Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX
Where did you buy the Mitrek rx preamp? - Original Message - From: "johnmichaelwelton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:23 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > Alexander, > > Motorola makes a preamp for their T43-T83 Mitreks that is inserted > after some filtering on the front end. May be a better way to > implement a rx preamp in your setup, and they're pretty cheap, bought > a few recently for $25/each. Also, I agree with Glenn that separating > the Mitrek decks into separate receive and transmit rather than doing > the duplex mod is a much better approach for 2M on the Mitrek. > > John/N4SJW > > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Alexander Tubonjic" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello, >> Well here is one that cant be figured out locally, thought I would >> throw it to the experts. My high school radio club has recently > made a >> few upgrades to our VHF repeater. We replaced the Ringo Ranger > antenna >> with a Comet GP-9 Antenna, replaced the 9913 coax with Andrews 1/2'' >> Heliax, and put a Mirage Pream inline. The problem we are having is >> mainly with the preamp (I think) >> I will describe the setup and give all the specs first. The > repeater >> Rx and Tx is from a 110 Watt Motorola Mitrek power out from the > Mitrek >> is 50 watts. The power supply is an Astron RS-70M, Duplexer is a >> Sinclair Q202G (yes, it is properly tuned and working as it should) >> the antenna is rooftop on the schools theater building (the roof is >> about 75 feet AGL and the antenna is on an 8' mast pipe) there are > no >> obstructions for at least 5 miles around. The preamp setup is as >> follows, it is after the duplexers and before the reciever. We have >> the preamp directly connected into the duplexer and a jumper going >> from the preamp to the Rx bulkhead on the repeater cabinet. The > preamp >> has two settings, a higher gain and a lower gain setting, initially > we >> had it setup to the higher gain setting but I went up today and >> switched over to lower gain and turned the power output to 30 watts. >> The problem we have is the Rx is not what is should be. It is a > tad >> worse then when we were running the repeater at 15 watts without the >> Preamp. I would really like to get the preamp to work like it should >> in the repeater system, I just dont have any ideas on what to do > next >> to get better sensitivity on the machine. Any thoughts and ideas > would >> be appreciated. Thanks. >> Alexander KG4OGN >> >> P.s, all jumpers are made with double shielded ridgid coax, so > thats >> not the cause of the problem. > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > _ > This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm > > 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: Poor Repeater RX
You really should check for desense by disabling the TX while listening to a weak signal. If you have any without the preamp, you don't even want to consider adding the preamp back. You need to resolve the desense problem first. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: "Alexander Tubonjic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 2:20 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > Thanks for all the replies, lets see. We cant afford to get another > duplexer or another antenna, what we have stays. > The SWR on the antenna is about 1.3:1/1.4:1 >Regarding the dual Mitreks, the repeater was working fairly well > before, I was just wanting to get the preamp to function a little better. > I was talking with a friend about the setup and we are going to > headup to the repeater site Monday and take the preamp out of line and > see what the performance is like at that time (we installed the new > antenna and preamp at the same time) so we will see what the receive > is like without the preamp. Thanks again for all the replies. > Alexander KG4OGN > 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: Poor Repeater RX
At 07:23 AM 5/21/05, you wrote: >Alexander, > >Motorola makes a preamp for their T43-T83 Mitreks that is inserted >after some filtering on the front end. May be a better way to >implement a rx preamp in your setup, and they're pretty cheap, bought >a few recently for $25/each. Also, I agree with Glenn that separating >the Mitrek decks into separate receive and transmit rather than doing >the duplex mod is a much better approach for 2M on the Mitrek. > >John/N4SJW If you would like to see a photo of the high band preamp, it's in the dual Mitrek / Mitrek interfacing writeup at www.repeater-builder.com , in the section on adding a second antenna jack. Mike 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: Poor Repeater RX
> >Neil, very useful graph. I think it is actually easier to use than >the Hertz/cycles application I have running on my Palm... I had a bank put a hold on a check once for "funds conversion". The check was from Canada, but clearly labeled "US funds". The bank acknowledged this, but did the hold anyway. 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: Poor Repeater RX
Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam probably. Mark AB8RU [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to > Hertz transition. > To all else, > cycles-per-second = Hertz > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. > Gee, What kind of table do you need? > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = > Hertz" > 73 > AC0Y > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would > be: > > > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. > > > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. > > > > Joe K5FOG > > > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > > > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: > > > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. > > > > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! > > >> > > >> Richard, N7TGB > > >> > > >> > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM > > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > >> > > >> > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? > > >> > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >--- Original Message --- > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM > > >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > >> > >Cc : > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > >> > > > > >> > >Alexander, > > >> > > > > >> > >The > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on > a network > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. > It's only > > >a > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, > so no > > >amount > > >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above > its design > > >> > >limit. > > >> > > > >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please > realize that > > >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M > duplexer at > > >500 > > >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter > repeaters > > >> are > > >> > operated. This added frequency separation allows for the > duplexer to > > >> > provide more than the stated isolation at the 500 kiloHertz > > >specification. > > >> > > > >> > The Wacom WP-641 is specified at 85 dB of isolation at a 500 > kiloHertz > > >> > split, but provides 93 dB of isolation at 600 kiloHertz. The > Sinclair > > >> Q202G > > >> > is similar in its factory specifications, and isolation > provided. > > >> > > > >> > Kevin Custer > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 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: Poor Repeater RX
--- "Mark A. Holman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in > 1976 we were discussing the > KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. > was on the exam probably. > > Then the material was probably out of date. The CPS to Hz was made in 1967. Almost 10 years before your Novice class. Probably enough old timers around then that they still said KC or MC. I usually use that myself instead of Hz. I was not an old timer at that time but had been reading electronics magazines for about 6 or 7 years before that. de KU4PT __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 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: Poor Repeater RX
