Article: 94803 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "deBaser" Subject: OT:polly weave? Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1130872258.51603.0@doris.uk.clara.net> Hi Im looking for a supplier of a steel cable called Polly Weave in the UK. Running a Google did to help Any help appreciated deBaser reply in ng only Article: 94804 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: msix@nmia.com Subject: FS: HB cabinets de W7ZFB Message-ID: <5f267$4368db44$402a802f$14359@nmia.allthenewsgroups.com> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:29:08 +0000 NIB Bud SB-2143 steel shadow cabinet, panel recessed 1 inch, 15.5Wx9Dx6H, medium blue/gray hammertone, back and bottom removeable, alum front panel primed gray for painting a contrasting color. Takes Bud AC-409 13x7x2 chassis. $20 Modern stylish top of the line LMB enclosures... See info and drawings of the LMB line at www.lmbheeger.com New unused alum LMB CO-1 cabinet with matching LMB chassis. Contoured perforated case, recessed front panel, hinged top. Gray with ivory trim, dark gray front panel. CO-1 14.5Wx13Dx6.5H, CO-1-1 chassis 13x11x2. $70 New unused alum LMB CO-2. Style as above, 12Wx10Dx6.5H. Takes LMB CO-2-1 11x8x2 chassis. $45 New unused alum LMB CO-3. Style as above, no hinged top. 5.5Wx7Dx3H. $10 Nice used alum LMB CO-3. Style as above, no hinged top. Front has pot, switch and pilot light mounted. Rear has 3 BNC jacks and fuse mounted. $8 Plus postage 73 John W7ZFB - Always good in QRZ n Article: 94805 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: ramppa Subject: W: datasheet to NEC LD4389A TWT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:20:08 +0200 Hi, I'm looking datasheet to older traveling wave tube, manufactured by NEC, model is LD4389A. I have full amplifier with power supply+schematics, but no data for tube. Amplifier gives over 10W in 10368MHz, but I don't know what is safe level to helix current and how much tube can be punished:) Ramppa -- Rami Vainio OH2LIY EMAIL : ramppa.spam@no.iki.fi PHONE : +358 45 6700 462 Article: 94806 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Peter" References: <1129903535.253354.121770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1129905039.542653.237720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <56mil11d1o9mpajvcsq8fnfocq43gv0te1@4ax.com> <11loti63r2mj524@corp.supernews.com> <11lu184i0245b71@corp.supernews.com> <11m1uj3tniis6b5@corp.supernews.com> <11m3gl19ubk2259@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: FAQ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:55:22 -0000 Message-ID: <4369a712.0@entanet> "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote... > > No, not all chicken banders are law breakers, but a very large portion are. For some reason, I am beginning to feel hungry. Catch you later, I'm off for a large portion of chicken... Regards, Peter. Article: 94807 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: mcalhoun@ksu.edu Subject: Battery quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever Date: 3 Nov 2005 13:46:08 -0600 Message-ID: Has anyone investigated the quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/ whatever of ordinary AA (or other) cells? I recently saw the following in a local store: (I determined COST as the price for the most-economical blister-pack divided by the number of cells in that pack.) $ COST EACH MANUFACTURER BRAND NAME OTHER CLAIM ------ ------------ ---------- ------------------------------ 0.4435 Duracell CopperTop 0.4435 Energizer Max 0.81 Energizer Titanium 0.2875 Rayovac Alkaline Same Performance, Better Price 0.235 Rayovac Heavy Duty 0.36 (StoreBrand) Ever Alive 2.105 Energizer Lithium 2.4575 Energizer Rechargable 2.2425 Rayovac Rechargable -- --Myron A. Calhoun. Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge PhD EE (retired). "Barbershop" tenor. CDL(PTXS). W0PBV. (785) 539-4448 NRA Life Member and Certified Instructor (Home Firearm Safety, Rifle, Pistol) Article: 94808 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Joel Kolstad" Subject: Re: common phase DDS? Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:19:54 -0800 Message-ID: <11mkvr51b580j2c@corp.supernews.com> References: <1131046890.957368.30760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote in message news:1131046890.957368.30760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Do you think people would like to have a DDS VFO whose frequency and > phase were both direcly related to a common time/frequency standard > like WWV? That is, two people anywhere in the world using the VFO > could make a signal having exactly the same phase as measured at the > transmitter. I would adjust for lightspeed lag using a GPS receiver. If you already have a GPS receiver, you can lock to their time code -- this is already commonly done in, e.g., cell phone base stations to keep everyone in sync as you move between cell sites. It's also a popular way to get a cheap, high precision 10MHz reference clock for spectrum analyzers and other lab gear -- TAPR has an inexpensive board that does this. ---Joel Kolstad Article: 94809 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Steve Nosko" Subject: Re: Problem with soldering gun Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 14:44:08 -0600 Message-ID: References: <43607616$0$5437$626a14ce@news.free.fr> Very good Ian.. I shold have remembered this. A good way to solder ceramic substrated PA modules, as well. I have a hot plate. However, with the PL259, you may have an issue with the coax dielectric melting. That's why I recommended teh high heat capacity, get-in-and-get-out process. Or the PL259 dielectric. I see mostly cheapies selling @ hamfests - Teflon's OK, though, no?. 73, Steve, ,K.9;D'C 73, Steve, K9DCI "Ian White G/GM3SEK" wrote in message news:a5wuD$GtnHaDFAH0@ifwtech.co.uk... > Highland Ham wrote: > >"F8BOE" wrote in message > >news:43607616$0$5437$626a14ce@news.free.fr... > >> Hello, > >> > >> It may sound funny, but that's why I never used a soldering gun and > >> perhaps > >> never will... My 25W JBC with 0.8 and 1.2 mm tips is quite fine for > >> electronic components and connector soldering. > >> > >> You should be the one who takes an 18 wheeler to pick up a beer pack. > >> Shouldn't you? Perhaps a Mig welder could do the connector job... Hi! > >> I hope you'll never mount connectors for other Hams without any serious DC > >> and HF shortcut tests. > >> > >> 100W+ soldering irons are pretty good for plumber jobs or for desoldering > >> fast and clean, but definitely not for your aim. > >> > >> 73 de F8BOE Olivier ...-.