Re: Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
Original model...made the controller flat audio compatible...added deemphasis to local drops, pre-emphasis to local TX audio (speech out, CW, autopatch) before Link did it on revisions...In fact I gave Steve and Alan my info to suggest they do it on later revisions. In fact on my 1st 3, I HATED the speech output..sounded muddy...adding pre-emphasis in its output made it sound just like my RC850..I would Link would have used a true cross point switch chip...8x8 on one IC, not using 4066 which have horrible gate leak thru at high audio levels,? which is why the ACCs used 4053.
Chris WB5ITT?
I was 3 years old in 1983, lol. What audio mods did you do on the RLCs? That has me curious. I'm always looking for ways of improving things (that's part of amateur radio, right? Lol). You can email me direct if you don't mind telling me the mods.
?
KM5UQ
|
First, mic gain and deviation are vastly different things.
But more to the point, as someone else said, it appears these radios, like very, very many others, comes defaulted to narrow band. That means +/- 2.5 KHz deviation. That has become common, since Part 90 in the US requires it.
When you program ham freqs into your new radios, people, MAKE SURE IT'S SET TO WIDEBAND!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 5/17/2025 10:10 PM, Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA) via groups.io wrote: Hello Terry,
"mic gain too low" I guess that means there is a deviation adjustment?
The boothingys are just too low on the deviation and can't do anything with them so they come up to where they need to be. I have never had one that I tried that had enough level, new hams aside, I am going from what I have checked myself.
Like I had said "I hate to suggest to the new hams to buy a radio that doesn't meet specs and then tell them they can't use them." Sounds like this radio may have promise. Wish I had one to try first. I suppose that I could buy one and if it isn't any good, send it back.
Since nothing is going happen before Monday any way, maybe there will be some other reports when people get back from the Dayton Hamvention.
Thank you for your information.
Mick - W7CAT
----- Original Message -----
From: "terry dalpoas via groups.io"
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2025 07:54:12 PM
Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Explorer QRZ-1 Radio
> I am not a fan of the cheap Chinese radios by any means. I like my
Motorola, Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu/Vertex commercial and amateur grade gear. That being said, another local ham and I each have the TYT-UV88, which I believe that Explorer radio is just a rebadged version of. We've had good results with them and they've looked good on a service monitor. In fact I was using that UV88 earlier today. Several of us are also using the Quansheng K6's with Egzumer and F4HWN firmware with very good results.
>
> The biggest issue I've run across audio-wise with new hams and those
radios are they are too far away from the mic, talking too softly, mic gain too low, running narrowband on a wideband repeater, or any combination of those. I helped a newer ham earlier today that had low audio. After walking him through a few things, he found out that he had the mic gain too low and was on narrowband. He corrected those issues and was good afterward.
>
>
> >
>
>
|
The boothingy's I have run across on the air and the one I have came set for narrowband (N) deviation. I tell them to switch to wideband (W) and they sound great, except for the ones using a Baofeng speaker-mic. Those absolutely must be thrown in the trash! Or, to say it another way using a Baofeng speaker-mic, mmmm mmm mmmmmmmm mmmm mm m.
|
I can't remember what radio he was using, but it was one I wasn't familiar with. I just looked at my UV88 and it does not have a mic gain, just wide/medium/narrow bandwidth (Menu 28).? Now on my Quansheng K6's, they do have a mic gain adjustment as well as bandwidth.? I don't know if the K6 has mic gain in the factory firmware as I have always flashed them with different firmware as soon as I unboxed them.
|
Re: Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
I was 3 years old in 1983, lol. What audio mods did you do on the RLCs? That has me curious. I'm always looking for ways of improving things (that's part of amateur radio, right? Lol). You can email me direct if you don't mind telling me the mods.
?
KM5UQ
|
Hello Terry,
"mic gain too low" I guess that means there is a deviation adjustment?
The boothingys are just too low on the deviation and can't do anything with them so they come up to where they need to be. I have never had one that I tried that had enough level, new hams aside, I am going from what I have checked myself.
Like I had said "I hate to suggest to the new hams to buy a radio that doesn't meet specs and then tell them they can't use them." Sounds like this radio may have promise. Wish I had one to try first. I suppose that I could buy one and if it isn't any good, send it back.
Since nothing is going happen before Monday any way, maybe there will be some other reports when people get back from the Dayton Hamvention.
Thank you for your information.
Mick - W7CAT
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message ----- From: "terry dalpoas via groups.io" To: [email protected]Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2025 07:54:12 PM Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Explorer QRZ-1 Radio I am not a fan of the cheap Chinese radios by any means. I like my Motorola, Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu/Vertex commercial and amateur grade gear. That being said, another local ham and I each have the TYT-UV88, which I believe that Explorer radio is just a rebadged version of. We've had good results with them and they've looked good on a service monitor. In fact I was using that UV88 earlier today. Several of us are also using the Quansheng K6's with Egzumer and F4HWN firmware with very good results.
