Hi All -
I have several MOT C74MSY's, UHF and VHF Micors, UHF 1/4K w/UHF link,
extra cardcage cards (sq gate,line driver,DC Xfr, Guard Tone Dec,
relay,SP TT dec, etc...several xtra UHF tube PA's,etc...Sys 90 control
heads,Motrac cables, micor cables, assy, channel elements, pl reeds,
misc Mot part
Here is the ComSpec TS-64 product page
http://www.com-spec.com/ts64.htm
The TS-64 is not a modern repeater controller, per se (ComSpec does not build
controllers) -- it is just a CTCSS encoder/decoder board for a single radio.
I also agree about the Maxom comment -- wrong road trying to save a
mch wrote:
> Huh? When were they not legal? W6MEP's repeater was on in 1956.
>
> Maybe your friend didn't have a control link?
>
> Joe M.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I have a buddy (WA5QKE) who had a repeater on the air in Conroe TX
>> before they were legal. He was headed to a site with an
G. Beat wrote:
> Here is the ComSpec TS-64 product page
> http://www.com-spec.com/ts64.htm
>
> The TS-64 is not a modern repeater controller, per se (ComSpec does
> not build controllers)
Well, they do make the TP-3200 tone panel-that does qualify.
Nice tone panel btw. I highly recommend it to
W9GB,
Just thought I would let you know they do build a controller, it is a
commercial version though that has all tones and digital codes built in,
check out HYPERLINK
"http://www.com-spec.com/tp3200.htm"http://www.com-spec.com/tp3200.htm and
see for yourself. I have one, they are a very good d
yes that was NOT the unit that we used to make the R-100 into mult-user
repeater it was a tone panel/controller.
thanks John
- Original Message -
From: "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TS64 as repeater controller
Reepaters were first licensed in 1972 when the FCC issued the repeater
rules. They were granted 'WR' callsigns in 1974 (which was discontinued
around 1978).
They were never prohibited in Part 97 AFAIK based on my research of
repeaters. They were required to have a control operator at a control
poi
What symptoms would one notice if a preamp is overloading the front end
of a reciever? Noises, quirks, wierd phonenomia?
Thanks!!
Tom
W9SRV
mch wrote:
> Reepaters were first licensed in 1972 when the FCC issued the repeater
> rules. They were granted 'WR' callsigns in 1974 (which was discontinued
> around 1978).
>
> They were never prohibited in Part 97 AFAIK based on my research of
> repeaters. They were required to have a control op
Thanks for all the replies. We checked for desense before a while
back, If I remember correctly it wasn't a problem. But... It could
also be an antenna location problem It is in a tree with the antenna
sitting up among the upper most branches. I've seen some discussions
that say this wouldn't b
At 10:05 AM 6/27/2007, you wrote:
>What symptoms would one notice if a preamp is overloading the front end
>of a reciever? Noises, quirks, wierd phonenomia?
<---Overloading of a (pre)amplifier results in non-linear operation,
which typically manifests itself as susceptibility to intermod and
oth
All of the above as well as desense and intermod.
Joe M.
tgundo2003 wrote:
>
> What symptoms would one notice if a preamp is overloading the front end
> of a reciever? Noises, quirks, wierd phonenomia?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Tom
> W9SRV
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Ok-
I think I may be expierencing this. I have a converted mitrek repeater with a
T-1504 duplexer and an ARR preamp inserted between the radio and the duplexer
on the RX side. I have not noticed a loss in sensitivity- but every once in a
while were getting a strange, nasty sounding signal
How much tx power Tom..?
s.
> TGundo 2003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok-
> I think I may be expierencing this. I have a converted mitrek
repeater with a T-1504 duplexer and an ARR preamp inserted between the
radio and the duplexer on the RX side. I have not noticed a loss in
sensitivity-
Re: TS64 as repeater controller
I've seen a number of basic repeater systems using an encoder and
decoder board as in-between controller interface. A poor man's
repeater was a pretty common sight back in the 70's & 80's. I also
see a lot of back-to-back repeaters with not much of a controller
At 10:58 AM 6/27/2007, you wrote:
>Ok-
>
>I think I may be expierencing this. I have a converted mitrek
>repeater with a T-1504 duplexer and an ARR preamp inserted between
>the radio and the duplexer on the RX side
30W out of a 50w radio.
skipp025 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How much tx power Tom..?
s.
