Kreco has been around for a LONG time. I'd guess at least back to the 60's,
maybe even the 50's.
Colinear antennas often test good when they are really bad. The internal
workings can be broken right at the base, but because of a matching section,
still shows OK. I've seen it happen on several
Oh, if the antenna is cut to ham frequencies, there is a ham discount.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 6-m Very Heavy Duty
Hi all, Some days back, I posted a message asking for help to program an Alinco
RS-4 repeater. I need the bin file dump of the 24C02 IC from either the RX or
TX CPU board. If any one can send me that or BIN DUMP OF EEPROM OF ANY ALINCO
CHANNELIZED PROGRAMMABLE RADIO. This will help me to get
Possible options ?
I decided to poke around on the Bird TX/RX website and found this
little guy ( relatively speaking :-) )
Probably more command post sized than SUV sized but hey.. how big is
that SUV :-)???
If you are serious about keeping it at 600KHz separation ten you will need to
have real duplexors. You can get them in an enclosure with the three required
connectors. The biggest issue other than their size will be possible de tuning
when transporting. 440 is a better choice. Another option is
Perhaps you need two Ford Explorers? :) Theres a lot of them to be
found dead for scrap prices. Delete the driveshaft(s) and add a tow
bar. Nice inconspicuous repeater platform!
2m RX - 900/1.2 link to other SUV - 2M TX
If the link radio TX was very low (few hundred mW?) a smallish deep
nj902 wrote:
Development of a narrowband transition plan could be a worthwhile
undertaking but proposing this hardly makes the ARRL leaders,
especially considering that the IARU Region One did this SIXTEEN
years ago:
Further to this subject the following recommendation was adopted in
De
nj902 wrote:
Wow! So the ARRL wants to: remain a respected leader in technology
It's hard to remain something you never were.
Where was the ARRL when FM and repeaters first became popular?
Why didn't the ARRL take a leadership role in the development of a VHF/UHF
digital voice
As much good as the ARRL does in representing amateur radio and creating some
fine publications, they have certainly been a disappointment when it comes to
VHF/UHF FM, repeaters, and digital voice.
For example, the guys on the 900 list had some band plan questions and
contacted the ARRL World
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
And I doubt any ham rigs have these added features.
Chuck WB2EDV
And wouldn't be compatible with the Motorola's anyway. It's been run
into on 900 already-a radio with hear clear turned on doesn't talk well
with a Kenwood with their compandoring method turned on.
Shows how little attention the ARRL pays to anything above 30 MHz:
Mark Thompson wrote:
29. On motion of Mr. Sarratt, seconded by Mr. Frenaye, the following
resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, there is current substantial amateur radio movement, activity, and
innovation in the digital
Right on. You can't solve a political/administrative problem with
technology. It won't work. Just like trying to put cell jammers in a
jail instead of making it near impossible to get a cell phone into a
jail in the first place, then hunting down the few that might get in.
Chuck Kelsey wrote:
Kevin King wrote:
I agree we do not need to make more pairs everywhere. But let's face it.
We build from the left over's from the commercial world. Ok some of you buy
all new latest, etc. At some point most of the gear is going to be narrow.
Yes, likely. But that's a long way off. I'm talking
dmur...@verizon.net wrote:
I think this is a wast of time and money. If you want to narrow band your
repeater go for it but don't make it manditory for all repeaters to conform.
This is not commercial radio service.
That's a very good point. The FCC won't mandate it, and shouldn't, and
James Delancy wrote:
I have found that most radios made since the late 90's in the public
safety world are capable (some earlier ones could not handle 2.5 KHz
channel steps)
The FCC mandated that manufacturers MUST include a 12.5 KHz bandwidth
mode in all Part 90 radios starting inwas
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
HOWEVER, there is also no real recognition in this of how to deal with
things like wideband multiplex digital modes that take one (or more)
wideband channels but transport voice as or *more* efficiently than
multiple adjacent narrowband channels. In the commercial
Motorola's 900 MHz Hear-Clear product is different from other manufacturers'
audio improvement technologies because it combines companding with a patented
second feature known as Flutter-Fighter which rapidly varies IF gain in
response to flutter induced by Rayleigh fading.
For VHF and UHF
MCH wrote:
So you're saying the signal is more affected by multipath or fading? I
find that hard to believe, too, since that again implies that the tail
on a repeater would be similarly affected (being the extreme case of
lower deviation), and I've never seen the signal change on the tail
Hello Group,
I may be confusedso please set me straight.
I thought that the new Narrow Band was the narrowing the channel spacing from
25kHz. to 12.5kHz, and of course, knocking down the deviation from 5 kHz. to
2.5 kHz.
On the subject of affordable Narrow Band gearI highly recommend
If you are referring to the 2.5 KHz steps - that's necessary so the radio can
be programmed on whatever frequency is necessary due to the variety of band
plans and channel spacings. That doesn't mean that in any one geography there
is any intent to have adjacent channel operations 2.5KHz
wd8chl wrote:
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
HOWEVER, there is also no real recognition in this of how to deal with
things like wideband multiplex digital modes that take one (or more)
wideband channels but transport voice as or *more* efficiently than
multiple adjacent narrowband channels.
re: Decibel VHF Band Pass (only) 4 or 6 Cavity -
Duplexer Cable Measurements?
Has anyone here in the Group ever really measured the
Decibel Products VHF Band-Pass (only) 4 or 6 Cavity
Duplexer factory cable lengths at any frequency?
I was looking at one in a rack today... the center T
to
22 matches
Mail list logo
