RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 Meter Repeater
Not there yet. I don't even have a 6 meter rig. I am looking at getting the Yaesu FT-8900R for my first 6 meter. Any ways, I have built Master II Repeater, Micor Repeaters, and Lots of Mitrek Repeaters. So I am more familiar with Motorola than GE but I can handle both. Never built anything below 2 meter though. If I went with the Mitrek I would use two radios. Due to the isolation, use one for transmit and one for receive. My site would be a 60 foot tower on my dad's place in south central Missouri. He has one of the tallest spots in our county so it is a great location. So the tower is empty now and I can add sections to make it taller if I need to. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of burkleoj Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 1:02 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 Meter Repeater Charles, Welcome to the world of 6 Meter repeaters. They can be a lot of fun. In Missouri you are a little better off frequency and duplexer wise due to your 1.7 MHz split between transmit and receive frequencies. For radios it depends if you are a GE or Motorola person. If you are a GE person, the Mastr II is the repeater of choice, followed by a Exec II. If you are a Motorola person, the Micor or MSR2000 are the repeaters of choice, followed by the Mitrek. For a duplexer, any good commercial duplexer rated at 1 MHz spacing should do the trick. Andrew LDF Heliax for feedline, and my favorite antenna is a pair of DB Products loops, if you have enough tower space. If not a single loop will work pretty good. I tend to shy away from fiberglass (Stationmaster style) antennas for use on 6 Meter repeaters. Your worst enemy will be anything rusty or loose on the tower. If you are on a busy site near other radios and man made noise, you most likely will not need nor want to use a preamp on the receiver, but if you are out in the middle of nowhere on a solar site with a good quiet solar controller a preamp may be of benefit. Good Luck with your project. Joe - WA7JAW --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Charles Rader kc5...@... wrote: I am tossing around the idea of building a 6 meter repeater. This will have to be single site if I do this. What are you guys using for the repeater, duplexer, and antenna? Thanks, Charles KC5DGC image001.jpgimage002.jpg
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
MCH wrote: Where did you hear that? It's certainly not true. 1.7 MHz is the split in some areas, but others use 0.5, 1.0, or 1.6 MHz. Joe M. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. Ohio is 1MHz from 52 up, and 500KHz for 51-52...except for a couple of grandfathered repeaters on a 240 KHz split that were there before there was such a thing as a repeater council...anywhere.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
The FCC has only enforced that which is clearly spelled out in the standards and nothing else. No regional or splintered band plans exist. There may be mitigating circumstances such a pavepaws etc that can have a detrimental effect on continued operation or putting up a repeater. That in no way is dictated by or imposed by by anyone but the FCC. I have already communicated with the FCC and they have acknowledged that only those standards clearly set forth in the applicable regulations apply. Anything else is voluntary. Of course there can develop situations and circumstances that may affect the future operation of any transmitter. They are a case by case basis and the validity of those is determined by and enforced by only the FCC. The local coordination group also clearly has clearly reflected this. the Vice President in charge of coordination is directly quoted in the following blurb. That is from direct communications with him in official response to a local clubs inquiries relative to the possible setup and activation of THREE new local repeaters: It is Dave. I suggest that you form a club, nail down the best possible location, either gather or document the equipment you will use (do NOT scrimp on the hard-line) and be ready to go on the air. If you have the opportunity to put it up without incurring too much cost, by all means do so. If it works out, try to coordinate. But DO NOT get all hung up on it should we disagree with you. MCH wrote: That's odd, as the FCC HAS enforced local bandplans in the past. Feel free to tell them they didn't have the authority to do so. They cited the persons under the good engineering practice rule. As for your statements about not being coordinated, read my post again. I addressed that, and said that AS LONG AS there is no problem, the FCC likely will not get invovled, but IF there is, they will get involved and will side with the user following the local bandplan (all else being equal). No matter how big your font, that does not make what you type correct. Joe M. Dave wrote: You are incorrect. The local coordinating body will tell you the only band plan is that which is authorized in the applicable FEDERAL regulations. NO band plan other than that is enforceable. The ARRL is in NO WAY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AN OFFICIAL REGULATORY AGENCY! IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. No coordinating body is an official governmental body or enforcing agency. The adhearance to any unofficial nonregulatory 'Band Plan is strictly voluntary. ANY licensed amateur radio operator may put up a repeater in a spectrum area as authorized under their license class authorizations. The FCC licenses the operator NOT the repeater. Yes the FCC has backed governing bodies in certain situations. That is only because that body was highlighting applicable FCC standards. NO one other entity other than the FCC can direct or order any radio transmitter or operator to do anything else. There exists NO splintered or regional band plan! There are local repeaters here that are on the air without coordination and have been for years. The local repeater coordination group has absolutely NO authority over them. At present there is a local group putting up a 6 meter repeater and it has just gone 'on the air with a 1 meg split. They are not now coordinated and may never be so. As long as no interfearnce issues (as in any spectrum area hf or higher) there is only operator license regulation required. MCH wrote: Not true. The FCC has upheld local bandplans. Coordinated or not - they apply to everyone. It doesn't even have to be a repeater issue. True, as long as no interference is created, they likely won't get involved, but if there is, and one user is operating according to the bandplan and the other is not, they will side with the one operating according to the bandplan. Coordination should not be an issue since any operation contrary to the bandplan should not be coordinated (unless it's grandfathered). Joe M. Dave wrote: That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the fcc place creedance of any kind to the coordination thing. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
