terminals. > > --- Jeff > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Tim Sawyer [mailto:tisaw...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 8:04 PM >> To: Jeff DePolo >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity >> >> Here you go Jeff. Let me know what you see. >> >> >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity
I have tried with 3 volt meters and 2 SINAD meters: a Fluke 77, a "Sinadder 3" (SINAD & AC voltmeter) and a HP8924c. Pretty much same results with all. That is 20 db quieting around 0.7 uV, SINAD around 0.35. So what's the recommended meter? Should I trust the SINAD reading and chock the quieting reading up some unknown meter problems? Yes, measuring on the speaker terminals with no speaker. The Sinadder and 8924c have internal speakers but I suspect they are not loading the receiver. Yes. The Micor came with a 3 page document detailing SP71 modifications. Would you like me to scan and email you a copy? -- Tim :wq On Sep 6, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Jeff DePolo wrote: > Not all voltmeters behave the same with complex AC waveforms (such as > noise). Some of my Flukes are inaccurate at higher AC frequencies (like > above a few hundred Hz) - and they're spec'ed that way. What kind of meter > are you using, and where are you measuring (speaker terminals is where you > should be measuring from)? > > Do you know what, exactly, the SP features/modifications are on your SP > Micor? > > --- Jeff WN3A
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity
The Micor book says less than 0.5 uV for 20db quieting or 0.35 for 12 db SINAD. So the two are in fact equivalent. I get better than 0.35 for 12 db SINAD but I don't measure 0.5 for 20 db quieting. I must be doing something wrong. -- Tim :wq On Sep 6, 2010, at 12:52 PM, John J. Riddell wrote: > > 2V AC down to .2 v. AC is 20 DB quieting > John VE3AMZ > - Original Message - > From: Tim Sawyer > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:48 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity > > I'm getting about 0.35 for 12 db SINAD. But that looks about 10 db quieting > to me. What I typically do is open the squelch with no signal and set the > volume to 2 Vac then crank up the signal to 0.2 vac. Isn't that 20 db, or am > I missing something? > > -- > Tim > :wq > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Eric Lemmon wrote: > >> spec is 0.5 >> uV without a preamp and 0.25 uV with a preamp, when using the 20 dB quieting >> method, and 0.35 and 0.175 respectively when using the 12 dB SINAD method > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: no power out of duplexer SOLVED with more questions
In that spirit. Going from 80 to 100 watts is 0.97 db better. That's probably not an improvement your users will notice. When one considers what a pain it is when the PA dies, it might not be worth it. Just my 2 cents but I think you're better off leaving the amp at 80 watts. -- Tim :wq On Sep 6, 2010, at 1:11 PM, W3ML wrote: > It is great! I believe one should never quit learning about this hobby.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity
Yea, I think 20 db quieting is more like 0.175 uV 12 db SINAD. -- Tim :wq On Sep 6, 2010, at 12:52 PM, John J. Riddell wrote: > 2V AC down to .2 v. AC is 20 DB quieting
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity
I'm getting about 0.35 for 12 db SINAD. But that looks about 10 db quieting to me. What I typically do is open the squelch with no signal and set the volume to 2 Vac then crank up the signal to 0.2 vac. Isn't that 20 db, or am I missing something? -- Tim :wq On Sep 6, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Eric Lemmon wrote: > spec is 0.5 > uV without a preamp and 0.25 uV with a preamp, when using the 20 dB quieting > method, and 0.35 and 0.175 respectively when using the 12 dB SINAD method
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity
Eric, It's 0.72 microvolts. Not totally dead, just a bit numb. -- Tim :wq On Sep 6, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Eric Lemmon wrote: > Please confirm that you measured the sensitivity as 0.72 millivolts, or 720 > uV
[Repeater-Builder] Micor UHF Sensivity
I have a Micor base that was manufactured in the ham band. Model is C64RXB3196A-SP71. The receiver model number is TRE1241A-SP10 (420-450 Mhz). It came with 4 channels all tuned up and on frequency in the ham band. But the receiver is sensitivity is .72 mv for 20 db quieting on the best channel and .9 on the worst. I went through the alignment procedure and could not make any improvement. Obviously this is not meeting the .5 spec and I was expecting more like .3 or so. So my questions is what should I do to troubleshoot this? Is there some common Micor receiver failure parts or areas that I should be looking into? -- Tim :wq
Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Circulator
Same thing but my fingers learned :wq too many years ago to retrain I even type it in my GUI editors... duh! -- Tim :wq On Sep 4, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Will Gwin wrote: > try: > :x
Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF Circulator
Indeed, long live vi. I do have a pass cavity between the Micor circulator and the duplexer. I'm not sure where the other IM products are just yet. I'm sometimes hearing a pager. Once I heard what I suspect is Orange County Red Cross on 462.9875... still confirming this. I hear the drip from 147.435 every now and then. -- Tim :wq On Sep 4, 2010, at 8:03 AM, n...@no6b.com wrote: > At 9/3/2010 18:56, you wrote: > >I'm looking for a UHF circulator to buy (or borrow). I have a mix that > >involves our transmitter but I'm not sure it's in our transmitter. We have > >a Micor repeater with the built in circulator but some feel an outboard > >two port is required for our nasty hill. It would be good if I could test > >one and not spend money on something that won't help. > > > >Aside from the the borrow request what do others think about this. Is more > >circulator than the stock Micor necessary? > > How far away are the other mix products? If more than a couple of MHz or > so you could try a pass cavity after the Micor circulator instead of a 2nd > circulator. > > >-- > >Tim > >:wq > > A vi command? That old text editor will never go away! > > Bob NO6B > >
[Repeater-Builder] UHF Circulator
I'm looking for a UHF circulator to buy (or borrow). I have a mix that involves our transmitter but I'm not sure it's in our transmitter. We have a Micor repeater with the built in circulator but some feel an outboard two port is required for our nasty hill. It would be good if I could test one and not spend money on something that won't help. Aside from the the borrow request what do others think about this. Is more circulator than the stock Micor necessary? -- Tim :wq
Fwd: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
By the way, the Wacom model number is WP-430-2. -- Tim :wq Begin forwarded message: > > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > > This is a couple of pass cavities, not a duplexer. Do the band pass cavities > have the same problem? > > -- > Tim > :wq > > On Aug 25, 2010, at 1:32 PM, DCFluX wrote: > >> I've seen this before on Wacom BpBr duplexers. Remove the coupling loop from >> the cavity and re-solder the connectors. Use 2% silver bearing solder if you >> can find it. >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Tim Sawyer wrote: >> >> >> Here's the latest: We went up to our site yesterday. We added a lighting >> arrestor to the receive antenna. We grounded the chassis/rail/cabinet as it >> was only grounded via the power cord previously. Didn't expect this to fix >> the paging problem, it just needed to be done. >> >> I did find a loose UHF connector on the Wacom. This is a two cavity BP >> filter on the receive side. I don't know if the loose connector was the >> problem but it's much cleaner now. We ran in carrier squelch for about an >> hour and didn't hear much of anything. A dramatic improvement and amazing >> for our dirty hill. Today there have been a couple of pages bust through the >> P/L but it's 1,000% better than it was and it's still pretty quite in >> carrier squelch. >> >> Do you think the loose connector and/or grounding could have helped or is >> this some sort of cruel coincidence? >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
This is a couple of pass cavities, not a duplexer. Do the band pass cavities have the same problem? -- Tim :wq On Aug 25, 2010, at 1:32 PM, DCFluX wrote: > I've seen this before on Wacom BpBr duplexers. Remove the coupling loop from > the cavity and re-solder the connectors. Use 2% silver bearing solder if you > can find it. > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Tim Sawyer wrote: > > > Here's the latest: We went up to our site yesterday. We added a lighting > arrestor to the receive antenna. We grounded the chassis/rail/cabinet as it > was only grounded via the power cord previously. Didn't expect this to fix > the paging problem, it just needed to be done. > > I did find a loose UHF connector on the Wacom. This is a two cavity BP filter > on the receive side. I don't know if the loose connector was the problem but > it's much cleaner now. We ran in carrier squelch for about an hour and didn't > hear much of anything. A dramatic improvement and amazing for our dirty hill. > Today there have been a couple of pages bust through the P/L but it's 1,000% > better than it was and it's still pretty quite in carrier squelch. > > Do you think the loose connector and/or grounding could have helped or is > this some sort of cruel coincidence?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