The biggest issue I've run across audio-wise with new hams and those
radios are they are too far away from the mic, talking too softly, mic gain too low, running narrowband on a wideband repeater, or any combination of those. I helped a newer ham earlier today that had low audio. After walking him through a few things, he found out that he had the mic gain too low and was on narrowband. He corrected those issues and was good afterward.
-- Untitled Document
|
Re: Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
I started with a RC850 in 1983. .then RLC2 upgraded to a 2A then 2 RLC 3s...then two Club Deluxe IIs and now have 3 RLC3s ..also have two SM100s and figured out how to clone it getting around the PAL lol. Owned a 96 that I moded the CTs and the link port to be unmuted so I can pass DTMF tones out without having to unmute the main port. Did that to my RC 850 on link port 1 as well...
I made mods to the RLCs to improve audio and they work just like my 850.. the users don't know the difference.
I shortly owned a DSP404 but got pissed off whenever they decided not to come out with the 12 Port expansion. So I sold it.. it had potential but......
Oh and also owned a Pacific Research RI300
Chris WB5ITT?
I just got my hands on a VHF MSR-2000 with an ACC RC-85 from a group in NE Oklahoma. I know for sure that exact setup had run trouble free from at least 1998 up to about a year ago when they lost the site. I will be deploying that setup for our group in SE Oklahoma on a new pair that I just got coordinated.
?
At one site I'm running an RLC Club Deluxe with GE Mastr III on 2m on one port and UHF Micor on the other. Fantastic controller. I've also got two RLC-1s that will get deployed to other sites. One of those RLC-1'S has been on two previous sites (previous owner), both took direct lightning strikes, did not hurt the controller. RLC's are my favorite by far because of their durability, in my experiences anyways. I've also got two S-Com 7330s that are slated for future projects.
?
KM5UQ
|
I am not a fan of the cheap Chinese radios by any means. I like my Motorola, Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu/Vertex commercial and amateur grade gear. That being said, another local ham and I each have the TYT-UV88, which I believe that Explorer radio is just a rebadged version of. We've had good results with them and they've looked good on a service monitor. In fact I was using that UV88 earlier today. Several of us are also using the Quansheng K6's with Egzumer and F4HWN firmware with very good results.
?
The biggest issue I've run across audio-wise with new hams and those radios are they are too far away from the mic, talking too softly, mic gain too low, running narrowband on a wideband repeater, or any combination of those. I helped a newer ham earlier today that had low audio. After walking him through a few things, he found out that he had the mic gain too low and was on narrowband. He corrected those issues and was good afterward.
|
Re: Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 17:05, Chad Nelson < chad.nelson71@...> wrote:
I would love an ACC850, but no support plus I have what I need.
?
?
My original RLC3 still going strong from 1992.? My ACC RC850 still works from 1983. SN 201 iirc...went from V2.01 thru to V3.8
?
I have a Link RLC4 that's been in service since 1997 with no failures, no reprogramming.
Chuck
WB2EDV
On 5/17/2025 10:04 AM, w0rw via wrote:
?Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
???My repeater controller, Connect Systems, Private Patch V, Has failed.
It was installed in 1995 and has been on 24/7 since then.
?
-- Mikeal R. Hughes, BA., MA., D.Min., Th.D.
Amateur Extra - N9GI
EchoLink - 810004, Allstar link node - 58465
GROL, MOS, CompTia A+, Network+, Security+, CEH
|
Re: Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
I just got my hands on a VHF MSR-2000 with an ACC RC-85 from a group in NE Oklahoma. I know for sure that exact setup had run trouble free from at least 1998 up to about a year ago when they lost the site. I will be deploying that setup for our group in SE Oklahoma on a new pair that I just got coordinated.
?
At one site I'm running an RLC Club Deluxe with GE Mastr III on 2m on one port and UHF Micor on the other. Fantastic controller. I've also got two RLC-1s that will get deployed to other sites. One of those RLC-1'S has been on two previous sites (previous owner), both took direct lightning strikes, did not hurt the controller. RLC's are my favorite by far because of their durability, in my experiences anyways. I've also got two S-Com 7330s that are slated for future projects.
?
KM5UQ
|
Just because they say it, doesn't mean they do it. Also when they say "+/-" and they don't say how much that is. Sure leaves them off the hook. I have measured 5 different models and none of them have the correct amount of deviation.
I hate to suggest to the new hams to buy a radio that doesn't meet specs and then tell them they can't use them.
Mick - W7CAT
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message ----- From: "John - KC5AV via groups.io" To: [email protected]Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2025 11:27:50 AM Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Explorer QRZ-1 Radio It looks like it might be the same radio as the TYT UV88.