They HAVE enforced local bandplans. That's a fact. They have also threatened many times anyone not following them who had better have a darned good reason for it. Here is an interesting quote from one ham with an opinion... Band plans are voluntary in nature, (he) acknowledged in each of the similarly worded letters. He said the FCC depends upon voluntary compliance because it minimizes the necessity for the Commission to be called in to resolve amateur problems. Where interference results from band plans not being followed, Hollingsworth continued, the Commission expects substantial justification to be shown by the operators ignoring the band plans. (source of quote listed below) So, they expect substantial justification, but have not always received that. In those cases, they enforced the local bandplans via Part 97.101 which states (in part): (a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice. (b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. snip - EACH of the above suggests that a) Part 97's written rules are not the only thing you have to worry about following - good practice counts, too, and b) your choice of frequency should be via cooperative effort. Where a local bandplan exists, and you ignore it, you are not complying with 97.101(b), and those ARE written rules the FCC can, and DOES, enforce. But, what does Riley Hollingsworth (the person who was quoted above) know about the FCC's policies, right? You're right and he is wrong and I'm sorry for doubting you in deference to the FCC's actions and written words. I say this to end the thread since it's obvious nothing anyone says will sway your opinion. Joe M. Dave wrote: The FCC has only enforced that which is clearly spelled out in the standards and nothing else. No regional or splintered band plans exist. There may be mitigating circumstances such a pavepaws etc that can have a detrimental effect on continued operation or putting up a repeater. That in no way is dictated by or imposed by by anyone but the FCC. I have already communicated with the FCC and they have acknowledged that only those standards clearly set forth in the applicable regulations apply. Anything else is voluntary. Of course there can develop situations and circumstances that may affect the future operation of any transmitter. They are a case by case basis and the validity of those is determined by and enforced by only the FCC. The local coordination group also clearly has clearly reflected this. the Vice President in charge of coordination is directly quoted in the following blurb. That is from direct communications with him in official response to a local clubs inquiries relative to the possible setup and activation of THREE new local repeaters: It is Dave. I suggest that you form a club, nail down the best possible location, either gather or document the equipment you will use (do NOT scrimp on the hard-line) and be ready to go on the air. If you have the opportunity to put it up without incurring too much cost, by all means do so. If it works out, try to coordinate. But DO NOT get all hung up on it should we disagree with you. MCH wrote: That's odd, as the FCC HAS enforced local bandplans in the past. Feel free to tell them they didn't have the authority to do so. They cited the persons under the good engineering practice rule. As for your statements about not being coordinated, read my post again. I addressed that, and said that AS LONG AS there is no problem, the FCC likely will not get invovled, but IF there is, they will get involved and will side with the user following the local bandplan (all else being equal). No matter how big your font, that does not make what you type correct. Joe M. Dave wrote: You are incorrect. The local coordinating body will tell you the only band plan is that which is authorized in the applicable FEDERAL regulations. NO band plan other than that is enforceable. The ARRL is in NO WAY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AN OFFICIAL REGULATORY AGENCY! IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. No coordinating body is an official governmental body or enforcing agency. The adhearance to any unofficial nonregulatory 'Band Plan is strictly voluntary. ANY licensed amateur radio operator may put up a repeater in a spectrum area as authorized under their license class authorizations. The FCC licenses the operator NOT the repeater. Yes the FCC has backed governing bodies in certain situations. That is only because that body was highlighting applicable FCC standards. NO one other entity other than the FCC can direct or order any radio
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Dave, I think his point is the FCC doesn't set policy on repeater splits. If you're not going to get coordinated, you can make up anything you want, but in an interference dispute with a coordinated machine, you'll lose. I've often wondered if it would be possible to get all hams with 2M repeaters to switch to a wider split. Sure would make duplexers work better. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Dave To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the fcc place creedance of any kind to the coordination thing. There are many repeaters on the air in the US that have not had not do they currently have a coordination. There is no law that says you must get a coordination. Joe Burkleo wrote: Actually it is your local coordination body that counts. I just recently coordinated a new 6 Meter repeater for here on the Oregon Coast. Our council, ORRC is coordinating 1.7 MHz splits here and has been since 2003 or earlier. My pair is 52.93/51.23. I would not be surprised to still find a couple repeaters left here in the state on the old 1 MHz split as well. 90 Feet of vertical separation, especially with a filter or two, should work very well. Hopefully your Micor has the factory extender option. That coupled with a low noise preamp (such as those made by Angle Linear), should be a pretty good repeater. Good Luck, Joe - WA7JAW --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is still correct. I just checked. Arrl has made some suggestions. HOWEVER! THE ARRL IS _NOT_ THE FCC. THE FREQUENCIES THE FCC AUTHORIZES ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT COUNT! Chuck Kelsey wrote: That's news to me. I've run a 6-meter repeater for years and had involvement for years before that. The split in our region is 1 MHz, although you can get some pairs at 500 kHz if you really want one there. Chuck WB2EDV The repeater is a motorola micor station lo-band repeater retuned to the 6 meter band running 100 watts. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