Here's the latest: We went up to our site yesterday. We added a lighting arrestor to the receive antenna. We grounded the chassis/rail/cabinet as it was only grounded via the power cord previously. Didn't expect this to fix the paging problem, it just needed to be done. I did find a loose UHF connector on the Wacom. This is a two cavity BP filter on the receive side. I don't know if the loose connector was the problem but it's much cleaner now. We ran in carrier squelch for about an hour and didn't hear much of anything. A dramatic improvement and amazing for our dirty hill. Today there have been a couple of pages bust through the P/L but it's 1,000% better than it was and it's still pretty quite in carrier squelch. Do you think the loose connector and/or grounding could have helped or is this some sort of cruel coincidence? -- Tim :wq On Aug 24, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Walter H wrote: > We also had a problem with a 454 pager. > Quintron with a 1/4 k amp. > Only one in the metro area had a spur, but that one traveled as the PA cage > changed temperature. > Got a hold of the paging company, and they turned each one off until we saw > the spur go away. > Final tube had been replaced and not properly neutralized. > > WalterH > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Tom W2MN" wrote: > > > > We had a pager spur problem with our repeater (no pl). The problem would > > come and go. We determined it happened mostly with time of day (outside > > temperature). Sometime it was just a short 1 second event and sometimes it > > would hold for a bit more (maybe 2 -5 sec). We setup a satellite multimode > > radio (actually dial in the frequency with widest bandwidth setting) and > > monitored the repeater input with a tape recorder and vox. We did this to > > capture the audio so we could listen to characteristics and THE CW CALLSIGN. > > We captured enough of the callsign that we were able to indentify the whole > > call (and freq) from the FCC database. > > > > With that, we were able to monitor the repeater and the pager for hits. Yes, > > it did hit some times and not others. The reason was, it was caused by an > > unstable spur that drifted up and down the ham band with temperature and the > > amount of pager traffic. It was also hitting other repeaters as it drifted > > but most of the other repeaters had pl. > > > > There was a chain of pagers using the same freq and callsign and we had to > > figure out which tower it was. We used a beam antenna and chased the spur > > up/down the band until we were able to get a definite direction. The next > > step as to visit the site AREA with an HT and just scan the ham repeater > > input freqs during the likely time of day. Bingo, the spur was loud and > > clear!. > > > > Of course the pager owner was in denial but being a pest for a couple of > > weeks got the problem removed. They claim it was a spur in the final PA that > > had been serviced just at the time the problem started. They replaced the > > PA. > > > > Hope this story helps. > > > > Tom > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:38 PM, men...@pa.net wrote: > How long has the pager been in operation? > If it has been there for a long time either something changed in the > pager setup or something changed on your end. > > We've been having many problems at the site (including a broken tower cross arm, now fixed) for a while now and lots of things have been changing. I'm aware that it could be our problem as likely as theirs. We've been up there for 30 years, don't know how long they have been there, certianly longer than this problem. > What you have is a case of RF overload. No other frequencies are > involved, not even your own transmitter. > > I'm thinking spurious pager TX , not our RX overload at this point. But I'm going to go have a look at things. > 225 watts RF + how much antenna gain on the pager end or is that the > total ERP of the pager? > > That's power out of the transmitter. I think they are allowed 999 watts ERP but I don't know what theirs is. > What is the difference in vertical height between the pager transmit > antenna and your repeater antenna? > > Our antenna is a little higher and about 75 yards away. > What sort of filtering are you using? Duplexer? Dual antennas? > > Split TX/RX antennas about 40 feet apart with near straight vertical separation. Six cavity BP/BR duplexer plus two bottle Wacom filter on the RX. TX has a 3 pole circulator and low pass filter. > The HP8924 in the Spectrum Analyser mode will show you the transmitted > frequency shifting between the upper and lower limits. The deviation > measurement will be useless since you are not measuring deviation of > an analog signal. Setting up a digital paging transmitter usually > involves activating a test mode which will place the unmodulated TX > signal at the the limits. The adjustment is made to set the amount of > shift from the center channel according to the enginnering for the > system. When the incoming signal from the paging terminal is received > it causes the transmitter to shift to one of the two limits which can > be thought of as a 1 or a 0. Ironically the systems I saw usually > used AFSK on the link from the paging terminal (modem to modem). > > Yea, ok. I'm not that familiar with what these paging systems look like on the SA. It looked odd to me. But the consensus here seems to be that dev is ok. I did see another paging system with this same looking modulation. > If there is more than one transmitter involved measuring off the air > cannot give you an accurate "deviation" measurement since any > hetrodyne between the two or more carriers will also be seen by the > service monitor and will distort the measurement. > > They do have more than 1 transmitter. I can't tell for sure if I can hear more than one. It's possible. >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
If that was the issue I'd think every other two meter repeater on the hill (and there are many) would have the my same problem. But they don't. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 7:27 PM, larynl2 wrote: > > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Tim Sawyer wrote: > > > > > Basically, there is one controller for both the 929.0375 and the 157.74 > > transmitters. They also have two other transmitters on 929.6375 and > > 931.6625. > > Are the 929.0375 and 929.6375 transmitters at the same site as your repeater? > I'm seeing 600 kc. difference there... > > Laryn K8TVZ > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
Apparently, from what the tech said, this one is slated to go off the air in coming months, too. But I can't wait that long as our repeater is basically useless at this point. And you never know, it might take them longer than that to actually kill it. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 1:02 PM, MCH wrote: > One bright side: Paging companies are going the way of the dinosaur, so > it may not be on the air much longer. There used to be a couple dozen > paging companies in my area. Now there are 5 or 6 left - mostly on UHF/900.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
The meter reads P-P just like the scope. I generally set dev with the meter and confirm it on the scope. But your right, this really doesn't matter. I was just making sure they didn't have the dev out of wack and from what I gather here they don't. We're going up Tuesday with another repeater and the 8924c to check it out. I'll be looking to see what comes down the antenna. If there are no big signals that shouldn't be there, and we can see/hear the paging on channel, and I there is no activity on 151.14 (actually 151.145 is San Bernardino County) or 170.94 (ULS FCC DB shows nothing) then I'll assume it's a spur. I have talked to the tech and he was friendly. I'm going to contact him again and see if he will come up the hill with us and inspect his transmitter. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 12:59 PM, MCH wrote: > There is something wrong with your SM, then, as it should not show a > deviation of 15 kHz on a signal that is 15 kHz P-P unless it's only > deviating in one direction from the carrier. > > The +/- 4 kHz sounds about right. But, it should be centered around the > carrier frequency of 157.740 (Or, on 157.736 and 157.744). It would also > equate to a P-P of about 8 kHz as there is nothing but a shifted carrier > involved. > > Regardless, I suspect none of this relates to your problem. > > If it's only 75 yards from you, I bet it's a very weak spur. It's likely > down far enough that it's legal, too. If that is the case, the only > thing that will solve it is putting a filter on its TX to notch your > repeater RX frequency (good luck getting that to happen if it's not on > the same site - and often if it is on the same site). > > Joe M. > > Tim Sawyer wrote: >> >> >> My service monitor (HP 8924C) has both a deviation meter and an >> oscilloscope to display the demodulated audio. Both the numbers on the >> dev meter and the peak to peak on the scope read about 15 Khz. >> >> I see another paging system (152.84) that shows the same 15 Khz dev, and >> a bunch of other ones that show 5 Khz dev. >> >> -- >> Tim >> :wq >> >> On Aug 21, 2010, at 12:18 PM, MCH wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Before you said 15 kHz P-P (IOW bandwidth). Now you're saying 15 kHz >>> deviation. 