The manual shows max deviation is +/- 5Khz. Not sure how much truth there is to it.
-- Untitled Document
|
Re: Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
I would love an ACC850, but no support plus I have what I need. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Chris Boone WB5ITT via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2025 2:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years? My original RLC3 still going strong from 1992.? My ACC RC850 still works from 1983. SN 201 iirc...went from V2.01 thru to V3.8 ? I have a Link RLC4 that's been in service since 1997 with no failures, no reprogramming.
Chuck
WB2EDV
On 5/17/2025 10:04 AM, w0rw via wrote: ?Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years ???My repeater controller, Connect Systems, Private Patch V, Has failed. It was installed in 1995 and has been on 24/7 since then. ?
|
Re: Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
My original RLC3 still going strong from 1992.? My ACC RC850 still works from 1983. SN 201 iirc...went from V2.01 thru to V3.8
Gotta love them
Chris WB5ITT?
I have a Link RLC4 that's been in
service since 1997 with no failures, no reprogramming.
Chuck
WB2EDV
On 5/17/2025 10:04 AM, w0rw via
wrote:
?Colorado
Repeater Fails After??30
Years
???My
repeater controller, Connect Systems, Private Patch V, Has
failed.
It
was installed in 1995 and has been on 24/7 since then.
|
It looks like it might be the same radio as the TYT UV88.?
The manual shows max deviation is +/- 5Khz. Not sure how much truth there is to it.?
|
what is the consequence of reducing insertion loss on sinclair c2037 mutlicouplers
I have 2-? c2037 multicouplers and I see in the manuals that the insertion loss can be adjusted. what is the consequence of reducing insertion loss from 3db to something lower. Has anyone attempted this?
?
https://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/sinclair/fp-fr-fq-series-tuning.pdf
?
thanks? Tom
|
It always makes me smile when "that book" is called out for what it is....
Matt
AL0R
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of Glenn Little via groups.io Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 09:59 To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Grounding rods R-56 is derived from MIL-HDBK-419. This is the bible for EMP protection. It is available on the web, just search for it. At a previous job I did lightning mitigation. To have a good ground requires all rods and structures to be bonded together. Solder and compression fittings are to be avoided in a ground system. All rods are to be bonded together, 18" below grade, with number 2 copper or larger. Rods are to be placed at a distance of twice the rod length from each other. Every thing electrical is to be bonded at one point at a ground window. This is the common point ground. The idea is that during a strike, every thing will elevate together to some potential. There will be little difference in potential between equipment and therefore minimal damage. The FAA has grounding requirement in line with R-56 as well as your telco. The facilities have minimal damage. You can pay your money and take your chances. The above works. The ARRL has a book on grounding, it has many errors in it. Glenn WB4UIV On 5/15/2025 7:05 PM, digitalradiohacker via groups.io wrote: If you think about it, what everyone tries to do is to drive the
longest rod they can into the ground "to get the best earth connection".
Most people can't vocalize what they mean by "earth". Why are they
doing it? What for?
As per Motorola R56 (Standards and Guidelines for Communication Sites):
/? To help limit the voltages caused by lightning./ /? To provide a
path to earth for the discharge of lightning strokes in a manner that
protects the structure, its occupants and/ /the equipment inside./ /?
To help limit the voltage caused by accidental contact of the site AC
supply conductors with conductors of higher/ /voltage./ /? To help
dissipate electrical surges and faults, to minimize the chances of
injury from grounding system potential/ /differences./ /? To help
maintain a low potential difference between exposed metallic objects./
/? To stabilize the AC voltage relative to the earth under normal
conditions./ /? To contribute to reliable equipment operation./ /? To
decrease noise in signal and control circuits by minimizing the
voltage differentials between different signal reference/
/subsystems./ /? To provide a common signal reference ground./ Notice
how far down the list signals are mentioned.
The main priority is lightning protection.
R56 goes on to mention:
/At a communications site, all grounding (earthing) electrodes shall
be bonded together to form a single grounding electrode/ /system. All
grounding electrodes used for grounding of the power system, grounding
of communications systems and/ /grounding of lightning protection
systems shall be effectively and permanently bonded together. / /The
AC power system ground, communications tower ground, lightning
protection system ground, telephone system/ /ground, exposed
structural building steel (metal frame/framework), underground
metallic piping that enters the facility and/ /any other existing
grounding electrode system shall be bonded together to form a single
grounding electrode system./ /Underground metallic piping systems
typically include water service, well castings located within 7.6 m
(25 ft) of the/ /structure, gas piping, underground conduits,
underground liquefied petroleum gas piping systems and so on.