You are incorrect. The local coordinating body will tell you the only band plan is that which is authorized in the applicable FEDERAL regulations. NO band plan other than that is enforceable. The ARRL is in NO WAY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AN OFFICIAL REGULATORY AGENCY! IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. No coordinating body is an official governmental body or enforcing agency. The adhearance to any unofficial nonregulatory 'Band Plan is strictly voluntary. ANY licensed amateur radio operator may put up a repeater in a spectrum area as authorized under their license class authorizations. The FCC licenses the operator NOT the repeater. Yes the FCC has backed governing bodies in certain situations. That is only because that body was highlighting applicable FCC standards. NO one other entity other than the FCC can direct or order any radio transmitter or operator to do anything else. There exists NO splintered or regional band plan! There are local repeaters here that are on the air without coordination and have been for years. The local repeater coordination group has absolutely NO authority over them. At present there is a local group putting up a 6 meter repeater and it has just gone 'on the air with a 1 meg split. They are not now coordinated and may never be so. As long as no interfearnce issues (as in any spectrum area hf or higher) there is only operator license regulation required. MCH wrote: Not true. The FCC has upheld local bandplans. Coordinated or not - they apply to everyone. It doesn't even have to be a repeater issue. True, as long as no interference is created, they likely won't get involved, but if there is, and one user is operating according to the bandplan and the other is not, they will side with the one operating according to the bandplan. Coordination should not be an issue since any operation contrary to the bandplan should not be coordinated (unless it's grandfathered). Joe M. Dave wrote: That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the fcc place creedance of any kind to the coordination thing. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter Repeater (off-list message)
At 09:05 PM 09/03/08, you wrote: Ok Great this helps. Any idea the db of isolation say for 50 watts and .35uv 12db sinad @ 1.7 mhz split? Eric N7JYS -- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric, Your question cannot be answered properly unless you provide the power output of your transmitter and the 12 dB SINAD sensitivity of your receiver. Therefore, I will offer some calculations based on some assumed values: 25 watt transmitter, 0.35 uV receiver, 1.7 MHz split: 237 feet vertical separation, 13,368 feet horizontal. 50 watt transmitter, 0.35 uV receiver, 1.7 MHz split: 282 feet vertical separation, 18,905 feet horizontal. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Harrison Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:18 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 6 meter Repeater Well regardless if whether 1.7MHz split in the 6 meter band is or is not a national US band plan split, it is an accepted split by the Kansas State Repeater Cordinator as my repeater is cordinated on 52.850/51.150 by them and has been for over 2 years. Just getting it back on the air at a new site. Wasn't trying a war here just trying to get some answers on the dB isolation needed and acceptable vertical antenna separation needed for a 1.7MHz split on 6 meters, which is my reason for posting but have failed to see anyone give the answers I needed. Eric N7JYS Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
High Paul, Yes I fully agree. A sound electronic basis for a split (as well a economically sound LOL) is the way to go. I just have reached the end of my rope with some coordinators who believe they are regulatory agencies. That includes the ARRL. Thanks :-) 73 Dave Paul Plack wrote: Dave, I think his point is the FCC doesn't set policy on repeater splits. If you're not going to get coordinated, you can make up anything you want, but in an interference dispute with a coordinated machine, you'll lose. I've often wondered if it would be possible to get all hams with 2M repeaters to switch to a wider split. Sure would make duplexers work better. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - *From:* Dave mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:37 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the fcc place creedance of any kind to the coordination thing. There are many repeaters on the air in the US that have not had not do they currently have a coordination. There is no law that says you must get a coordination. Joe Burkleo wrote: Actually it is your local coordination body that counts. I just recently coordinated a new 6 Meter repeater for here on the Oregon Coast. Our council, ORRC is coordinating 1.7 MHz splits here and has been since 2003 or earlier. My pair is 52.93/51.23. I would not be surprised to still find a couple repeaters left here in the state on the old 1 MHz split as well. 90 Feet of vertical separation, especially with a filter or two, should work very well. Hopefully your Micor has the factory extender option. That coupled with a low noise preamp (such as those made by Angle Linear), should be a pretty good repeater. Good Luck, Joe - WA7JAW --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is still correct. I just checked. Arrl has made some suggestions. HOWEVER! THE ARRL IS _NOT_ THE FCC. THE FREQUENCIES THE FCC AUTHORIZES ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT COUNT! Chuck Kelsey wrote: That's news to me. I've run a 6-meter repeater for years and had involvement for years before that. The split in our region is 1 MHz, although you can get some pairs at 500 kHz if you really want one there. Chuck WB2EDV The repeater is a motorola micor station lo-band repeater retuned to the 6 meter band running 100 watts. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Yeah-heh-Ohio still has a couple of grandfathered repeaters using 240KHz. In fact, the biggest 6M repeater in Ohio is one of those, been there since the early 70's...oh, and the input is 52.92... MCH wrote: Where did you hear that? It's certainly not true. 1.7 MHz is the split in some areas, but others use 0.5, 1.0, or 1.6 MHz. Joe M. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