- > > >For 'high power' soldering , I use a butane (cigarette lighter) gas > >soldering iron with kathalytic burner. > >Temperature can be adjusted by changing gas flowrate . > >I use an iron made in Ireland ,make Portasol .High power tip/burner can do > >up to 100 watts which is more than adequate to solder (PL259) plugs. Also > >very suitable to make small enclosures from scrap printed circuit board > >Very handy also for outdoor use .....since the tool is self-contained. > >Nowadays there are a number of makes to choose from. > >I would never use an electric soldering gun. > > > Neither would I. A normal small iron can be used for soldering large > objects, if they are pre-heated with a hot-air ("paint stripper") gun. > > To solder a PL259, for example, pre-heat the plug body with the gun > until it's good and hot, but still some way below the melting point of > solder. Then put the gun down, and switch to your regular 25/45W iron > for the actual soldering. The solder will now melt quickly and easily. > > Try it - it's so much easier than using a monster iron or an electric > soldering gun. > > > -- > 73 from Ian G/GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) > http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 94810 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Battery quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:08:56 -0800 Message-ID: <11ml9kr9dfi6dce@corp.supernews.com> References: The problem with making comparisons is that the power you can get out of most types of primary (non-rechargeable) cells depends heavily on a lot of factors, such as: -- Current drain -- Duty cycle -- Temperature -- End voltage In addition, some devices such as many GPS receivers have switching regulators, which drain the battery at a near constant power rate. Others drain at a nearly constant current rate, and still others with more like a resistive load. Each type of cell behaves differently under each condition. Only a few rules of thumb can be put forth: 1. For heavy drain applications such as photoflash or an HT, alkalines last many times longer than "heavy duty" carbon-zinc types, so the latter is seldom an economical choice for those applications. Likewise for applications with moderate but constant drain such as a GPS receiver. Carbon-zinc is probably more economical (unless you use alkalines from Costco or other discount store) for light-drain, intermittent use such as a radio. Flashlights aren't light drain, but do fairly well with carbon-zinc if used only occasionally. But I don't use carbon-zinc for anything. 2. You're unlikely to see cell life increase anywhere near in proportion to cost by using "titanium" or other "premium" alkaline cells -- their special characteristics are mostly created in the marketing department. If in doubt, consult the manufacturer's data sheet, readily available on the web. 3. Modern NiMH cells have about the same capacity as alkaline cells -- more at very high currents --, and the capacity is quite constant over a wide range of discharge conditions. A down side is the high self-discharge rate -- they're not a good choice for something like a flashlight that's used only occasionally. 4. I've never found a good use for the rechargeable alkalines. Their capacity drops with each recharge and with increased current. At higher currents, the capacity decrease is even faster. NiMH or primary alkaline has been a better choice every time I've done a careful comparison. 5. The 1.5 volt primary lithium cells have more capacity than either alkaline or NiMH, especially better than alkaline at high currents. They're very light weight, have a long shelf life, and are excellent at low temperatures. But they cost like the dickens. I keep a couple of them in my emergency kit when backpacking or cross-country skiing as a backup for GPS or flashlight, but don't use them regularly. I've tested a good number of various alkaline AA cells at constant current loads of around 200 mA, and found only minor and inconsistent capacity differences among brands and types. Consequently, I usually use the ones I buy at Costco for about 25 cents each. If you have a particular application in mind, check the data sheet for the performance under the conditions you anticipate. Then you pays your money and makes your choice. Roy Lewallen, W7EL mcalhoun@ksu.edu wrote: > Has anyone investigated the quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/ > whatever of ordinary AA (or other) cells? I recently saw the following > in a local store: > > (I determined COST as the price for the most-economical > blister-pack divided by the number of cells in that pack.) > > $ COST > EACH MANUFACTURER BRAND NAME OTHER CLAIM > ------ ------------ ---------- ------------------------------ > 0.4435 Duracell CopperTop > 0.4435 Energizer Max > 0.81 Energizer Titanium > 0.2875 Rayovac Alkaline Same Performance, Better Price > 0.235 Rayovac Heavy Duty > 0.36 (StoreBrand) Ever Alive > > 2.105 Energizer Lithium > 2.4575 Energizer Rechargable > 2.2425 Rayovac Rechargable Article: 94811 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: ab5mm@9plus.net Subject: WTB Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:24:37 -0600 Message-ID: I need a filament transformer for a home-brew project. 120 or 240Vac primary and 18 to 20 amp secondary. If you have one or know where to obtain same, please e-mail. tnx/73 Steve ab5mm@9plus.net Article: 94812 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:23:23 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: WTB References: Message-ID: <372b8$436ab810$4232be79$8468@COQUI.NET> ab5mm@9plus.net wrote: > I need a filament transformer for a home-brew project. 120 or 240Vac > primary and 18 to 20 amp secondary. If you have one or know where to > obtain same, please e-mail. tnx/73 > Steve > ab5mm@9plus.net What secondary voltage? -Bill Article: 94813 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: <436ADB26.2020109@nettally.com> From: **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** Subject: Re: common phase DDS? References: <1131046890.957368.30760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 03:52:02 GMT It would be very useful. Keep in mind that all oscillators in the system would need to be coherent so a heterodyne conversion transceiver design would need to have any other LO's synched as well. An idea that I have had is the prize for transatlantic 2 meter DX. If multiple stations stateside had same coherent carrier and were keyed (or modulated) coherently, there would be space diversity in the transmitted signal. Joe K4SAT eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: >Do you think people would like to have a DDS VFO whose frequency and >phase were both direcly related to a common time/frequency standard >like WWV? That is, two people anywhere in the world using the VFO >could make a signal having exactly the same phase as measured at the >transmitter. I would adjust for lightspeed lag using a GPS receiver. > >I am