Interconnection to/ /a gas line shall be made on the customer's side
of the meter
/
R56 references a "/grounding electrode system/" and then goes on to
depict MULTIPLE earthing electrodes. Mathematically speaking, it is
far easier to have multiple shorter earth rods than it is to have one
single earth rod with the same surface contact area with the soil
(lowest impedance).
TLDR: Don't worry about it. Cut the top off. Put more in. Join them up.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Little ARRL Technical Specialist QCWA LM 28417 Amateur Callsign: WB4UIV wb4uiv@... AMSAT LM 2178 QTH: Goose Creek, SC USA (EM92xx) USSVI, FRA, NRA-LM ARRL TAPR "It is not the class of license that the Amateur holds but the class of the Amateur that holds the license"
|
R-56 is the bible for Motorola and is referenced in other grounding documents.
In the field, there should be a ground ring around the tower.
On the tower there should be a grounding bar near the top and near the base.
All feed and control lines are to be bonded to these.
These bars are bonded to the tower and to the tower ground ring.
There should be a aerospike at the top of the tower bonded to the tower ground ring.
The tower ground ring is to be bonded to the building entrance ground.
If 8' grounds are used, there should be one placed every 16' along the ground wire from the tower to the building.
Rods spaced closer than twice the rod length are ineffective due to the sphere of influence around the rods overlapping.
All connections are to be cad welded or brased, usually 18" below grade as the moisture content is more constant at that depth.
Inside the building there should be a reference ground bar where all equipment is connected to.
This bar is connected to the building ground window.
Exterior ground wire should be number 2 copper and interior ground wire should be number 6 copper.
The idea is to get all equipment grounded to the same point with the least inductance so that during a strike everything elevates at the same rate.
When I was in broadcast, we use 6" wide copper strap to ground everything in the building to the tower ground.
We took many hits to the 2000' tower without any equipment damage.
The drawing in R-56 is based on what has been shown to work.
Glenn
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 5/16/2025 12:25 PM, digitalradiohacker via groups.io wrote: Hi Glen,
Your explanation makes a lot of sense:
/"Every thing electrical is to be bonded at one point at a ground window./
/This is the common point ground./
/The idea is that during a strike, every thing will elevate together to some potential./
/There will be little difference in potential between equipment and therefore minimal damage."/
To achieve the above (give me some rope here), it suggests that each item will have a conductor running back to (for example) a copper plate on the wall to accept all the conductors, and form the common ground point (equipotential). Then, a separate conductor from this point would go to a ground system (rods in the ground).
The above would not make for a very polite RF ground, with some conductor running from the tower to the common ground plate and then out to the rods.
Am I misunderstanding your explanation?
Do you agree or disagree with the diagrams I posted from R56?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Little ARRL Technical Specialist QCWA LM 28417
Amateur Callsign: WB4UIV wb4uiv@... AMSAT LM 2178
QTH: Goose Creek, SC USA (EM92xx) USSVI, FRA, NRA-LM ARRL TAPR
"It is not the class of license that the Amateur holds but the class
of the Amateur that holds the license"
|
Re: Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
I have a Link RLC4 that's been in
service since 1997 with no failures, no reprogramming.
Chuck
WB2EDV
On 5/17/2025 10:04 AM, w0rw via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
?Colorado
Repeater Fails After??30
Years
???My
repeater controller, Connect Systems, Private Patch V, Has
failed.
It
was installed in 1995 and has been on 24/7 since then.
|
Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
?Colorado Repeater Fails After??30 Years
???My repeater controller, Connect Systems, Private Patch V, Has failed.
It was installed in 1995 and has been on 24/7 since then.
The failure was loss of touch tone control and was traced to U7.
U7 is a touch tone decoder IC, 75T2089IP, 22 pin DIP. It was replaced and the controller is operational again.
The Radio functions of the repeater never failed.
Pretty good??MTBF,??263,000 Hours.
The MTTR Maintainability was excellent, This 22 pin DIP is in a socket !
3 minutes to find the bad part and 3 minutes to replace it.
No further analysis was performed, yet.
There was a function error about 15 years ago, I had to reprogram one line in the EEPROM.
Probably a cosmic ray upset, Not a hard failure. We get more cosmic rays in Colorado than at sea level,?
Paul??w0rw
|
I have tried a few different models boothingys and they ALL have low deviation. I can spot them every time on a net. Either you are lucky, or have never run any of them up on a service monitor. They are known to be low deviation.
Mick - W7CAT
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Childers via groups.io" To: [email protected]Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 11:39:19 AM Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Explorer QRZ-1 Radio What is wrong with the boothingy's? I have 5 or 6 and they work fine. The newer ones "AR-5RM" I think it is have crappy recieve. The UV-5R works good and is cheap.
-- Untitled Document
|
Chris Boone WB5ITT
terry dalpoas
Tom VA3TS