15 kHz deviation would be way too high. >>> >>> Joe M. >>> >>> Tim Sawyer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I haven't noticed a hum. There's more of a scream on it. >>>> >>>> It's POCSAG. Is that analog? >>>> >>>> The dev is basically 15 Khz but there is, what I going to call splatter >>>> that is like 30 Khz. >>>> -- >>>> Tim >>>> :wq >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:14 AM, MCH wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many times (but not all), there will be a grungy sound with the spur. >>>>> Think of a very loud 60 cycle hum. >>>>> >>>>> And 15 kHz is higher than normal. I think the typical shift is 5 kHz >>>>> (+/- 2.5 kHz) if we are talking about digital paging. Analog might >>> be 15 >>>>> kHz, as the bandwidth limit would be 16 kHz. >>>>> >>>>> Joe M. >>>>> >>>>> Tim Sawyer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at? >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> :wq >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>>> Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: >>> 03/14/10 03:33:00 >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
I have noticed the carrier appears to jump between +4 and -4 Khz of center. The transmitter is about 75 yards from me. It's running 225 watts according to the tech. The interference is pretty strong. It competes with my base station on low power. I'm 25 miles from the repeater. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 11:25 AM, men...@pa.net wrote: > Tim, > > Digital paging (mostly POCSAG coding these days) is FSK and will > easily occupy 15KHz of bandwidth. > > On a Service Monitor deviation screen you will see a square wave > pattern that looks like it is overdeviated unless you are very close > to the transmitter in question. Read on and you will see why a > deviation measurement is of little use. > > On a Spectrum Analyser you will see a single spike that jumps back and > forth between a freq higher than the channel center and a freq lower > than the channel center. The typical digital paging transmitter > settings are +4KHz above the assigned freq and - 4KHz below the > assigned freq. If the system uses multiple transmitters the + and - > settings may be asymmetrical to allow for slight offsets between > transmitters. As demodulated at the paging receiver the signal is a > 1200 baud pattern of square waves. > > Newer systems such as FLEX may have two levels of + and - with > settings of say +4K +2K -2K and -4K. > > If the problem is the digital paging transmitter you need to determine > how close the transmitter is to your installation. Paging receivers > represent a compromised antenna system and most paging transmitters > compensate for the shortcomings of the receiver by sending at very > high power levels. If the paging transmitter is close to you, it > might be meeting spec but the low level grundge could be causing you > problems. > > Milt > N3LTQ > > Quoting Tim Sawyer : > > > I'm looking at the pager freq with the SA. The dev looks wide to me. > > I see about 15 Khz peak to peak. Is that normal? > > > > Also I see much bigger spikes. > > > > -- > > Tim > > :wq > > > > On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: > > > >> Again, just like a spur. > >> > >> Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? > >> > >> Might also be worth putting the Spectrum Analyzer on your input to see > >> if you can see it drifting through the frequency - or drifting onto it. > >> > >> Joe M. > >> > >> Tim Sawyer wrote: > >> > Another tidbit about this problem is that it's clean in the > >> mornings. The paging transmitter can be going off like crazy and > >> the repeater will be totally clean in carrier squelch. As the day > >> progresses it gets worse. > >> > -- > >> > Tim > >> > :wq > >> > > >> > On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: > >> > > >> >> I agree, if you don't hear anything else in the mix, and it pretty much > >> >> happens for the full length of the page, it's likely a spur on the > >> >> paging > >> >> transmitter, at least that's what I'd be looking at. > >> >> > >> >> Chuck > >> >> WB2EDV > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> - Original Message - > >> >> From: "MCH" > >> >> To: > >> >> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:46 PM > >> >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever) > >> >>> > >> >>> Joe M. > >> >>> > >> >>> Tim Sawyer wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is > >> >>>> missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to > >> drop at the > >> >>>> same time as the page. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> Tim > >> >>>> :wq > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way > >> >>>>> through > >> >>>>> some > >> >>>>> of the time
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
My service monitor (HP 8924C) has both a deviation meter and an oscilloscope to display the demodulated audio. Both the numbers on the dev meter and the peak to peak on the scope read about 15 Khz. I see another paging system (152.84) that shows the same 15 Khz dev, and a bunch of other ones that show 5 Khz dev. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 12:18 PM, MCH wrote: > Before you said 15 kHz P-P (IOW bandwidth). Now you're saying 15 kHz > deviation. 15 kHz deviation would be way too high. > > Joe M. > > Tim Sawyer wrote: > > > > > > I haven't noticed a hum. There's more of a scream on it. > > > > It's POCSAG. Is that analog? > > > > The dev is basically 15 Khz but there is, what I going to call splatter > > that is like 30 Khz. > > -- > > Tim > > :wq > > > > On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:14 AM, MCH wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Many times (but not all), there will be a grungy sound with the spur. > >> Think of a very loud 60 cycle hum. > >> > >> And 15 kHz is higher than normal. I think the typical shift is 5 kHz > >> (+/- 2.5 kHz) if we are talking about digital paging. Analog might be 15 > >> kHz, as the bandwidth limit would be 16 kHz. > >> > >> Joe M. > >> > >> Tim Sawyer wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at? > >> > -- > >> > Tim > >> > :wq > >> > > >> > On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: > >> > > >> >> Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 > > 03:33:00 > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
The deviation is 15 Khz. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Jeff DePolo wrote: > > The deviation is 15 kHz, or you're seeing 15 kHz of bandwidth on the > spectrum analyzer? The latter would be normal, the former wouldn't be. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer > > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 1:33 PM > > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > > > > > > > > I haven't noticed a hum. There's more of a scream on it. > > > > It's POCSAG. Is that analog? > > > > The dev is basically 15 Khz but there is, what I going to > > call splatter that is like 30 Khz. > > > > -- > > Tim > > :wq > > > > On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:14 AM, MCH wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Many times (but not all), there will be a grungy sound > > with the spur. > > Think of a very loud 60 cycle hum. > > > > And 15 kHz is higher than normal. I think the typical > > shift is 5 kHz > > (+/- 2.5 kHz) if we are talking about digital paging. > > Analog might be 15 > > kHz, as the bandwidth limit would be 16 kHz. > > > > Joe M. > > > > Tim Sawyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at? > > > -- > > > Tim > > > :wq > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: > > > > > >> Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it > > on your input? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
I haven't noticed a hum. There's more of a scream on it. It's POCSAG. Is that analog? The dev is basically 15 Khz but there is, what I going to call splatter that is like 30 Khz. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:14 AM, MCH wrote: > Many times (but not all), there will be a grungy sound with the spur. > Think of a very loud 60 cycle hum. > > And 15 kHz is higher than normal. I think the typical shift is 5 kHz > (+/- 2.5 kHz) if we are talking about digital paging. Analog might be 15 > kHz, as the bandwidth limit would be 16 kHz. > > Joe M. > > Tim Sawyer wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at? > > -- > > Tim > > :wq > > > > On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: > > > >> Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