thinking this could be useful for coherent CW work. > >Opinions? > >The Eternal Squire > > > -- Joe Leikhim K4SAT "The RFI-EMI-GUY" "All Righty Then" Article: 94814 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Asimov" Subject: Battery quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever Message-ID: References: Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:11:01 GMT "mcalhoun@ksu.edu" bravely wrote to "All" (03 Nov 05 13:46:08) --- on the heady topic of "Battery = quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever" mc> From: mcalhoun@ksu.edu mc> Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.homebrew:88699 mc> Has anyone investigated the mc> quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/ whatever of ordinary AA (or mc> other) cells? I recently saw the following in a local store: mc> (I determined COST as the price for the most-economical mc> blister-pack divided by the number of cells in that pack.) mc> $ COST mc> EACH MANUFACTURER BRAND NAME OTHER CLAIM mc> ------ ------------ ---------- ------------------------------ mc> 0.4435 Duracell CopperTop mc> 0.4435 Energizer Max mc> 0.81 Energizer Titanium mc> 0.2875 Rayovac Alkaline Same Performance, Better Price mc> 0.235 Rayovac Heavy Duty mc> 0.36 (StoreBrand) Ever Alive mc> 2.105 Energizer Lithium mc> 2.4575 Energizer Rechargable mc> 2.2425 Rayovac Rechargable mc> -- mc> --Myron A. Calhoun. Have a look at AAA's for a chuckle. If we compare them by mass, one gets 4 times less in AAA's (2 cells) than in AA's (4 cells) for the *same* price. The battery makers must be giggling all the way to the bank over this one. Howver, my remote control doesn't care if it is a fine vintage Union Carbide or a China special. That will have an effect eventually, especially in lost jobs. A*s*i*m*o*v ... I came, I saw, I got sidetracked, I forgot why I was here. Article: 94815 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Asimov" Subject: Re: Battery quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever Message-ID: References: <11ml9kr9dfi6dce@corp.supernews.com> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:11:03 GMT "Roy Lewallen" bravely wrote to "All" (03 Nov 05 16:08:56) --- on the heady topic of "Re: Battery quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever" RL> From: Roy Lewallen RL> Antenna Software Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.homebrew:88706 RL> The problem with making comparisons is that the power you can get out RL> of most types of primary (non-rechargeable) cells depends heavily on a RL> lot of factors, such as: RL> -- Current drain RL> -- Duty cycle RL> -- Temperature RL> -- End voltage There is another factor I've discovered for a cell's usage in audio applications such as a battery powered portable mixer or especially an electret microphone. Alkaline cells seem to be plagued with pops and ticks while carbon cells are dead quiet in comparison. Since most electret mics have very simple electronics with no voltage regulation, the battery must be extremely quiet. Unfortunately I don't have the numbers on hand to document my experience but this is just to comment that sometimes there are other factors (noise) which may make a cell type more desirable for very specific applications. For example electric guitar players are sticklers for the type of square 9 volt batteries that go into their vintage pedals. A*s*i*m*o*v ... May you find the light and walk the mountain tops. Article: 94816 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "W3JDR" References: <1131046890.957368.30760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11mkvr51b580j2c@corp.supernews.com> <1131074562.118742.138810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: common phase DDS? Message-ID: <7NGaf.9750$N73.7491@trnddc04> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:32:35 GMT I think you'll have to find a way to synchronize the startup ('reset')of all the DDS's. If you don't, they'll all start clocking at different times. The output doesn't come for some number of clock cycles later, depending on what's loaded into the counters. Because of this, you'll have "phase lock" but not "phase coincidence". Synchronizing DDS's is described by Analog Devices in an appp-note on generating quadrature signals using 2 DDS chips. Joe W3JDR wrote in message news:1131074562.118742.138810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Well actually, the project I had in mind was to take the 60 khz WWVB > signal and use diode harmonic multipliers to create a clock in the > gigahertz range. I would then use this clock as the input to a DDS > system. I could use the GPS to calculate lightspeed delay between > the VFO and the WWVB to determine compensating phase lag. > > This could be good for synchronizing the transmit and receive ends of a > digital communication, improving the signal to noise ratio. > > The Eternal Squire > Article: 94817 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Mike Kulyk" Subject: Swap. NEW ARRL ANTENNA BOOK 20ed. Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:51:47 -0500 This is a new ARRL Antenna Book , cd and all.. never opened. FOR ARRL Handbook.. New or one -2 years old.. Hardcover preferred.. Mike WB2GLW Article: 94818 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: ab5mm@9plus.net Subject: Re: WTB Filament Transformer Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:45:15 -0600 Message-ID: References: <372b8$436ab810$4232be79$8468@COQUI.NET> Sorry about that! The secondary needs to be 10Vac. tnx Bill... Article: 94819 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Joel Kolstad" Subject: Re: common phase DDS? Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:48:05 -0800 Message-ID: <11mn7qch55cv09f@corp.supernews.com> References: <1131046890.957368.30760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11mkvr51b580j2c@corp.supernews.com> <1131074562.118742.138810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1131117843.238495.5290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1131125228.327446.292290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote in message news:1131125228.327446.292290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Then how come wall clocks based on WWVB work so well anywhere in CONUS? They don't -- there are plenty of places in the U.S. where it takes a fair amount of experimentation to get them to sync at all. Most of them 'listen' in the wee hours of the morning when propagation tends to be better too. And finally, even if they do only manage to sync up 'once in a while' (say every week or two), they still perform much better than a typical wall clock. Article: 94820 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Krusty" References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Message-ID: <5uNaf.1870$8R6.408@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:10:09 GMT "Polymath" wrote in message news:1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > What is Ham Radio? Ahh, I can almost smelll the meths from here....looks like he chose another fine vintage from Wilko's finest.... Article: 94821 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. From: Frank Gilliland Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:54:40 -0800 Message-ID: <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> On 4 Nov 2005 07:00:39 -0800, "Polymath" wrote in <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >What is Ham Radio? Do you mean the Amateur Radio Service? >Ham Radio Amateur radio..... > is a technical pursuit for those who >are interested in the science of radio wave >propagation and who are also interested in the >way that their radios function. It has a long-standing >tradition of providing a source of engineers who >are born naturals. It also includes an interest in communication, that being the primary purpose for -using- a radio. >Ham Radio Amateur radio..... > awakens in its aficionados a whole-life >fascination with all things technical and gives >an all-abiding curiosity to improve one's scientific >knowledge. It's a great swimming pool, please dive in! > >This excitement causes a wish to share the experience >with ones fellow man, and shows itself in the >gentlemanly traditions of Ham Radio. .....Amateur Radio. >Radio Hams Radio Amateurs..... > are in a unique privileged position in that >they can construct and operate their own equipment! No-one >else has this privilege. Users, such as broadcasters, >the po lice and armed farces, CBers and mobile phone >users have to purchase ready-made gear. Wrong. As a BE I have designed, constructed and operated two broadcast transmitters. Anyone can build and operate equipment for any purpose provided the equipment meets government criteria and has been certificated (or otherwise authorized), and the operator has the proper license or authorization. And under those rules, Part 15 (as well as the UK equivalent) gives hobbyists the opportunity to build and operate their own equipment -without- a license at much lower power. That's not necessarily a bad thing; those who have challenged the limitations of the 1750m band have made significant technical advancements that have spilled over into the field of Amateur radio. Part 15 also allows broadcasting with very low power; broadcasting is prohibited for Amateurs except in very special circumstances. > Manufacturers >are not licensed to operate their gear. Wrong. They -MUST- hold a license or proper authorization to operate their equipment for the simple reason that it must be tested. > Radio Hams Radio Amateurs..... >are qualified to design, build and then >operate their own pieces of equipment. Wrong. An Amateur license does not QUALIFY them to design or build anything. ANYONE can design and build their own equipment. Amateurs are AUTHORIZED to OPERATE their own equipment, and then ONLY if the equipment meets certain technical standards as set forth under the rules regulating Amateur radio. > They do this >with gusto, and also repair and modify their own >equipment. This is a privilege well worth the effort >to gain, and one to be jealously guarded. Yet it is a privilege that is not exclusive to Amateur radio. >The excitement that drives a Radio Ham ..... a Radio Amateur..... > starts with >relatively simple technologies at first, perhaps making >his own Wimshurst machine and primary cells. YIKES!!! A Wimshurst machine is an RFI nightmare -- definitely -NOT- on the list of preferred devices for use in Amateur radio. > Small pieces >of test equipment follow, possibly multimeters and signal >generators. Then comes receivers and transmitters. It is with >the latter that communication with like-minded technically >motivated people takes off. The scope for technical >development grows with the years >and now encompasses DSP and DDS. There is also a great deal >of excitement in the areas of computer programming to >be learnt and applied. Gee, where's Gunny Dudly the Spelling Cop? >The technical excitement motivates Radio Hams .....Radio Amateurs..... > to compete >with each other to determine who has designed and manufactured >the best-quality station. This competitiveness is found in DXing, >competitions and fox-hunts. > >-----OOOOO---- > >However, beware! A Ham Radio licence .....Amateur Radio "license"..... > is such a >desirable thing to have that there are large >numbers of people who wish to be thought of >as Radio Hams .....Radio Amateurs..... > when, in fact, they are nothing >of the kind! Usually such people are a >variation of the CB Radio hobbyist; they buy their >radios off the shelf and send them back to be >repaired; they are not interested in technical discussion >and sneer at those who are; they have no idea how >their radios work inside and have no wish to find out; >they are free with rather silly personal insults; >they have not satisfied any technical qualification >and their licences prevent the use of >self-designed-and-built equipment. Notwithstanding the negative connotations, you described CB radio very well. The Citizen's Band is -intended- for people who want to buy their radios off the shelf -- not caring about how they work or any other technical aspects beyond basic functionality. It's a plug-n-play radio service. And no license is required (in the US). >These CB types engage in the competitive activities >with their Cheque-Book-purchased off-the-shelf radios >in a forlorn effort to prove that they are Radio Hams. > >No _REAL_ Radio Hams .....Radio Amateurs..... > are deceived by such people! Neither are any "_REAL_" CBers. >-----ooooo----- > >One infallible way to disambiguate the CB Radio Hobbyist >from the _REAL_ Radio Ham .....Radio Amateur..... > is to solicit their view of the >difference between CB Radio and Ham Radio. .....Amateur Radio. > A Radio Ham A Radio Amateur..... > will >perceive Ham Radio .....Amateur Radio.... > to be a technical pursuit and will >perceive CB Radio to be a social communications facility >no different in essence to a land-line telephone or a >GSM mobile in the hands of a 6-year-old. Thus a Radio Ham .....Radio Amateur..... >could also hold a CB licence safe in the knowledge that >such a licence says no more about him than having a land-line >telephone, whilst continuing to regard Ham Radio .....Amateur Radio..... > as a separate >technical pursuit. > >A CB Radio hobbyist, on the other hand, sees no difference between >a Ham Radio licence .....an Amateur Radio license..... > and a CB Radio licence. To him, they are >sisters-under-the-skin. Wrongly, the CB Radio Hobbyist then >tries to classify himself as the equal of the Radio >Ham .....Radio Amateur..... > when, in fact, he is nothing of the kind. A sure sign of >a CB Radio hobbyist is if he holds, or has ever held, a licence >issued under the gangrenous degeneration that is the >M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme. ....."gangrenous degeneration"? And you think -CBers- have an attitude problem? >-----ooooo----- > >One group of people who claim to be of the standard of >Radio Hams .....Radio Amateurs..... > but who are in reality nothing more than an >apology for the failure of a CBer are those class B >licensees who falsely proclaimed that they were against >the use of a Morse Test to control access to the HF >bands, until, that is, a test was introduced at their >intellectual level, the intellectual level of 6-year-olds. > >6 year-olds simply lack the mathematical tool kit to >enable them to handle even the simplest algebraic manipulation >for Ohm's Law and thus, the disgraceful Class Ber's in >the aforementioned category are not Radio Hams .....Radio Amateurs..... > by any stretch >of the imagination! > >Remember - A sure sign of a CB Radio hobbyist is if he holds, >or has ever held, a licence issued under the gangrenous >degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme! BTW, there -is- a FAQ for Amateur radio: it's called "The Radio Amateur's Handbook". ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Article: 94822 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Spike Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:39:32 +0000 Message-ID: <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> Polymouth wrote: >>Radio Hams are in a unique privileged position in that >>they can construct and operate their own equipment! No-one >>else has this privilege. [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter. [ ] A pass in a current examination for a UK Amateur Licence qualifies the successful candidate for the issue of a UK Licence. Holders of the appropriate levels of licence are permitted to operate transmitting equipment that is not subject to a formal approvals procedure, and to carry out technical investigations. A qualification for a Licence, or the Licence itself, is not, repeat not, a qualification to specify, design, construct, modify, repair, or own transmitting equipment. from Aero Spike Article: 94823 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: mcalhoun@ksu.edu Subject: Re: Battery PS for Shack Date: 4 Nov 2005 17:24:53 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1131051118.795396.271760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >I'm building a PS for my shack, and the receive only current draw of >all of my equipment is in the 2A range. QST a few years ago had a >great charger/battery circuit where the PS/charger generated up to >500ma and, depending on the voltage state of the battery (he used a >SLA) would apply the charger voltage, limited to 500 ma (minus anything >used for running equipment, about 220 ma max for him) to the attached >battery in an increasing duty cycle as battery voltage went down. When >he transmitted, his load was about 2A, and it would come out of the >battery. >I'd like to do something similar, but larger.... Even simpler (and the way I do it): look up "float charging". Adjust output of whatever regulated and reverse-protected DC power supply you have handy to the proper "float voltage" of your battery (I use a plain ol' car battery, not even a "deep cycle", as one of my HF radios starts FM-ing when the battery drops to about 11 volts, so the increased capacity of a deep cycle battery is totally wasted) and connect it and your equipment across the battery! When battery is low and equipment is off, battery is charged. When battery is high and equipment is off, battery quits charging. No special "charge controller" or other electronics beyond that already in most DC power supplies is/are needed. One can also use an "automatic" charger which cycles on and off as necessary to keep the battery charged, but this will probably cost more because most junk boxes probably aren't as well supplied with automatic chargers as they are with regulated DC power supplies. But they are NOT particularly expensive; Wal-Mart use to sell a 1.5-amp version to mount under the hood of a car for about $25-30. The radio (and two emergency lights) in my shack have been powered by either of the above two ways for over 25 years. The only two times I've had to use some kind of "charge controller" were when the sourse was a: * wind generator - when the wind blew, it created whatever voltage was necessary to force about 15 amps into whatever was connected! (I used a zener and a few transistors -- two of them big! -- to "dump" excess current into two 100-watt 1-ohm resistors. * solar panel - except that my panel only produced about 2 amps in bright sunlight, the sun shown much more often than the wind blew, so this was basically the same problem: dump excess current. Incidentally, for not-too-big DC power supplies, I've not found it particularly necessary for them to be very "pure" DC; a 60-amp-hour car battery acts like a pretty-big filter capacitor! --Myron, W0PBV. -- --Myron A. Calhoun. Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge PhD EE (retired). "Barbershop" tenor. CDL(PTXS). W0PBV. (785) 539-4448 NRA Life Member and Certified Instructor (Home Firearm Safety, Rifle, Pistol) Article: 94824 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Steve Nosko" Subject: Re: Problem with soldering gun Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:36:22 -0600 Message-ID: References: <43607616$0$5437$626a14ce@news.free.fr> Nope. I got it, but I see your point. The issue I was thinking of was the fact that the hot air "pre-heat" will still take longer than a high heat-capacity tip, thus allowing more opportunity (time) for the dielectric to soften and deform if it isn't held well, without stress applied. I think RG-8 size is probably less of a problem. RG-58 tends to easily allow the center conductor to travel if given the opportunity. My hot plate also only "warms" the ceramic so, when touched with the iron for the heat-to-solder phase, it doesn't do that almost imperceptible TINK! from the almost invisible crack across the ceramic due to an all to large temp gradient. How long do you take in the warming phase before doing the actual heat-to-solder phase? I have a professional resistance (dental brace) soldering machine ( by K9PGN - SK) and it is considered tops on methods...by some, of course. 