Humpf ... new-comer ... Neil - WA6KLA "Mark A. Holman" wrote: > > Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were > discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam > probably. > > Mark AB8RU > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Original Message - > From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > > > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to > > Hertz transition. > > To all else, > > cycles-per-second = Hertz > > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz > > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz > > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. > > Gee, What kind of table do you need? > > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = > > Hertz" > > 73 > > AC0Y > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would > > be: > > > > > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. > > > > > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before > > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. > > > > > > Joe K5FOG > > > > > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > > > > > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: > > > > > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. > > > > > > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! > > > >> > > > >> Richard, N7TGB > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -Original Message- > > > >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM > > > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? > > > >> > > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >--- Original Message --- > > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM > > > >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > >> > >Cc : > > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Alexander, > > > >> > > > > > >> > >The > > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on > > a network > > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. > > It's only > > > >a > > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, > > so no > > > >amount > > > >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above > > its design > > > >> > >limit. > > > >> > > > > >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please > > realize that > > > >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M > > duplexer at > > > >500 > > > >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter > > repeaters > > > >> are > > > >> > operated. This added frequency separation allows for the > > duplexer to > > > >> > provide more than the stated isolation at the 500 kiloHertz > > > >specification. > > > >> > > > > >> > The Wacom WP-641 is specified at 85 dB of isolation at a 500 > > kiloHertz > > > >> > split, but provides 93 dB of isolation at 600 kiloHertz. The > > Sinclair > > > >> Q202G > > > >> > is similar in its factory specifications, and isolation > > provided. > > > >> > > > > >> > Kevin Custer > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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: Poor Repeater RX
Be nice Neil. Some of us still remember when the Novice was re-introduced. Vincent N6OA got mine 50 years ago this year. - Original Message - From: "Neil McKie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > > Humpf ... new-comer ... > > Neil - WA6KLA > > > "Mark A. Holman" wrote: >> >> Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were >> discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam >> probably. >> >> Mark AB8RU >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM >> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX >> >> > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to >> > Hertz transition. >> > To all else, >> > cycles-per-second = Hertz >> > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz >> > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz >> > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. >> > Gee, What kind of table do you need? >> > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = >> > Hertz" >> > 73 >> > AC0Y >> > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would >> > be: >> > > >> > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. >> > > >> > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before >> > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. >> > > >> > > Joe K5FOG >> > > >> > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** >> > > >> > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: >> > > >> > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. >> > > > >> > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! >> > > >> >> > > >> Richard, N7TGB >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> -Original Message- >> > > >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX >> > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM >> > > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? >> > > >> >> > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >--- Original Message --- >> > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM >> > > >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> > > >> > >Cc : >> > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >Alexander, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >The >> > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on >> > a network >> > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. >> > It's only >> > > >a >> > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, >> > so no >> > > >amount >> > > >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above >> > its design >> > > >> > >limit. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please >> > realize that >> > > >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M >> > duplexer at >> > > >500 >> > > >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter >> > repeaters >> > > >> are >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX
Now Neil, be nice. Just because your license was endorsed by Edwin Armstrong doesn't mean that you can't be pleasant to us new QCWA members. At 09:50 PM 5/23/05, you wrote: > Humpf ... new-comer ... > > Neil - WA6KLA > > >"Mark A. Holman" wrote: > > > > Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were > > discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam > > probably. > > > > Mark AB8RU > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM > > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > > > > > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to > > > Hertz transition. > > > To all else, > > > cycles-per-second = Hertz > > > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz > > > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz > > > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. > > > Gee, What kind of table do you need? > > > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = > > > Hertz" > > > 73 > > > AC0Y > > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would > > > be: > > > > > > > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before > > > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. > > > > > > > > Joe K5FOG > > > > > > > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > > > > > > > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: > > > > > > > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. > > > > > > > > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! > > > > >> > > > > >> Richard, N7TGB > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -Original Message- > > > > >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM > > > > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? > > > > >> > > > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >--- Original Message --- > > > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM > > > > >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > > >> > >Cc : > > > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >Alexander, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >The > > > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on > > > a network > > > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. > > > It's only > > > > >a > > > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, > > > so no > > > > >amount > > > > >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above > > > its design > > > > >> > >limit. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please > > > realize that > > > > >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M > > > duplexer at > > > > >500 > > > > >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter > > > repeaters > > > > >> are > > > > >> > operated. This added frequency separation allows for the > > > duplexer to > > > > >> > provide more than the stated isolation at the 500 kiloHertz > > > > >specification. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The Wacom WP-641 is specified at 85 dB of isolation at a 500 > > > kiloHertz > > > > >> > split, but provides 93 dB of isolation at 600 kiloHertz. The > > > Sinclair > > > > >> Q202G > > > > >> > is similar in its factory specifications, and isolation > > > provided. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Kevin Custer 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: Poor Repeater RX
... snicker ... You are 20 months younger then me too ... Neil vmckever wrote: > > Be nice Neil. Some of us still remember when the Novice was > re-introduced. > > Vincent N6OA got mine 50 years ago this year. > > - Original Message - > From: "Neil McKie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:50 AM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > > > > > Humpf ... new-comer ... > > > > Neil - WA6KLA > > > > > > "Mark A. Holman" wrote: > >> > >> Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were > >> discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam > >> probably. > >> > >> Mark AB8RU > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM > >> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > >> > >> > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to > >> > Hertz transition. > >> > To all else, > >> > cycles-per-second = Hertz > >> > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz > >> > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz > >> > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. > >> > Gee, What kind of table do you need? > >> > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = > >> > Hertz" > >> > 73 > >> > AC0Y > >> > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL > >> > PROTECTED]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would > >> > be: > >> > > > >> > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. > >> > > > >> > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before > >> > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. > >> > > > >> > > Joe K5FOG > >> > > > >> > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > >> > > > >> > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. > >> > > > > >> > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Richard, N7TGB > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -Original Message- > >> > > >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >> > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX > >> > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM > >> > > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >> > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >--- Original Message --- > >> > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM > >> > > >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >> > > >> > >Cc : > >> > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >Alexander, > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >The > >> > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on > >> > a network > >> > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. > >> > It's only > >> > > >a > >> > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, > >> > so no > >> > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX
Finally? QCWA Member? I joined QCWA 20 years ago as a Technician Class License holder. Neil Mike Morris WA6ILQ wrote: > > Now Neil, be nice. > > Just because your license was endorsed by Edwin > Armstrong doesn't mean that you can't be pleasant > to us new QCWA members. > > At 09:50 PM 5/23/05, you wrote: > > > Humpf ... new-comer ... > > > > Neil - WA6KLA > > > > > >"Mark A. Holman" wrote: > > > > > > Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were > > > discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam > > > probably. > > > > > > Mark AB8RU > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: > > > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM > > > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > > > > > > > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to > > > > Hertz transition. > > > > To all else, > > > > cycles-per-second = Hertz > > > > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz > > > > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz > > > > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. > > > > Gee, What kind of table do you need? > > > > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = > > > > Hertz" > > > > 73 > > > > AC0Y > > > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL > > > > PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would > > > > be: > > > > > > > > > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before > > > > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. > > > > > > > > > > Joe K5FOG > > > > > > > > > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > > > > > > > > > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. > > > > > > > > > > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Richard, N7TGB > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -Original Message- > > > > > >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX > > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM > > > > > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >--- Original Message --- > > > > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM > > > > > >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > > > >> > >Cc : > > > > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >Alexander, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >The > > > > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on > > > > a network > > > > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. > > > > It's only > > > > > >a > > > > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, > > > > so no > > > > > >amount > > > > > >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above > > > > its design > > > > > >> > >limit. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please > > > > realize that > > > > > >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M > > > > duplexer at > > > > > >500 > > > > > >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter > > > > repeaters > > > > > >> are > > > > > >> > operated. This added frequency separation allows for the > > > > duplexer to > > > > > >> > provide more than the stated isolation at the 500 kiloHertz > > > > > >specification. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > The Wacom WP-641 is specified at 85 dB of isolation at a 500 > > > > kiloHertz > > > > > >> > split, but provides 93 dB of isolation at 600 kiloHertz. The > > > > Sinclair > > > > > >> Q202G > > > > > >> > is similar in its factory specifications, and isolation > > > > provided. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Kevin Custer > > > 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: Poor Repeater RX
Novice license? Old call KN2BDK. (8-20-52). It was really tough removing desense in the crystal set receiver caused by spark gap transmitter. Been trying ever since, haven't figured it out yet. Gary K2UQ 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