TMARC (MD, E-WV, N-VA) Yes, it's for D-STAR, but it's mixed with the analog repeaters. So, you go from 2 spacings (12.5 kHz 25.0 kHz) to 20 spacings (from 2.5 kHz to 25 kHz) from existing repeaters. Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 9/3/2008 16:11, you wrote: Those and the local bandplan in your area. There is no national 6M bandplan in the repeater sub-bands. In fact, there is no national bandplan in ANY of the repeater sub-bands. The last one that was national was 440, but that saw its demise with part of CA changing to 20 kHz channel spacing from 12.5/25 kHz spacing. Some areas are now also using 10.0 kHz spacing on 440. Joe M. What areas are using 10 kHz spacing? The ONLY 10 kHz spacing I know of here is 2 tiny 40 kHz segments on 2 meters where 4 D-Star pairs are spaced @ 10 kHz. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
That's odd, as the FCC HAS enforced local bandplans in the past. Feel free to tell them they didn't have the authority to do so. They cited the persons under the good engineering practice rule. As for your statements about not being coordinated, read my post again. I addressed that, and said that AS LONG AS there is no problem, the FCC likely will not get invovled, but IF there is, they will get involved and will side with the user following the local bandplan (all else being equal). No matter how big your font, that does not make what you type correct. Joe M. Dave wrote: You are incorrect. The local coordinating body will tell you the only band plan is that which is authorized in the applicable FEDERAL regulations. NO band plan other than that is enforceable. The ARRL is in NO WAY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AN OFFICIAL REGULATORY AGENCY! IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. No coordinating body is an official governmental body or enforcing agency. The adhearance to any unofficial nonregulatory 'Band Plan is strictly voluntary. ANY licensed amateur radio operator may put up a repeater in a spectrum area as authorized under their license class authorizations. The FCC licenses the operator NOT the repeater. Yes the FCC has backed governing bodies in certain situations. That is only because that body was highlighting applicable FCC standards. NO one other entity other than the FCC can direct or order any radio transmitter or operator to do anything else. There exists NO splintered or regional band plan! There are local repeaters here that are on the air without coordination and have been for years. The local repeater coordination group has absolutely NO authority over them. At present there is a local group putting up a 6 meter repeater and it has just gone 'on the air with a 1 meg split. They are not now coordinated and may never be so. As long as no interfearnce issues (as in any spectrum area hf or higher) there is only operator license regulation required. MCH wrote: Not true. The FCC has upheld local bandplans. Coordinated or not - they apply to everyone. It doesn't even have to be a repeater issue. True, as long as no interference is created, they likely won't get involved, but if there is, and one user is operating according to the bandplan and the other is not, they will side with the one operating according to the bandplan. Coordination should not be an issue since any operation contrary to the bandplan should not be coordinated (unless it's grandfathered). Joe M. Dave wrote: That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the fcc place creedance of any kind to the coordination thing. Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter Repeater
My CommShop software calculates that an isolation of 78 dB is needed for no desense. Bear in mind that this software makes a number of assumptions in computing isolation values, so don't treat the answers as absolute. Tube-type PAs can get by with much less isolation, due to the lower noise levels when compared to solid-state PAs. There are significant differences between receivers, even between models made by the same company. More info about the CommShop software can be found here: http://www.dcico.com/dcilmr.htm 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Harrison Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:05 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter Repeater Ok Great this helps. Any idea the db of isolation say for 50 watts and .35uv 12db sinad @ 1.7 mhz split? Eric N7JYS -- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Eric Lemmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric, Your question cannot be answered properly unless you provide the power output of your transmitter and the 12 dB SINAD sensitivity of your receiver. Therefore, I will offer some calculations based on some assumed values: 25 watt transmitter, 0.35 uV receiver, 1.7 MHz split: 237 feet vertical separation, 13,368 feet horizontal. 50 watt transmitter, 0.35 uV receiver, 1.7 MHz split: 282 feet vertical separation, 18,905 feet horizontal. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -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 Eric Harrison Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:18 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 6 meter Repeater Well regardless if whether 1.7MHz split in the 6 meter band is or is not a national US band plan split, it is an accepted split by the Kansas State Repeater Cordinator as my repeater is cordinated on 52.850/51.150 by them and has been for over 2 years. Just getting it back on the air at a new site. Wasn't trying a war here just trying to get some answers on the dB isolation needed and acceptable vertical antenna separation needed for a 1.7MHz split on 6 meters, which is my reason for posting but have failed to see anyone give the answers I needed. Eric N7JYS
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