> TGundo 2003 wrote:
> Ok-
> I think I may be expierencing this. I have a converted mitrek
repeater with a T-1504 duplexer and an ARR preamp inserted between the
radio and the duplexer on the RX side. I h
I run one in the same fashion on my other UHF repeater, but there's 400+ feet
fo 7/8 feedline so I figure thats enough of an attenuator by itself ;)
Tom
Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:58 AM 6/27/2007, you wrote:
>Ok-
>
>I think I may be expierencing this. I have a converted mi
At 11:38 AM 6/27/2007, you wrote:
>I run one in the same fashion on my other UHF repeater, but there's
>400+ feet fo 7/8 feedline so I figure thats enough of an attenuator
>by itself ;)
<---Let's see.. Andrews 7/8 air dialetric is spec'd at .845 dB loss
/100 feet at 450 mHz. That's over 3 dB l
DB-420 at 325 ft and feedline were in place, we just moved in and hooked up.
Beggars can't be choosers!
It actually hears pretty good, 40+ miles on average for a decent mobile. It's
real problem is it hears beter than it talks (not really a problem I guess),
that 75 watt micor PA goi
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, TGundo 2003 wrote:
> a problem I guess), that 75 watt micor PA going through the duplexer
> and feedline turns into a slow trickle by the time it reaches the
> antenna.
It's not about watts, it's about dB(m).
--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The illegal we do imm
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 11:38 AM 6/27/2007, you wrote:
>
> >I run one in the same fashion on my other UHF repeater, but there's
> >400+ feet fo 7/8 feedline so I figure thats enough of an attenuator
> >by itself ;)
>
Sure, that's an a
Yep. I didn't see what that rule change happened, but I know it did.
I also know that there was an FCC-issued moratorium on new repeaters in
1985, but I never found and don't recall how long that lasted. I think
it was about a year. I recall they used the ARRL RD as the guide of what
repeaters wer
At 6/27/2007 12:53 PM, you wrote:
>Yep. I didn't see what that rule change happened, but I know it did.
>
>I also know that there was an FCC-issued moratorium on new repeaters in
>1985, but I never found and don't recall how long that lasted. I think
I never heard of any such "moraturium", & aroun
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dengler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 6/27/2007 12:53 PM, you wrote:
> >Yep. I didn't see what that rule change happened, but I know it did.
> >
> >I also know that there was an FCC-issued moratorium on new repeaters in
> >1985, but I never found and
At 02:26 PM 6/27/2007, you wrote:
>I think the FCC had finally gotten tired of looking at the stick
>figure drawings
>of controller operators with their hands on the "big red switch".
<---LOL as the ex WR6AKB holder, I can relate!
Ken
I used to agree with you Ken... but I've seen some really well done
systems actually using two series preamps. Easy mountain top to
hand held coverage over 25 miles distance.
Key-words "really well done systems".
A pad might help his project... but extra cavities quickly come to
mind as an e
Depending on the model of Motorola peaking generator you possess determines the
type and freq. of the xtal you can use in it.
The later model accomodates 20-32pF xtals from about 4-5 MHz to about 15 MHz,
negating the need for the xtal to be 1/2 the output freq. for a 10.7 MHz out.
Any use of
Please light the "no free lunch" rule lamp for the duration.
If it's a converted Mitrek Repeater...running the same in cabinet
transmit and receive sections..? I would suspect more in cabinet
desense than most other people. The preamp simply brings the beast
out of hiding.
If you can... cran
At 05:04 PM 6/27/2007, you wrote:
>I used to agree with you Ken... but I've seen some really well done
>systems actually using two series preamps. Easy mountain top to
>hand held coverage over 25 miles distance.
>
>Key-words "really well done systems".
<---I haven't used anything other than Angl
Hello to the group,
I've been watching this post (below) on Motorola-User and have seen no
replies. Perhaps it's too early in the game (date/time) to see some.
I'm also interested in the Quantars and want to gain some knowledge with
this system. In looking at the repeater-builder website, Kev
I don't pretend to hold a candle to the knowledge or expirence of the group-
the light bulb over my head is illuminated with a half-dead AAA battery...
I don't think the problem is desense in it's traditional form. I have done
the desense tests and I have yet to realize any desense on the 5
Hi Ken,
Nothing wrong with Angle Linear stuff... I use a lot of both brands.
But Chip Angle took a long time to come around to phempt (fet) preamps
for the vhf band and I didn't like him for a long time telling me (and
everyone else) we were full of $#%(* for wanting to use phempt preamps
in t
At 6/27/2007 21:30, you wrote:
>Hi Ken,
>
>Nothing wrong with Angle Linear stuff... I use a lot of both brands.
>But Chip Angle took a long time to come around to phempt (fet) preamps
>for the vhf band and I didn't like him for a long time telling me (and
>everyone else) we were full of $#%(* for w
34 matches
Mail list logo