Yes the repeater has CTCSS but I turn it off for testing. When on the CTCSS will false but that's not what I'm talking about when I say that the repeater sometimes keys up after the beginning of the page. I'm going to take another repeater which has a different 1st IF up and test with just as you suggest. It's a VXR-5000 with a 1st IF of 21.6 Mhz and a 2nd IF of 455. The current repeater (a Micor) has a 11.7 IF and is single conversion. Yes, it happens out of the blue. I'm confident that the repeater TX is not part of the mix. The paging does sound a bit different. I've been think that's due to the wide dev (15 Khz plus) and that different receivers would hear that differently. I talked to the tech and he told me the system has a satellite feed. He also told me the same feed goes to their transmitter on 929.0375 Mhz. Basically, there is one controller for both the 929.0375 and the 157.74 transmitters. They also have two other transmitters on 929.6375 and 931.6625. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > Tim Sawyer wrote: >> >> >> It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is >> missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at >> the same time as the page. >> > Does the repeater run CTCSS on the input? If so, is the behavior the > same if CTCSS is off? (CTCSS might clip the signal off at one end or the > other, even though the receiver is hearing the whole thing) > > Can you hear the signal using a completely different receiver on the > same frequency at the site? (Preferably one that uses a different first > IF frequency, tests to see if it is getting into the IF or if the > intermod product is an image rather than the actual receive frequency) > > Does it happen "out of the blue" with the repeater inactive, or only > when the repeater has been in-use? (Tests to see if the repeater > transmitter is part of the mix) > > Does the paging sound exactly the same, or might you be hearing a link > transmitter? (many are on 72 MHz, exactly half your input frequency) > > > Matthew Kaufman > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
I'm looking at the pager freq with the SA. The dev looks wide to me. I see about 15 Khz peak to peak. Is that normal? Also I see much bigger spikes. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: > Again, just like a spur. > > Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input? > > Might also be worth putting the Spectrum Analyzer on your input to see > if you can see it drifting through the frequency - or drifting onto it. > > Joe M. > > Tim Sawyer wrote: > > Another tidbit about this problem is that it's clean in the mornings. The > > paging transmitter can be going off like crazy and the repeater will be > > totally clean in carrier squelch. As the day progresses it gets worse. > > -- > > Tim > > :wq > > > > On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: > > > >> I agree, if you don't hear anything else in the mix, and it pretty much > >> happens for the full length of the page, it's likely a spur on the paging > >> transmitter, at least that's what I'd be looking at. > >> > >> Chuck > >> WB2EDV > >> > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "MCH" > >> To: > >> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:46 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > >> > >> > >>> Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever) > >>> > >>> Joe M. > >>> > >>> Tim Sawyer wrote: > >>>> > >>>> It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is > >>>> missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the > >>>> same time as the page. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Tim > >>>> :wq > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way through > >>>>> some > >>>>> of the time? Partial page would indicate to me that another > >>>>> transmitter is > >>>>> in the mix and dropping before the pager does. > >>>>> > >>>>> However, I had a situation where there were four paging sites > >>>>> scattered in > >>>>> the county on the same frequency and one of the transmitters was > >>>>> spurious > >>>>> and getting into my receiver. In that case, I always heard the entire > >>>>> page, > >>>>> but only when that particular transmitter came up. > >>>>> > >>>>> Chuck > >>>>> WB2EDV > >>>>> > >>>>> - Original Message - > >>>>> From: "Tim - WD6AWP" mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com>> > >>>>> To: >>>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>> > >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:27 PM > >>>>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > >>>>> > >>>>>> It occurs whether or not the repeater transmitter is keyed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>, "Jeff DePolo" > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Before we get into the math, an important question that needs to be > >>>>>>> answered > >>>>>>> is whether or not this mix occurs when your repeater transmitter is > >>>>>>> unkeyed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --- Jeff WN3A > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -Original Message- > >>>>>>>> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > >>>>>>>> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer > >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:36 PM > >>>>>>>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > >&g
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
I'm not sure what you mean by grungy. What are you getting at? -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 6:59 AM, MCH wrote: > Does it have a 'grungy' sound to it when you hear it on your input?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
Another tidbit about this problem is that it's clean in the mornings. The paging transmitter can be going off like crazy and the repeater will be totally clean in carrier squelch. As the day progresses it gets worse. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: > I agree, if you don't hear anything else in the mix, and it pretty much > happens for the full length of the page, it's likely a spur on the paging > transmitter, at least that's what I'd be looking at. > > Chuck > WB2EDV > > > > - Original Message - > From: "MCH" > To: > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:46 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > > >> Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever) >> >> Joe M. >> >> Tim Sawyer wrote: >>> >>> >>> It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is >>> missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the >>> same time as the page. >>> >>> -- >>> Tim >>> :wq >>> >>> On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way through >>>> some >>>> of the time? Partial page would indicate to me that another >>>> transmitter is >>>> in the mix and dropping before the pager does. >>>> >>>> However, I had a situation where there were four paging sites >>>> scattered in >>>> the county on the same frequency and one of the transmitters was >>>> spurious >>>> and getting into my receiver. In that case, I always heard the entire >>>> page, >>>> but only when that particular transmitter came up. >>>> >>>> Chuck >>>> WB2EDV >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Tim - WD6AWP" mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com>> >>>> To: >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>> >>>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:27 PM >>>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation >>>> >>>>> It occurs whether or not the repeater transmitter is keyed. >>>>> >>>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>, "Jeff DePolo" >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Before we get into the math, an important question that needs to be >>>>>> answered >>>>>> is whether or not this mix occurs when your repeater transmitter is >>>>>> unkeyed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- Jeff WN3A >>>>>> >>>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>>> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >>>>>>> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:36 PM >>>>>>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >>>>>>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on >>>>>>> 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter >>>>>>> involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is >>>>>>> transmitting and I have no interference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the >>>>>>> known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to >>>>>>> solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate >>>>>>> the other possible soruce(s)? >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>> :wq >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>>> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3084 - Release Date: 08/20/10 >>>> 14:35:00 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3084 - Release Date: 08/20/10 > 14:35:00 > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation
That's how I found 157.74. We're going back up on Tuesday to look some more. -- Tim :wq On Aug 21, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Joe wrote: > I've had luck finding these kinds of problems by bringing a spectrum > analyzer to the site and connecting it to an antenna. I look at > 10-20Mhz sections of the spectrum and try to find a spike that comes up > at the same time as the interference.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