At 9/3/2008 23:03, you wrote: Dave, I think his point is the FCC doesn't set policy on repeater splits. If you're not going to get coordinated, you can make up anything you want, but in an interference dispute with a coordinated machine, you'll lose. I've often wondered if it would be possible to get all hams with 2M repeaters to switch to a wider split. Sure would make duplexers work better. 73, Paul, AE4KR Not only would the duplexers be smaller/cheaper/lower loss, but duplexing in an environment full of nonlinear consumer electronics devices would be much easier. I can run my 2.82 MHz split 2 meter portapeater from my home with no desense, but operating a standard 600 kHz split system is impossible without several dB of desense. The interference I get + or - 600 kHz away from the TX has been traced to within the neighbors' residences on either side of me. Whatever it is it's video related, as it shows up at 15.75 kHz spectral intervals. However, it tails off once you get over 1 MHz away from the TX. By +/- 2.82 kHz it's a non-issue. Similar problem at another site in a mountain community with a leaky cable system; no problem with the 5 MHz split UHF system at that site, though. Yes these things can be fixed at the source, but a wider split would have avoided the problems completely. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
That's news to me. I've run a 6-meter repeater for years and had involvement for years before that. The split in our region is 1 MHz, although you can get some pairs at 500 kHz if you really want one there. Chuck WB2EDV The repeater is a motorola micor station lo-band repeater retuned to the 6 meter band running 100 watts. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
That is still correct. I just checked. Arrl has made some suggestions. HOWEVER! THE ARRL IS _NOT_ THE FCC. THE FREQUENCIES THE FCC AUTHORIZES ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT COUNT! Chuck Kelsey wrote: That's news to me. I've run a 6-meter repeater for years and had involvement for years before that. The split in our region is 1 MHz, although you can get some pairs at 500 kHz if you really want one there. Chuck WB2EDV The repeater is a motorola micor station lo-band repeater retuned to the 6 meter band running 100 watts. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Where did you hear that? It's certainly not true. 1.7 MHz is the split in some areas, but others use 0.5, 1.0, or 1.6 MHz. Joe M. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Those and the local bandplan in your area. There is no national 6M bandplan in the repeater sub-bands. In fact, there is no national bandplan in ANY of the repeater sub-bands. The last one that was national was 440, but that saw its demise with part of CA changing to 20 kHz channel spacing from 12.5/25 kHz spacing. Some areas are now also using 10.0 kHz spacing on 440. Joe M. Dave wrote: That is still correct. I just checked. Arrl has made some suggestions. HOWEVER! THE ARRL IS _NOT_ THE FCC. THE FREQUENCIES THE FCC AUTHORIZES ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT COUNT! Chuck Kelsey wrote: That's news to me. I've run a 6-meter repeater for years and had involvement for years before that. The split in our region is 1 MHz, although you can get some pairs at 500 kHz if you really want one there. Chuck WB2EDV The repeater is a motorola micor station lo-band repeater retuned to the 6 meter band running 100 watts. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the fcc place creedance of any kind to the coordination thing. There are many repeaters on the air in the US that have not had not do they currently have a coordination. There is no law that says you must get a coordination. Joe Burkleo wrote: Actually it is your local coordination body that counts. I just recently coordinated a new 6 Meter repeater for here on the Oregon Coast. Our council, ORRC is coordinating 1.7 MHz splits here and has been since 2003 or earlier. My pair is 52.93/51.23. I would not be surprised to still find a couple repeaters left here in the state on the old 1 MHz split as well. 90 Feet of vertical separation, especially with a filter or two, should work very well. Hopefully your Micor has the factory extender option. That coupled with a low noise preamp (such as those made by Angle Linear), should be a pretty good repeater. Good Luck, Joe - WA7JAW --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is still correct. I just checked. Arrl has made some suggestions. HOWEVER! THE ARRL IS _NOT_ THE FCC. THE FREQUENCIES THE FCC AUTHORIZES ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT COUNT! Chuck Kelsey wrote: That's news to me. I've run a 6-meter repeater for years and had involvement for years before that. The split in our region is 1 MHz, although you can get some pairs at 500 kHz if you really want one there. Chuck WB2EDV The repeater is a motorola micor station lo-band repeater retuned to the 6 meter band running 100 watts. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Eric Harrison wrote: The repeater is a motorola micor station lo-band repeater retuned to the 6 meter band running 100 watts. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. As others have mentioned, there's nothing that makes a particular repeater split a U.S. wide thing. Here in Colorado, we have very few 6m repeaters, but we do have both 1.0 MHz and 1.7 MHz split systems on-air. I know our 1.0 split system is coordinated, and I assume the 1.7 is also. The one thing you might keep in mind is that even though 1.7 is becoming popular, many rigs will default to 1.0, meaning you've placed a *small* but annoying barrier between your users (who want to be lazy and hit the offset button on modern rigs and be done with it -- hell, half of them may not even know what an offset really is), and your repeater. In other words, standards on paper also have to be weighted against the standards built into the user radios. Just a thought. Frankly, on 6m -- your user-base is probably smarter than the average bear, and can handle it. But I mention it out of a fear that you'll have complaints and/or less users if you go with the wider split. You're correct, of course -- it's easier to duplex the wider split. It's also pretty easy to build a split-site machine for the standard split and not even have to run a duplexer... Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Some areas have AM stations on 1000 KHz making the 1 MHz split a non-starter. The 0.5 MHz split solves that and was popular when mobile transmitters had a tough time with repeat/direct (remember those radios?). The 1.7 MHz split also solves this and usually is not a problem for newer radios (but may be for the antenna!). I've seen listings where the single site is on 1.7 MHz split with an offsite receiver on the 1 MHz split. Mike/W5JR ---[Original Message]--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sep 3, 2008 7:07:30 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater Where did you hear that? It's certainly not true. 1.7 MHz is the split in some areas, but others use 0.5, 1.0, or 1.6 MHz. Joe M. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Note that the Extender is Moto's name for a Noise Blanker, which is the term that GE used. The noise blanker (no matter who makes it) is an AM receiver (whose front end is parked on a (hopefully) quiet channel) whose IF is the same frequency as the main (FM) receiver IF. The AM IF's is inverted and injected into the FMs IF and the noise pulses cancel. At least that's the plan, and usually it works. So the noise pulses are cancelled at the IF frequency, long before they are demodulated. Some people say that the Moto Extenders don't work as well as GE's Noise Blanker circuit. Not having had a GE to play with, I can't speak to that as I don't have 1st hand experience. One person's whose opinion I respect has over 15 years of working on lowband GE and Motorola gear and he says that he'll take a Mastr II over a Micor any day as a 6m repeater receiver just from the NB design. He parks them on 51mhz and lets them run. When the NB (no matter who makes it) is working right it eliminates a LOT of the RF noise hash that is so prevalent on low band channels. It messes up when the AM front end hears noise that the FM doesn't, or when someone starts talking on the AM channel (the NB input). Moto recommends that the extender be parked a couple of MHz away from the main channel and most extender-equipped mobiles have an antenna splitter after the antenna relay so that it feeds both the FM and the AM front end. Low band repeaters come in single-receive antenna (no-noise-blanker) configurations, and some have an separate antenna input for the noise blanker. The extender sampling frequency needs to be a few mhz away from the desired frequency to guarantee that all that it picks up is wideband noise. This means that if you put a pass cavity tuned to the main receive channel in front of the splitter then the AM receiver will hear nothing (because the pass window is so narrow) and you effectively have no extender. This is the biggest argument for split site machines on 6. The same thing happens if you have a duplexer in place of the cavity in the above example. A low band duplexer has a narrow pass window so the repeaters with a single antenna port for both the main channel and for the NB have a situation where the NB never hears anything. I've seen one 6m repeater where they took a single-sited machine and split it. The old transmit antenna (on it's own feedline), and the two pass cavities were reused for the NB channel. The transmitter ended up a mile away with a 900 MHz cross-link. BTW in most cases you DON'T need a preamp on a 6m FM receiver!!! They already hear dot 25 or so and the effective sensitivity with the antenna connected will likely be in excess of 1uV at most sites just due to the atmospheric noise. Mike WA6ILQ At 03:50 PM 09/03/08, you wrote: Actually it is your local coordination body that counts. I just recently coordinated a new 6 Meter repeater for here on the Oregon Coast. Our council, ORRC is coordinating 1.7 MHz splits here and has been since 2003 or earlier. My pair is 52.93/51.23. I would not be surprised to still find a couple repeaters left here in the state on the old 1 MHz split as well. 90 Feet of vertical separation, especially with a filter or two, should work very well. Hopefully your Micor has the factory extender option. That coupled with a low noise preamp (such as those made by Angle Linear), should be a pretty good repeater. Good Luck, Joe - WA7JAW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Not true. The FCC has upheld local bandplans. Coordinated or not - they apply to everyone. It doesn't even have to be a repeater issue. True, as long as no interference is created, they likely won't get involved, but if there is, and one user is operating according to the bandplan and the other is not, they will side with the one operating according to the bandplan. Coordination should not be an issue since any operation contrary to the bandplan should not be coordinated (unless it's grandfathered). Joe M. Dave wrote: That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the fcc place creedance of any kind to the coordination thing.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
Most antenna specs in the band are for 800 kHz max. That's why our area has 500 kHz splits - for duplexed repeaters. We also have 1.0 MHz splits. As any 1.7 MHz bandplan would destroy the 500 kHz split band, I don't foresee that happening here anytime soon. There is also the fact that everyone around is is running either 500 kHz or 1 MHz splits. There is also the fact that there is a local TV Channel 2 station which forces usable systems to the lower part of the band. With a 1.7 MHz split, that means all your TXs will be within 1.3 MHz of the broadcast interference. Granted, that will change next February for us (and become a problem for others), but that's only one solid technical reason for not going with a 1.7 MHz split plan. Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some areas have AM stations on 1000 KHz making the 1 MHz split a non-starter. The 0.5 MHz split solves that and was popular when mobile transmitters had a tough time with repeat/direct (remember those radios?). The 1.7 MHz split also solves this and usually is not a problem for newer radios (but may be for the antenna!). I've seen listings where the single site is on 1.7 MHz split with an offsite receiver on the 1 MHz split. Mike/W5JR ---[Original Message]--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sep 3, 2008 7:07:30 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater Where did you hear that? It's certainly not true. 1.7 MHz is the split in some areas, but others use 0.5, 1.0, or 1.6 MHz. Joe M. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
At 9/3/2008 16:07, you wrote: Where did you hear that? It's certainly not true. 1.7 MHz is the split in some areas, but others use 0.5, 1.0, or 1.6 MHz. Joe M. The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band plan split for 6 meter band in the US. SoCal uses 500 kHz. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater
At 9/3/2008 16:11, you wrote: Those and the local bandplan in your area. There is no national 6M bandplan in the repeater sub-bands. In fact, there is no national bandplan in ANY of the repeater sub-bands. The last one that was national was 440, but that saw its demise with part of CA changing to 20 kHz channel spacing from 12.5/25 kHz spacing. Some areas are now also using 10.0 kHz spacing on 440. Joe M. What areas are using 10 kHz spacing? The ONLY 10 kHz spacing I know of here is 2 tiny 40 kHz segments on 2 meters where 4 D-Star pairs are spaced @ 10 kHz. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater with 2 meter link?
