Ernie,
I see your reasoning for 144.9-145. However, would not a repeater put at
145.300 say have an input on 144.900, possible the output of another repeater.
I think I am not following the plan for which this change is being done. I
thought all repeaters were going to the new split of 400, b
On Jun 28, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Chuck Scott wrote:
> Lee:
>
> I think most repeater operators would be appalled
> to see what gets through their BP/BR duplexers. While they're called
> that, most are not good bandpass filters. Also, at many sites the
> repeater receiver is capable of dealing wit
Wright
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:58 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [dstar_digital] Re: Inside Chassis coax - lossy
Nate, and all,
Nate we knew you were coming from a hecked day. You usually don't go this way
and know you've used mobile duplexers. The cabling
Nate, and all,
Nate we knew you were coming from a hecked day. You usually don't go this way
and know you've used mobile duplexers. The cabling is, as you said, the
problem.
Do you or anyone know what rigs ICOM uses in the repeater. Looks like a pair
of mobiles put in a box, big box. Wonde
Lee,
Very well said. So many look at the duplexer as allowing a tx and rx on same
feedline, but a good one also provides for some front end and tx noise
filtering. I think the repeaters from ICOM, Kenwood, Yeasu and other DC to
light programmable repeaters rely on this filtering.
I do like a
Ernie,
I've noticed talk of 400 kHz splits on 2 meters. Wonder why not 500 kHz. Most
base type 2 meter duplexers will do 400 kHz, some 300, but the insertion loss
goes up normally the narrow the offsets. I can see 400 kHz over 600 allowing
for more pairs, but 500 would do same number.
Have
Lee:
I think most repeater operators would be appalled
to see what gets through their BP/BR duplexers. While they're called that, most
are not good bandpass filters. Also, at many sites the repeater receiver is
capable of dealing with the signals it sees, as long as the owner hasn't put
some 2
Nate WY0X crafted the electrons to say:
> Huh? A "pre-tuned duplexer that was mounted inside the case",
> had to have been pretty darn small, making me think it must
> have been a small "mobile" style duplexer.
(snip)
> Wow. Please don't tell us Icom-UK did that silliness.
> It shows quite a
Charles Scott wrote:
> Not exactly the kind of comments I'd expect from you. I didn't notice
> which band it was for this unit, but from 440 up the little mobile
> duplexers can be pretty small and work well for low-power applications.
> Also, why are you worried about shielding? I believe the rad
I'v tuned a number of the UHF 6 cavity versions and seem to get over 80 db
notch. Know the spec is usually 70 or less. Has anyone else seen this??? Not
sure what they do over temp.
Mostly I've used these small duplexers that were initially set up for 455-465
range, still they tune in 440.
Y
Lee:
Sorry, but just because I'm feeling contrary today I have to ask. Didn't
we just have a discussion about how you don't need to run much power for
a repeater? Most of the mobile duplexers are fine for 25-50 Watts. I
have one repeater that runs 15 W out with about 7 at the antenna and it
co
Re: [dstar_digital] Re: Inside Chassis coax - lossy
>
>
>On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Mike wrote:
>> Also the UK 70cms module came with a ready pre-tuned duplexer that was
>> mounted inside the case, as soon as we moved it outside of the case
>> and
>> fed it direct
Nate:
Not exactly the kind of comments I'd expect from you. I didn't notice
which band it was for this unit, but from 440 up the little mobile
duplexers can be pretty small and work well for low-power applications.
Also, why are you worried about shielding? I believe the radios in the
repeater
On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Mike wrote:
> Also the UK 70cms module came with a ready pre-tuned duplexer that was
> mounted inside the case, as soon as we moved it outside of the case
> and
> fed it direct with decent coax the difference was unbelivable in
> sentivity.
>
Huh? A "pre-tuned dupl
Running a cable straight to the TX or RX radio would eliminate a
connection point - I do see a potential for ingress of foreign rf into
the repeater enclosure on the shield of the cable without the bulkhead
connector - perhaps a suitable ferrite choke or ground strap could be
added ?
I suspect
I agree
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Daron Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >We don't worry about such stuff in commercial applications. it is part of
> the
> >link budget.
> >.15 db on a splice in our work it is closer to being treated as 0.01
> >db...does not have a effect on operat
>We don't worry about such stuff in commercial applications. it is part of
the
>link budget.
>.15 db on a splice in our work it is closer to being treated as 0.01
>db...does not have a effect on operation.
>(unless you have a bad cable assembly, then in which case it is under
>warranty send it back
DAve Anderson, you need to jump in here now.
Dave mod'd ICOMs D-Star repeaters to make them work as they should. His input
would be good.
73, ron, n9ee/r
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
I agree with Ron. The loss is negligible. But transmitter noise or desense
(these are separate and distinct issues) could be a more significant problem
since the TR separation is usually 600 kHz, and may now be 400 kHz in Northern
California. Another poster indicated a major improvement by rep
WHY on earth are we worrying about such losses?
We don't worry about such stuff in commercial applications. it is part of the
link budget.
.15 db on a splice in our work it is closer to being treated as 0.01
db...does not have a effect on operation.
(unless you have a bad cable assembly, then in
This loss is about .11 db/ft, little more than RG58. If one used RG223 (double
shielded RG58) the loss would be about the same.
Going to RG214 loss would be .05 db/ft, an improvement.
All this is at 400 MHz.
At 400 MHz the .11db loss would be .63 watts from 25 watts. I don't think much
impro
Greg:
Admittedly every little bit hurts, but we're talking .1 to .25 db
depending on the frequency--not the end of the world. I wouldn't worry
about the N-Connector losses unless they aren't mounted correctly.
Aren't they rated at like .15 dB at 10 GHz? In any case, unless there's
a problem
The coaxial cable inside the repeaters is Flexiform 405 HFJ by Habia Cable.
Its listed attenuation is 43dB/100m at 400MHz, and 70dB/100m at 1GHz. Of
course, there are only 10 inches or so of the stuff, but every fraction of a
dB can count.
The cheapest, and least lossy method, would be to remo
23 matches
Mail list logo