I'm in Huntington Beach. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: > > Tim, > > > > Where are you located? > > > > 73, > > > > Mike > > WM4B > > > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:49 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > > > > > > No, I never, ever have heard any other audio. But there is time when I don't > hear it at all... as if it takes two signals to occur. > > -- > Tim > :wq > > On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:46 PM, MCH wrote: > > > Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever) > > > > Joe M. > > > > Tim Sawyer wrote: > >> > >> > >> It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is > >> missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the > >> same time as the page. > >> > >> -- > >> Tim > >> :wq > >> > >> On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way through > >>> some > >>> of the time? Partial page would indicate to me that another > >>> transmitter is > >>> in the mix and dropping before the pager does. > >>> > >>> However, I had a situation where there were four paging sites > >>> scattered in > >>> the county on the same frequency and one of the transmitters was spurious > >>> and getting into my receiver. In that case, I always heard the entire > >>> page, > >>> but only when that particular transmitter came up. > >>> > >>> Chuck > >>> WB2EDV > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "Tim - WD6AWP" mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com>> > >>> To: >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>> > >>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:27 PM > >>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > >>> > >>>> It occurs whether or not the repeater transmitter is keyed. > >>>> > >>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>, "Jeff DePolo" > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before we get into the math, an important question that needs to be > >>>>> answered > >>>>> is whether or not this mix occurs when your repeater transmitter is > >>>>> unkeyed. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --- Jeff WN3A > >>>>> > >>>>>> -Original Message- > >>>>>> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > >>>>>> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:36 PM > >>>>>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > >>>>>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on > >>>>>> 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter > >>>>>> involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is > >>>>>> transmitting and I have no interference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the > >>>>>> known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to > >>>>>> solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate > >>>>>> the other possible soruce(s)? > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Tim > >>>>>> :wq > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > >>> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3084 - Release Date: 08/20/10 > >>> 14:35:00 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
No, I never, ever have heard any other audio. But there is time when I don't hear it at all... as if it takes two signals to occur. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:46 PM, MCH wrote: > Could be a spur. Can you hear any other audio with the page? (ever) > > Joe M. > > Tim Sawyer wrote: >> >> >> It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is >> missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the >> same time as the page. >> >> -- >> Tim >> :wq >> >> On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way through >>> some >>> of the time? Partial page would indicate to me that another >>> transmitter is >>> in the mix and dropping before the pager does. >>> >>> However, I had a situation where there were four paging sites >>> scattered in >>> the county on the same frequency and one of the transmitters was spurious >>> and getting into my receiver. In that case, I always heard the entire >>> page, >>> but only when that particular transmitter came up. >>> >>> Chuck >>> WB2EDV >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Tim - WD6AWP" mailto:tisawyer%40gmail.com>> >>> To: >> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>> >>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:27 PM >>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation >>> >>>> It occurs whether or not the repeater transmitter is keyed. >>>> >>>> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>, "Jeff DePolo" >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Before we get into the math, an important question that needs to be >>>>> answered >>>>> is whether or not this mix occurs when your repeater transmitter is >>>>> unkeyed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- Jeff WN3A >>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >>>>>> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer >>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:36 PM >>>>>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >>> <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >>>>>> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on >>>>>> 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter >>>>>> involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is >>>>>> transmitting and I have no interference. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the >>>>>> known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to >>>>>> solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate >>>>>> the other possible soruce(s)? >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> :wq >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3084 - Release Date: 08/20/10 >>> 14:35:00 >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation
I'll watch those. How did you calculate them? -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:38 PM, MCH wrote: > Most likely suspects would be 151.140 and 170.940 MHz. > > Joe M. > > Tim Sawyer wrote: > > I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on 144.540 Mhz. I'm > > 100% sure there is another transmitter involved in the mix because > > sometimes the pager is transmitting and I have no interference. > > > > I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the known > > transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to solve for an unknown > > transmitter. Is there a way to calculate the other possible soruce(s)? > > -- > > Tim > > :wq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation
It seems to pick up most of the page. Occasionally the beginning is missing or it will get just the very end. It always seems to drop at the same time as the page. -- Tim :wq On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote: > Does the entire page happen, or does it abruptly stop part way through some > of the time? Partial page would indicate to me that another transmitter is > in the mix and dropping before the pager does. > > However, I had a situation where there were four paging sites scattered in > the county on the same frequency and one of the transmitters was spurious > and getting into my receiver. In that case, I always heard the entire page, > but only when that particular transmitter came up. > > Chuck > WB2EDV > > - Original Message - > From: "Tim - WD6AWP" > To: > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:27 PM > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intermod Calculation > > > It occurs whether or not the repeater transmitter is keyed. > > > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff DePolo" wrote: > >> > >> > >> Before we get into the math, an important question that needs to be > >> answered > >> is whether or not this mix occurs when your repeater transmitter is > >> unkeyed. > >> > >> > >> --- Jeff WN3A > >> > >> > -Original Message- > >> > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >> > [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Sawyer > >> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:36 PM > >> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >> > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on > >> > 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter > >> > involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is > >> > transmitting and I have no interference. > >> > > >> > I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the > >> > known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to > >> > solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate > >> > the other possible soruce(s)? > >> > -- > >> > Tim > >> > :wq > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3084 - Release Date: 08/20/10 > 14:35:00 > >
[Repeater-Builder] Intermod Calculation
I have paging intermod from 157.740 Mhz. My receiver is on 144.540 Mhz. I'm 100% sure there is another transmitter involved in the mix because sometimes the pager is transmitting and I have no interference. I have an intermod calculator program but it wants all the known transmitters and the target receiver. But I need to solve for an unknown transmitter. Is there a way to calculate the other possible soruce(s)? -- Tim :wq
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sorry everyone
Sorry, not trying to propagate crap. I was just trying to be helpful and didn't want him to make maters worse. Thanks for your recommendations. -- Tim :wq On Aug 12, 2010, at 6:51 AM, Mark Tomany wrote: > It's amazing that so many people have the time on their hands to be able to > propagate all this crap...