73, Steve, K9DCI "Ian White G/GM3SEK" wrote in message news:t9GjiCq3foaDFAwN@ifwtech.co.uk... > Steve Nosko wrote: > >Very good Ian.. I shold have remembered this. A good way to solder ceramic > >substrated PA modules, as well. I have a hot plate. > > > >However, with the PL259, you may have an issue with the coax dielectric > >melting. > >Or the PL259 dielectric. I see mostly cheapies > >selling @ hamfests - Teflon's OK, though, no?. > > > > I think you may have the wrong impression of this. It isn't the same as > using hot air or a hotplate to do the actual soldering. > > In this case you're only using the hot-air gun to give the connector > body a moderate temperature boost of maybe 100-150C. It's still the iron > that melts the solder - the difference being that you can now use your > regular 25/45W iron. > > The worst that happens with solid polyethylene dielectric is that it > softens; but then it hardens again. If the coax dielectric melts and > runs, you've heated the whole thing way too much, and for way too long. > > The dielectric inside the plug is even less of a problem. If it doesn't > melt when you solder the center pin, it will also handle moderate > heating of the connector body. > > So in practice there aren't any problems. > > > >"Ian White G/GM3SEK" wrote in message > >news:a5wuD$GtnHaDFAH0@ifwtech.co.uk... > >> Highland Ham wrote: > >> >"F8BOE" wrote in message > >> >news:43607616$0$5437$626a14ce@news.free.fr... > >> >> Hello, > >> >> > >> >> It may sound funny, but that's why I never used a soldering gun and > >> >> perhaps > >> >> never will... My 25W JBC with 0.8 and 1.2 mm tips is quite fine for > >> >> electronic components and connector soldering. > >> >> > >> >> You should be the one who takes an 18 wheeler to pick up a beer pack. > >> >> Shouldn't you? Perhaps a Mig welder could do the connector job... Hi! > >> >> I hope you'll never mount connectors for other Hams without any serious > >DC > >> >> and HF shortcut tests. > >> >> > >> >> 100W+ soldering irons are pretty good for plumber jobs or for > >desoldering > >> >> fast and clean, but definitely not for your aim. > >> >> > >> >> 73 de F8BOE Olivier ...-.- > >> > >> >For 'high power' soldering , I use a butane (cigarette lighter) gas > >> >soldering iron with kathalytic burner. > >> >Temperature can be adjusted by changing gas flowrate . > >> >I use an iron made in Ireland ,make Portasol .High power tip/burner can > >do > >> >up to 100 watts which is more than adequate to solder (PL259) plugs. > >Also > >> >very suitable to make small enclosures from scrap printed circuit board > >> >Very handy also for outdoor use .....since the tool is self-contained. > >> >Nowadays there are a number of makes to choose from. > >> >I would never use an electric soldering gun. > >> > >> > >> Neither would I. A normal small iron can be used for soldering large > >> objects, if they are pre-heated with a hot-air ("paint stripper") gun. > >> > >> To solder a PL259, for example, pre-heat the plug body with the gun > >> until it's good and hot, but still some way below the melting point of > >> solder. Then put the gun down, and switch to your regular 25/45W iron > >> for the actual soldering. The solder will now melt quickly and easily. > >> > >> Try it - it's so much easier than using a monster iron or an electric > >> soldering gun. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 73 from Ian G/GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) > >> http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek > > > > > > -- > 73 from Ian G/GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) > http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 94826 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Problem with soldering gun Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:30:23 -0800 Message-ID: <11mo2phrkp7va17@corp.supernews.com> References: <43607616$0$5437$626a14ce@news.free.fr> <1131146762.783222.263940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Hm, everybody has his own solution. I happily use an old Weller gun or small butane torch for putting a PL-259 onto an RG-8 size cable, as I have for decades. I keep the cable straight so the center conductor ends up where it belongs when the insulation cools. I never use PL-259s for RG-58 or RG-59 size cable anymore -- I always use BNC instead. I've got a box full of adapters to use whenever I need to connect to anything else. Both BNC connectors and BNC-to-anything adapters are readily available on eBay. Actually, I don't use RG-8 size cable very often, and recently I've been putting N connectors on it when I do. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 94827 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Asimov" Subject: Re: Problem with soldering gun Message-ID: References: <11mo2phrkp7va17@corp.supernews.com> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:11:05 GMT "Roy Lewallen" bravely wrote to "All" (04 Nov 05 17:30:23) --- on the heady topic of "Re: Problem with soldering gun" RL> From: Roy Lewallen RL> Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.homebrew:88731 RL> Hm, everybody has his own solution. I happily use an old Weller gun or RL> small butane torch for putting a PL-259 onto an RG-8 size cable, as I RL> have for decades. I keep the cable straight so the center conductor RL> ends up where it belongs when the insulation cools. I never use RL> PL-259s for RG-58 or RG-59 size cable anymore -- I always use BNC RL> instead. I've got a box full of adapters to use whenever I need to RL> connect to anything else. Both BNC connectors and BNC-to-anything RL> adapters are readily available on eBay. Actually, I don't use RG-8 RL> size cable very often, and recently I've been putting N connectors on RL> it when I do. RL> Roy Lewallen, W7EL If you want some *real* heat, rip the carbon rods out of a couple of C or D batteries. Cut just one wire of a bedside table lamp in the middle. Strip the ends and wrap one wire around one carbon rod and the same with the other on the remaining rod. Hold the rod ends clamped by wooden clothes pins so that the wires are pressed into the rod. Keep the rods apart and plug in the lamp. Turn on the lamp, then bring the rods close together. You should develop a nice arc that will blind you momentarily and leave you seeing blue spots for a few hours. However, the arc will have been hotter than the surface of the Sun. But you can melt paper clips and glass marbles with it. A welders mask may help with the spotty vision. Disclaimer: Do not try this in the shower. Objects may appear blurrier than they really are temporarily but perhaps permanently. Results may vary with the wattage of the bedside table lamp. A*s*i*m*o*v ... This product has been cruelly tested on cute little furry animals. Article: 94828 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: <436C5951.8060604@nowhere.com> From: Leif Holmgren Subject: Re: Cheap Repeater Controller??? References: Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 08:03:45 +0100 How cheap is cheap? What is nothing fancy? Is the use of a PC a requirement? I'm