I have some 40W UHF mastr II's for sale. They include 5C EC Elements and a UHS preamp as well. Tested working before shipment. $100 Shipped. Scott Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 612 Barnett Rd Boswell, PA 15531 - Original Message - From: Laryn Lohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater with 2 meter link? ...This begs the question, can a tcpip connection be used as wireline control? Steve NU5D Of course, and even if it were fiber it would be OK. Don't try to pick the rules apart too much. They are not THAT restrictive. In fact, unless something is specifically prohibited, it's probably OK. Laryn K8TV Yahoo! Groups Links -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date: 11/8/2005 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
Hello, I am about 45 miles away from a channel 2 high powered TV station, should I be worried about he repeater I am building? Paul -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:06 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) skipp025 wrote: Channel 2 from San Francisco is line of sight to our system. A combination of antenna shielding, some homebrew filters and a bit of dancing made the system usable and a lot of fun before the higher power tx was placed in service. Skipp, Try about 8 miles line of sight with Ch 2 @ ~20 KW. :-( Having any Ch 2 nearby -- no matter how you slice it -- really sucks. Hmmm... antenna shielding... Hey, yeah, we could put the antenna underground! ;-) Yeah, yeah... that's the ticket! (GRIN) Our poor 6m machine is quite deaf due to the noise level. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
Are you referring to KDTN - Denton Texas? ERP is only 100 kW ... at 412m HAAT Neil - WA6KLA Paul Finch wrote: Hello, I am about 45 miles away from a channel 2 high powered TV station, should I be worried about he repeater I am building? Paul -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:06 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) skipp025 wrote: Channel 2 from San Francisco is line of sight to our system. A combination of antenna shielding, some homebrew filters and a bit of dancing made the system usable and a lot of fun before the higher power tx was placed in service. Skipp, Try about 8 miles line of sight with Ch 2 @ ~20 KW. :-( Having any Ch 2 nearby -- no matter how you slice it -- really sucks. Hmmm... antenna shielding... Hey, yeah, we could put the antenna underground! ;-) Yeah, yeah... that's the ticket! (GRIN) Our poor 6m machine is quite deaf due to the noise level. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
I sure wish I could locate cans for that price.. If you hear of any let me know.. mike -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Neil McKie Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 3:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) True ... Before 6 meter repeaters became really popular in Oregon - last several years - DB Products 40-50 MHz cans were going for $25 or $50 at the local swapmeets. Neil Paul Finch wrote: Neil, In Texas it's 1 MHz. At least it's better than 500 KHz. Paul -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Neil McKie Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 2:20 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) Another nice item about living the Pacific Northwest ... the six meter band plan in western Washington and all of Oregon has a 1.7 MHz in/output split. Neil - WA6KLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/26/2005 10:19, you wrote: One of my first (Hamtronics) 6 meter repeaters worked fine... same site no duplexer. I had 65 ft antenna separation, a ground plane (converted CB 5/8 wave) for rx at the top and a low gain 1/2 dipole (converted scanner antenna) at the bottom. The elevated site worked an easy 30 mile radius with a whopping 2.3 watts output. Talk about a smoker... Who says you need a duplexer..? Just drop the power down... cheers, skipp Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
Yeah, when Mobilecomm (now Arch) decomissioned their 30 and 40 MHz paging systems here on the east coast, lowband Decibel and Celwave pass cavities were a dime a dozen (or often free). I scooped up as many as I could store, probably 50 or so. All but a few are in service on 6m repeaters, most of which were converted to pass/reject and used to make duplexers. Every now and then I still see them pop up at hamfests, but not like it was 6 or 7 years ago. There was a guy that used to be on this list (K4YC?) who drove up from George and hauled away all the lower-frequency cavities I had since I was out of storage space, probably 20 or more of them. Now that my supply is starting to run out I'm wishing I hadn't given them all away; they could have been cut down to 6m. Maybe he's still lurking? --- Jeff -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of skipp025 Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:58 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) Before Ebay came on line... people were giving away low band cavities at the flea markets. I hauled about 8 home while my friends laughed at the trailer full of large tubes. Although they still laugh about it... I have the cavities in service. Well... maybe they were also laughing at the TRS-80 Model One Computer I had on the back seat. :-) cheers, skipp Mike Perryman K5JMP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sure wish I could locate cans for that price.. If you hear of any let me know.. mike True ... Before 6 meter repeaters became really popular in Oregon - last several years - DB Products 40-50 MHz cans were going for $25 or $50 at the local swapmeets. Neil Paul Finch wrote: Neil, In Texas it's 1 MHz. At least it's better than 500 KHz. Paul Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