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Sorry everyone
Was your machine on while you were away? If so you may have gotten a virus or spyware. Sounds like your wife got it too. Spamers like to infect machines just to get control of them for sending spam. The really bad news is that most free spyware removal software is spyware itself. A really good PC guy might be able to remove it. Good luck man! -- Tim :wq On Aug 11, 2010, at 6:18 AM, Dave E Stephens Sr wrote: > so i got on here this morning and found out that I had sent out a mass email > to everyone in my address book with a link to some website. Funny thing is > that when this email was sent, I was butt deep in the Applegate River with my > family (a location that doesn't even get cell coverage). > > this same thing happened to Liz (my better half) just a couple days ago and > now that it has happened to me, i have figures out where my account info > leaked from. > > I am very sorry to all of you. > Dave Stephens > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DOSBox to Program Radios
Hey John, All you have to do is edit the configuration file. You see the location of the configuration file when DOSBox starts. There are pretty plain comments in there as to how to set it up. Going from memory it was something like this: serial1 = directconnect realport:com1 -- Tim :wq On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:28 AM, La Rue Communications wrote: > > Actually this is on topic. > > Tim - can you relay to me, how your friend has his serial port set up to work > with his DOSBox? My efforts were in vain. I think perhaps my XP Machine is > too fast and modern? Only a theory. > > John Hymes > La Rue Communications > 10 S. Aurora Street > Stockton, CA 95202 > http://tinyurl.com/2dtngmn > - Original Message - > From: Tim - WD6AWP > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 7:02 AM > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] DOSBox to Program Radios > > > DOSBox (www.dosbox.com) is an x86 emulator with DOS. It works great for > programming those radios that need old, slow PCs for the software. I use it > on my MacBook dual booting into Windows 7 and using an IO Gear USB serial > dongle on COM1. So far I've programmed a couple of Radius M1225's and a > VXR-5000. A friend of mine has similar results with Windows XP on a 800Mhz PC > with a real serial port. > > -- > Tim > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TKR-750 Crunchy/Grungy Weak Signal Audio
Is there a write up on the procedure somewhere or could you explain it here? -- Tim :wq On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:20 AM, skipp025 wrote: > 3. Repeater Pre-selector Alignment. How did the Dealer > align the receiver front end? Most people use the > "peak for max signal" method and that's not the best.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 420Mhz Radio for Voter?
Thanks Buch, I'd like to build the link so that it transmits all the time. That minimizes key up delays and reduces intermod on the hill. So need something that can key down forever. -- Tim :wq On Aug 6, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Glenn (Butch) Kanvick wrote: > Hello Tim. > Yes, the CDM's probably will not do the 24/7 even with cooling as they are > designed for a 5 per cent duty cycle, maybe 10 per cent if you are very lucky > and it stays in an air conditioned room all of it's life. The CDM's are a > mobile version plus you need two of them, one for TX and one for RX, then you > need the Motoroal RICK to make them work. > > Have a great weekend. > > Butch, KE7FEL/r > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Tim Sawyer wrote: > Oh, sorry Butch. I was asking James about the CDM radios.I know the Micor's > are 7x24x365. > -- > Tim > :wq > > On Aug 6, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Glenn (Butch) Kanvick wrote: > >> Hello Tim. >> >> These do not have a fan on them, but adding a fan(s) would make the air pass >> by the cooling fins much faster. >> These are the continious duty PA's with the huge heatsink on the rear of the >> PA. >> I am not sure what Motorola's duty cycle is for these PA's. >> >> Attached is a picture of the PA. >> >> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Tim Sawyer wrote: >> >> How about duty cycle? Do you think this set up would transmit 7x24? >> >> -- >> Tim >> :wq >> >> On Jul 28, 2010, at 7:46 PM, James Adkins wrote: >> >>> I am using the Motorola CDM series of radios for 420-425 MHz links from >>> voting sites. They make a low-split UHF split that covers 403-470 MHz out >>> of the box, no mods needed. On the transmit sites, you will want to use a >>> fan for cooling. We mount the RX radio and a UHF TX radio on a 1U rack >>> shelf, use a 4" hole saw and drill a hole under the UHF TX radio, and >>> purchase a nice Dayton 24vdc fan that is actually a ball bearing fan that >>> you can count on for years of use, and let it go. Have not had any >>> problems to date with these rigs over a 4 year span. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> <100_1894.jpg><100_1895.jpg> > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 420Mhz Radio for Voter?
How about duty cycle? Do you think this set up would transmit 7x24? -- Tim :wq On Jul 28, 2010, at 7:46 PM, James Adkins wrote: > I am using the Motorola CDM series of radios for 420-425 MHz links from > voting sites. They make a low-split UHF split that covers 403-470 MHz out of > the box, no mods needed. On the transmit sites, you will want to use a fan > for cooling. We mount the RX radio and a UHF TX radio on a 1U rack shelf, > use a 4" hole saw and drill a hole under the UHF TX radio, and purchase a > nice Dayton 24vdc fan that is actually a ball bearing fan that you can count > on for years of use, and let it go. Have not had any problems to date with > these rigs over a 4 year span. > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 420Mhz Radio for Voter?
Hello Butch, If you have sent pictures I did not get them. -- Tim :wq On Jul 30, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Glenn (Butch) Kanvick wrote: > > Hello Tim. > Yes, it is the 402-430 Mhz. split radio. I have a coupleoftheMicorsandafew > GEMastr II's. > > The TX is on 419.3750 and the RX is on 414.4750 > > I will get you pictures probably tommorrow afternoon. > > Butch, KE7FEL/r > > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Tim - WD6AWP wrote: > > > I just need the rx, tx and pa. I can use the DC cables too. I don't need the > ps or cabinet. Pictures would be nice if you can send them. And you're sure > it's UHF low split 406-420? > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Glenn (Butch) Kanvick" > wrote: > > > > Hello Tim. > > This message made it through. > > > > Do you need just the transmitter, receiver and the card cage or do you want > > the complete radio with power supply and cabinet? > > > > Do you need pictures of the repeater? > > > > Thanks, Butch, KE7FEL/r > > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Tim - WD6AWP wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Butch, > > > > > > I replied to you off list but maybe your spam filter got me. I'm > > > interested > > > so please check your email. > > > > > > -- > > > Tim > > > > > > --- In > > > Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, > > > > "Glenn (Butch) Kanvick" wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Tim. > > > > > > > > I just looked in my storage site and I found a Micor Base/Repeater which > > > is > > > > on the band split of 402-430 MHz. I do not have channel elements for it. > > > > I know it was working when it came out of service a few years ago, and > > > the > > > > PA can be used as a digital station, as it takes the four pin channel > > > > elements. It is the complete base repeater which is designed for > > > continious > > > > duty as it has the large pa heatsinks. > > > > > > > > Let me know if you would like pictures of it. > > > > I have $200.00 into it and it weighs alot so I am sure shipping via > > > ground > > > > would be around $50.00. > > > > > > > > If you need the cabinet and power supply it would be $400.00 plus actual > > > > shipping. > > > > > > > > > > > > Butch, KE7FEL/r > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Tim - WD6AWP wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those CDM radios are a bit pricy at $550 each. But I appreciate the > > > > > suggestion. And you've given me some ideas. > > > > > > > > > > I still like the idea of building an out of band repeater for the > > > remote > > > > > receive site from a Micor chassis. I would need a 406-420 exciter, > > > bandpass > > > > > filter and trippler. If anybody on the list has those or can help me > > > find > > > > > them I'd really appreciate it. > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > , > > > > > James Adkins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I am using the Motorola CDM series of radios for 420-425 MHz links > > > from > > > > > > voting sites. They make a low-split UHF split that covers 403-470 > > > > > > MHz > > > out > > > > > > of the box, no mods needed. On the transmit sites, you will want to > > > use a > > > > > > fan for cooling. We mount the RX radio and a UHF TX radio on a 1U > > > rack > > > > > > shelf, use a 4" hole saw and drill a hole under the UHF TX radio, > > > > > > and > > > > > > purchase a nice Dayton 24vdc fan that is actually a ball bearing fan > > > that > > > > > > you can count on for years of use, and let it go. Have not had any > > > > > problems > > > > > > to date with these rigs over a 4 year span. > > > > > > > > > > > > at W6KGBs article on moving 450-470 Mastr IIs > > > > > > > > > > > > > to 420-450. It's on the GE Mastr II page at repeater-builder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You could use a Mastr II UHF mobile with the receiver, > > > > > > > exciter and IPA converted to 420, then use the receiver > > > > > > > in an aux receiver chassis at the voter site. > > > > > > > You wouldn't need to convert the PA, the IPA (driver) > > > > > > > and a beam would be enough for a point-to-point link. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Meister WA1MIK did an article on converting the > > > > > > > multiplier chains so that the UHF Micor receivers could > > > > > > > hear down as low as 435 MHz (where the front ends > > > > > > > run out of tuning range). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike WA6ILQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 05:10 PM 07/27/10, you wrote: > > > > > > > >Thanks Jeff, I'll keep looking around for those low split UHF > > > Micor > > > > > > > >receivers. What about the transmit side? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Maybe I should look for a unified chassis low split UHF repeater. > > > > > > > >Swap out the UHF receiver for a VHF high band receiver and use > > > that > > > > > > > >for my remote receiver site. Then use the low split UHF receiver > > > on > > > > > > > >the other end of the link. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >That make sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- In > > > > > > > >Repeat
Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSP404 beta 5.18 released
I didn't seen any release notes on Linkcomm's site. What's new in this release? -- Tim :wq On Jul 31, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Stanley Stanukinos wrote: > > Those of you that are running the Link DSP404 a Beta release is out version > 5.18. I have loaded it on my controller and so far so good. The fist bug is > in the comm. Set up.. I am running Vista business on a laptop with a real > serial port and it does not show or allow the com port to be selected, > however it still works on com 1. The first time I selected T on the left side > I received a memory error but have not been able to reproduce it. I also have > seen some stuttering in the audio between the controller and the laptop I am > using on the local network. The controller is connected directly to the > wireless router and I am connecting wirelessly with the laptop. So there may > be more issues around or just my setup. > > > > Stan
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 420Mhz Radio for Voter?