Neil, Maybe, I thought it was on Cedar Hill with the rest of the TV transmitters. Guess I will have to research that, I am a little closer to that transmitter than the Cedar Hill sites, hope it does not affect me too much. Paul -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Neil McKie Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) Are you referring to KDTN - Denton Texas? ERP is only 100 kW ... at 412m HAAT Neil - WA6KLA Paul Finch wrote: Hello, I am about 45 miles away from a channel 2 high powered TV station, should I be worried about he repeater I am building? Paul -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:06 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) skipp025 wrote: Channel 2 from San Francisco is line of sight to our system. A combination of antenna shielding, some homebrew filters and a bit of dancing made the system usable and a lot of fun before the higher power tx was placed in service. Skipp, Try about 8 miles line of sight with Ch 2 @ ~20 KW. :-( Having any Ch 2 nearby -- no matter how you slice it -- really sucks. Hmmm... antenna shielding... Hey, yeah, we could put the antenna underground! ;-) Yeah, yeah... that's the ticket! (GRIN) Our poor 6m machine is quite deaf due to the noise level. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
At 11/26/2005 10:19, you wrote: One of my first (Hamtronics) 6 meter repeaters worked fine... same site no duplexer. I had 65 ft antenna separation, a ground plane (converted CB 5/8 wave) for rx at the top and a low gain 1/2 dipole (converted scanner antenna) at the bottom. The elevated site worked an easy 30 mile radius with a whopping 2.3 watts output. Talk about a smoker... Who says you need a duplexer..? Just drop the power down... cheers, skipp What I/O split does it run? Here in SoCal we use 500 kHz. FWIW, I notice more repeaters on 6 meters with self-desense than any other band, which is even worse when you consider that the noise floor on 6 is higher than the higher bands. Bob P.S.: 2.5 watts TX power would never cut it here - too much ch. 2 VSB Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
Another nice item about living the Pacific Northwest ... the six meter band plan in western Washington and all of Oregon has a 1.7 MHz in/output split. Neil - WA6KLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/26/2005 10:19, you wrote: One of my first (Hamtronics) 6 meter repeaters worked fine... same site no duplexer. I had 65 ft antenna separation, a ground plane (converted CB 5/8 wave) for rx at the top and a low gain 1/2 dipole (converted scanner antenna) at the bottom. The elevated site worked an easy 30 mile radius with a whopping 2.3 watts output. Talk about a smoker... Who says you need a duplexer..? Just drop the power down... cheers, skipp What I/O split does it run? Here in SoCal we use 500 kHz. FWIW, I notice more repeaters on 6 meters with self-desense than any other band, which is even worse when you consider that the noise floor on 6 is higher than the higher bands. Bob P.S.: 2.5 watts TX power would never cut it here - too much ch. 2 VSB Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
Neil, In Texas it's 1 MHz. At least it's better than 500 KHz. Paul -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Neil McKie Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 2:20 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) Another nice item about living the Pacific Northwest ... the six meter band plan in western Washington and all of Oregon has a 1.7 MHz in/output split. Neil - WA6KLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/26/2005 10:19, you wrote: One of my first (Hamtronics) 6 meter repeaters worked fine... same site no duplexer. I had 65 ft antenna separation, a ground plane (converted CB 5/8 wave) for rx at the top and a low gain 1/2 dipole (converted scanner antenna) at the bottom. The elevated site worked an easy 30 mile radius with a whopping 2.3 watts output. Talk about a smoker... Who says you need a duplexer..? Just drop the power down... cheers, skipp What I/O split does it run? Here in SoCal we use 500 kHz. FWIW, I notice more repeaters on 6 meters with self-desense than any other band, which is even worse when you consider that the noise floor on 6 is higher than the higher bands. Bob P.S.: 2.5 watts TX power would never cut it here - too much ch. 2 VSB Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
True ... Before 6 meter repeaters became really popular in Oregon - last several years - DB Products 40-50 MHz cans were going for $25 or $50 at the local swapmeets. Neil Paul Finch wrote: Neil, In Texas it's 1 MHz. At least it's better than 500 KHz. Paul -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Neil McKie Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 2:20 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used) Another nice item about living the Pacific Northwest ... the six meter band plan in western Washington and all of Oregon has a 1.7 MHz in/output split. Neil - WA6KLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/26/2005 10:19, you wrote: One of my first (Hamtronics) 6 meter repeaters worked fine... same site no duplexer. I had 65 ft antenna separation, a ground plane (converted CB 5/8 wave) for rx at the top and a low gain 1/2 dipole (converted scanner antenna) at the bottom. The elevated site worked an easy 30 mile radius with a whopping 2.3 watts output. Talk about a smoker... Who says you need a duplexer..? Just drop the power down... cheers, skipp Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6 meter repeater duplexer (not used)
skipp025 wrote: Channel 2 from San Francisco is line of sight to our system. A combination of antenna shielding, some homebrew filters and a bit of dancing made the system usable and a lot of fun before the higher power tx was placed in service. Skipp, Try about 8 miles line of sight with Ch 2 @ ~20 KW. :-( Having any Ch 2 nearby -- no matter how you slice it -- really sucks. Hmmm... antenna shielding... Hey, yeah, we could put the antenna underground! ;-) Yeah, yeah... that's the ticket! (GRIN) Our poor 6m machine is quite deaf due to the noise level. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