What's it take to program those radios? -- Tim :wq On Jul 29, 2010, at 8:45 PM, James Adkins wrote: > I disagree on the price of the CDM's. You can get the CDM-750 (4-channel) > for as low as $75 to $125 if you watch for them on e-bay. The CDM-1250 and > CDM-1550 are more expensive used, but still you should be able to get them > for $250 or less if you just have to have the 128 channels and alpha display. > > > On our setup, I program the RX CDM for PL on receive, but leave it in monitor > mode. I then feed the PL detect from the RX radio to the PL encode of the TX > CDM. When it gets back to the site, if the radio receives a PL, then it > sends the logic out the PL detect pin. If it doesn't, then no logic is sent. > This way you can turn the PL tone at all your remote sites locally with your > controller. > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Glenn (Butch) Kanvick > wrote: > > > Hello Tim. > > I just looked in my storage site and I found a Micor Base/Repeater which is > on the band split of 402-430 MHz. I do not have channel elements for it. > I know it was working when it came out of service a few years ago, and the PA > can be used as a digital station, as it takes the four pin channel elements. > It is the complete base repeater which is designed for continious duty as it > has the large pa heatsinks. > > Let me know if you would like pictures of it. > I have $200.00 into it and it weighs alot so I am sure shipping via ground > would be around $50.00. > > If you need the cabinet and power supply it would be $400.00 plus actual > shipping. > > > Butch, KE7FEL/r > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Tim - WD6AWP wrote: > > Those CDM radios are a bit pricy at $550 each. But I appreciate the > suggestion. And you've given me some ideas. > > I still like the idea of building an out of band repeater for the remote > receive site from a Micor chassis. I would need a 406-420 exciter, bandpass > filter and trippler. If anybody on the list has those or can help me find > them I'd really appreciate it. > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, James Adkins > wrote: > > > > I am using the Motorola CDM series of radios for 420-425 MHz links from > > voting sites. They make a low-split UHF split that covers 403-470 MHz out > > of the box, no mods needed. On the transmit sites, you will want to use a > > fan for cooling. We mount the RX radio and a UHF TX radio on a 1U rack > > shelf, use a 4" hole saw and drill a hole under the UHF TX radio, and > > purchase a nice Dayton 24vdc fan that is actually a ball bearing fan that > > you can count on for years of use, and let it go. Have not had any problems > > to date with these rigs over a 4 year span. > > > > at W6KGBs article on moving 450-470 Mastr IIs > > > > > to 420-450. It's on the GE Mastr II page at repeater-builder. > > > > > > You could use a Mastr II UHF mobile with the receiver, > > > exciter and IPA converted to 420, then use the receiver > > > in an aux receiver chassis at the voter site. > > > You wouldn't need to convert the PA, the IPA (driver) > > > and a beam would be enough for a point-to-point link. > > > > > > Bob Meister WA1MIK did an article on converting the > > > multiplier chains so that the UHF Micor receivers could > > > hear down as low as 435 MHz (where the front ends > > > run out of tuning range). > > > > > > Mike WA6ILQ > > > > > > At 05:10 PM 07/27/10, you wrote: > > > >Thanks Jeff, I'll keep looking around for those low split UHF Micor > > > >receivers. What about the transmit side? > > > > > > > >Maybe I should look for a unified chassis low split UHF repeater. > > > >Swap out the UHF receiver for a VHF high band receiver and use that > > > >for my remote receiver site. Then use the low split UHF receiver on > > > >the other end of the link. > > > > > > > >That make sense? > > > > > > > >--- In > > > >Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, > > > > "Jeff DePolo" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When you say low split, are you talking about the Motorola > > > > > > TRE1201/TRE8031 406-420 Mhz receivers? > > > > > > > > > > I don't have a manual in front of me, but yes, 406-420 receivers, > > > they'll > > > > > work fine well into the mid 430's without mods. > > > > > > > > > > > What Canadian sources might have these? > > > > > > > > > > Well, Spantek comes to mind as a dealer. CW Wolfe used to get a lot of > > > > > stuff out of Canada, but I haven't talked to Bud in quite a few years, > > > not > > > > > sure if he's still in business. This list is probably the best > > > resource. > > > > > eBay as an alternative. If you get desperate I still have a few dozen > > > > > low-split Micors in the warehouse, but really don't have the time (or > > > > > patience) to deal with packing and shipping radios for what few > > > > > dollars > > > I'd > > > > > get out of them (i.e. value of my time > $value of radio). But if you > > > just > > > > > wanted a receiver, you can consider me a last
Re: [Repeater-Builder] White Noise on Micor TX
Yes, it has a stock Motorola PL encode board. I think the noise was there before I installed it. -- :wq Tim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexer on the cheap worries
Yep, low isolation in the duplexer could be the problem. And the correct thing to do is measure it. But if he doesn't have the test gear putting a dummy load on the output of the duplexer will give a pretty good idea whether the duplexer is tuned correctly or not. If there's no desense with a dummy load then the RG-8 might be the problem. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Steve wrote: > > > Hi Tim > see my message, you really do need to check isolation with an analyser > I had a look at a duplexer for a chap and there was just 30dB isolation so > needless to say the desense was tremendous. It took an input signal of > around 70 microvolts to overcome desense. I retuned it on my analyser > and got >80dB and it worked > > Steve > > - Original Message - > *From:* Tim Sawyer > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Friday, May 21, 2010 3:47 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexer on the cheap worries > > RG-8 is not good for duplex. The braid will make TX noise and get into the > receiver. Cheap antennas can make the same problem. Test into a dummy load > right at the duplexer. If no noise then you know it's the feed line and/or > antenna. > > 6.5 inch dia cans are big ones so you should have plenty of isolation > specially for 2 watts. > > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:28 AM, kc0mlt wrote: > >> >> >> Hello all. >> >> I am trying to figure out if the duplexer we have put together is up to >> the task or not. Here is the situation. We have four cavities 6.5" dia. one >> is a vari-notch the others are simple reject cans. Two rejects are on the TX >> side and one reject and the vari-notch are on the RX side. All set and tuned >> with rg-213 jumpers between cans and RG-142 from the cans to the Tee >> connector. We are doing some light testing with a cheap dual ban antenna on >> the garage. It is feed with RG-8 about 70 feet. We are having some issues >> with receive. It kind of sounds like desense but I think it is something >> wrong with the receiver. I was just wondering if the cobbeled together cans >> sound like thay are doing a good enough job as a duplexer or if we do have >> something to change on it. The repeater is only putting out 2 watts for >> testing. I would think I have enough separation for that power level. Any >> suggestions or thoughts woyuld be greatly appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> Wade >> KC0MLT >> >> > > > -- > :wq > Tim > > > -- :wq Tim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Duplexer on the cheap worries
RG-8 is not good for duplex. The braid will make TX noise and get into the receiver. Cheap antennas can make the same problem. Test into a dummy load right at the duplexer. If no noise then you know it's the feed line and/or antenna. 6.5 inch dia cans are big ones so you should have plenty of isolation specially for 2 watts. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:28 AM, kc0mlt wrote: > > > Hello all. > > I am trying to figure out if the duplexer we have put together is up to the > task or not. Here is the situation. We have four cavities 6.5" dia. one is a > vari-notch the others are simple reject cans. Two rejects are on the TX side > and one reject and the vari-notch are on the RX side. All set and tuned with > rg-213 jumpers between cans and RG-142 from the cans to the Tee connector. > We are doing some light testing with a cheap dual ban antenna on the garage. > It is feed with RG-8 about 70 feet. We are having some issues with receive. > It kind of sounds like desense but I think it is something wrong with the > receiver. I was just wondering if the cobbeled together cans sound like thay > are doing a good enough job as a duplexer or if we do have something to > change on it. The repeater is only putting out 2 watts for testing. I would > think I have enough separation for that power level. Any suggestions or > thoughts woyuld be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks > Wade > KC0MLT > > > -- :wq Tim
Re: [Repeater-Builder] VHF Decibel Duplexer
I need to notch 145.16 out of my receiver. Do you think it would tune down that low? On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:25 PM, skipp025 wrote: > > > Re: VHF Decibel Duplexer > > I should probably buy this... or at least bid on it. But I'm > making a serious effort to revive my 12 Step Junk Ender's Program > participation. So I'll pass this on to one of you to hopefully > take advantage of. It's a great Deal for what this is... > > Ebay Item Number: 150413877464 > Decibel Products VHF TR Duplexer > > You're not restricted to using this unit as a duplexer... The > circuit is two paths of notch cavities (tuned circuits) so you > can get quite creative. > > You could also use it as a commercial vhf repeater duplexer and > or a non-standard offset ham repeater duplexer. > > good luck, > s. > > > -- :wq Tim