in the process of building a controller myself. Check this link for current status: http://home.swipnet.se/sm4rpq/elec/slcrc/slcrc.html I'd say you get away with something around 5-15$ depending on you junkboxes size. Warning, there are some dead links on it and no diagrams yet. /Leif Bill wrote: > I am in the process of building a 2M repeater. I have everything except for > a controller. I am looking for a cheap controller or a circuit to build my > own. I don't need anything fancy. Also is there any PC Controller software > besides EchoStation? > > Bill > > Article: 94829 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "CA" References: Subject: Re: Cheap Repeater Controller??? Message-ID: Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:41:56 GMT 35 USD for the NHRC-2 kit http://www.nhrc.net/nhrc-2/ http://svxlink.sourceforge.net/ http://members.aol.com/repeaterlogic/ http://www.metronic.nu/rlm/ 73 SM6PXJ "Bill" skrev i meddelandet news:IbF8f.8354$ki7.678793@news20.bellglobal.com... >I am in the process of building a 2M repeater. I have everything except >for a controller. I am looking for a cheap controller or a circuit to >build my own. I don't need anything fancy. Also is there any PC >Controller software besides EchoStation? > > Bill > Article: 94830 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: w4sef@bellsouth.net (Steven Fritts) Subject: Re: Problem with soldering gun Message-ID: <436cbfae.1187562@newsgroups.bellsouth.net> References: Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:21:43 GMT No Way would I ever use a 25 watt soldering iron to do pl 259s like that F8 guy does..... wonder how many poor pl 259 connections he has and does not even know it? Steve W4SEF On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:09:11 GMT, "David Thompson" wrote: >My sister bought me a Radio Shack Dual Heat soldering gun (150W/230W). This >was to supplement >my 120 watt 45 year old Weller. This after my WW II vintage 120 iron died >on me. > >My main use was to solder coax connectors. The Gun seems to work Ok on >soldering joints in say a SB220 amplifier. But the first thing I noticed is >that the tip is much to large to fit into the area where the PL-259 outside >allows you to solder that to the shield thru the wholes in the 259. No >problem but if you leave the gun on too long the area of the tip gets red >hot about 1/2" back from the actual tip. > >My old Weller does a better but inadequate job of soldering the 259 shield. > >Why does the gun allow the tip to get red hot away from the actual tip. The >tip is almost new. I notice its made from a silver metal not copper as with >most Weller tips. Radio Shack tells me its made by Weller >and they are not aware of the problem. > >bad tip or maybe a bad winding in the gun? any ideas? > >Dave K4JRB > > Article: 94831 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: Pulling crystal Message-ID: References: <1131196562.702038.225900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 17:17:09 GMT On 5 Nov 2005 05:16:02 -0800, "Apparatus" wrote: >Hi, > >I am working on building a VCO for FSK with 850 Hz separation between >mark and space. I am building it using a 16.000 MHz 32pf parallel load >crystal. I am pulling the crystal via a varactor to implement the FSK. >However, the amplitude between mark and space is an unacceptable 10 dB >with about 700 Hz of shift. Any ideas on how to pull the crystal >without changing the amplitude of the mark and space frequencies >considerably? > >A bit about my circuit: have an 8 - 50 pF tuning cap across pins 6 and >7; a 22pF cap shunts pin 7. The crystal shunts pin 6. A 100nF DC block >cap separates pin 6 from the 8 - 29 pF (3 to 10 V reverse bias) >varactor. A 1mH inductor isolates AC from the varactor biasing. > >I tried adding 1uH of inductance in series with the crystal. This moved >the oscillation frequency up, but the amplitude problem remained. I >tried putting the varactor across the tuning cap. This configuration >exhibited the same amplitude shift problem, but shifted the frequency >up rather than down. I tried combining the two shifts via two varactors >and a JFET to invert the biases, one across the crystal (as originally) >and one across the tuning cap. This didn't work well (very noisy >spectrum). > >Any ideas as to what could be the problem and how to fix it? > >Cheers, >Chris I'd look at your circuit. Thats a very large change for a small shift at 16mhz. Nominally I'd expect only a tiny change at 16mhz and no where near 10db. From what you say it sould like your using a NE/SE602 or similar as the osc and it may be the constants you are using are off. it also may be that the varactor you using is getting foward biased and that will alter the oscillartor output. For a simple shift a series cap and a diode switch is adaquate for a shift like that. To dial it in the cap can be variable. There are plenty of published circuits that already do this in various CW tranceiver designs for RX to TX shift (sidetone too). An alternate is live with it and add a limiting stage after it (74HC04s) to take out the amplitude change. Allison Article: 94832 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Ralph Mowery" References: <1131196562.702038.225900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1131207869.974446.124100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Pulling crystal Message-ID: Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 17:21:41 GMT wrote in message news:1131207869.974446.124100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Chris, here's a question for you. (I'm assuming that you are working > with FSK TTY.) > > Is the classic 850-Hz shift still the current standard as it was during > the 1960s when I was still involved in TTY? I had thought that it had > been reduced to something like 75-Hz during the 70s due to the problems > with propagation path differences over a 850-Hz frequency spread. > > Also, back in the mid-60s, it was sort of presumed that AFSK would soon > replace FSK... Did that ever actually happen? > I don't know when the 170 hz shift took over for most use. It was being used about 25 years ago on the low bands for most of the users when I first started rtty. FSK is still all that is allowed on the low bands. Today it is generated by using a SSB transmitter in the SLB mode and feeding in audio tones. This generates a signal that is the same comming out of the transmitter as a FSK transmitter. That is possiable due to the way a ssb transmitter works. If the same rig was switched to AM or FM them it would be AFSK. YOu can go here and download some programs that you can use on the computer to do the digital modes. As I mentioned above by feeding the audio tones into the mic or audio input of a ssb transmitter you will be generating FSK eventhough it might not seem so. http://www.muenster.de/~welp/sb.htm One of the best free programs to get started with in rtty is the MMTTY program. Article: 94833 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "johan aeq" References: <436C5951.8060604@nowhere.com> Subject: Re: Cheap Repeater Controller??? Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 18:40:12 +0100 Message-ID: <8066f$436cf036$52ad139c$11542@news.versatel.nl> Hello, i have found the site... http://rivat.chez-alice.fr/soft/simplex/readme.txt I hope you can use this program... "Leif Holmgren" schreef in bericht news:436C5951.8060604@nowhere.com... > How cheap is cheap? > > What is nothing fancy? > > Is the use of a PC a requirement? > > I'm in the process of building a controller myself. Check this link for > current status: > > http://home.swipnet.se/sm4rpq/elec/slcrc/slcrc.html > > I'd say you get away with something around 5-15$ depending on you > junkboxes size. > > Warning, there are some dead links on it and no diagrams yet. > > /Leif > > Bill wrote: > > I am in the process of building a 2M repeater. I have everything except for > > a controller. I am looking for a cheap controller or a circuit to build my > > own. I don't need anything fancy. Also is there any PC Controller software > > besides EchoStation? > > > > Bill > > > > > Article: 94834 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:36:06 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: Problem with soldering gun References: <43607616$0$5437$626a14ce@news.free.fr> Message-ID: Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote: > > My worry with many of the "big iron" methods is that it's very hard to > be sure you have a good solder joint, all the way down the sides of the > hole. More often, I suspect it makes a good joint to the braid but a > cold joint to the sides of the hole. This may look OK, but the plug of > solder may eventually work loose in the hole. > > A handy trick is to enlarge the holes with a drill or reamer or to make them slightly oblong with a small triangular file. I've seen some connectors with an oblong opening as standard. It does make for easier soldering. -Bill Article: 94835 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "W3JDR" References: <1131196562.702038.225900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Pulling crystal Message-ID: Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:03:45 GMT Chris, You didn't say what you're using for th active element...you only gave pin numbers. Can you elaborate? Joe W3JDR "Apparatus" wrote in message news:1131196562.702038.225900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hi, > > I am working on building a VCO for FSK with 850 Hz separation between > mark and space. I am building it using a 16.000 MHz 32pf parallel load > crystal. I am pulling the crystal via a varactor to implement the FSK. > However, the amplitude between mark and space is an unacceptable 10 dB > with about 700 Hz of shift. Any ideas on how to pull the crystal > without changing the amplitude of the mark and space frequencies > considerably? > > A bit about my circuit: have an 8 - 50 pF tuning cap across pins 6 and > 7; a 22pF cap shunts pin 7. The crystal shunts pin 6. A 100nF DC block > cap separates pin 6 from the 8 - 29 pF (3 to 10 V reverse bias) > varactor. A 1mH inductor isolates AC from the varactor biasing. > > I tried adding 1uH of inductance in series with the crystal. This moved > the oscillation frequency up, but the amplitude problem remained. I > tried putting the varactor across the tuning cap. This configuration > exhibited the same amplitude shift problem, but shifted the frequency > up rather than down. I tried combining the two shifts via two varactors > and a JFET to invert the biases, one across the crystal (as originally) > and one across the tuning cap. This didn't work well (very noisy > spectrum). > > Any ideas as to what could be the problem and how to fix it? > > Cheers, > Chris > Article: 94836 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Bill" References: <436C5951.8060604@nowhere.com> Subject: Re: Cheap Repeater Controller??? Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:48:58 -0330 I just need something for $50 or less to give me a hang timer and time-out timer. A CW ID would be a bonus. No a PC is not required. You controller seems it may do the job. Is it complete yet? Bill "Leif Holmgren" wrote in message news:436C5951.8060604@nowhere.com... > How cheap is cheap? > > What is nothing fancy? > > Is the use of a PC a requirement? > > I'm in the process of building a controller myself. Check this link for > current status: > > http://home.swipnet.se/sm4rpq/elec/slcrc/slcrc.html > > I'd say you get away with something around 5-15$ depending on you > junkboxes size. > > Warning, there are some dead links on it and no diagrams yet. > > /Leif > > Bill wrote: >> I am in the process of building a 2M repeater. I have everything except >> for a controller. I am looking for a cheap controller or a circuit to >> build my own. I don't need anything fancy. Also is there any PC >> Controller software besides EchoStation? >> >> Bill > Article: 94837 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Bill" References: Subject: Re: Cheap Repeater Controller??? Message-ID: <09ibf.20767$LF3.1184626@news20.bellglobal.com> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:50:41 -0330 Thanks for the links. I didn't know you could get a NHRC-2 kit for that price. I think I may try svxlink as well. Bill "CA" wrote in message news:E7%af.149980$dP1.507691@newsc.telia.net... > 35 USD for the NHRC-2 kit > http://www.nhrc.net/nhrc-2/ > > http://svxlink.sourceforge.net/ > > http://members.aol.com/repeaterlogic/ > > http://www.metronic.nu/rlm/ > > 73 > SM6PXJ > > > "Bill" skrev i meddelandet > news:IbF8f.8354$ki7.678793@news20.bellglobal.com... >>I am in the process of building a 2M repeater. I have everything except >>for a controller. I am looking for a cheap controller or a circuit to >>build my own. I don't need anything fancy. Also is there any PC >>Controller software besides EchoStation? >> >> Bill >> > > Article: 94838 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Bill" References: <436C5951.8060604@nowhere.com> <8066f$436cf036$52ad139c$11542@news.versatel.nl> Subject: Re: Cheap Repeater Controller??? Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:52:13 -0330 Thanks. That looks very simple use. Looks good. May give it a try. I have lots to choose from. Bill "johan aeq" wrote in message news:8066f$436cf036$52ad139c$11542@news.versatel.nl... > Hello, > i have found the site... > http://rivat.chez-alice.fr/soft/simplex/readme.txt > I hope you can use this program... > > > "Leif Holmgren" schreef in bericht > news:436C5951.8060604@nowhere.com... >> How cheap is cheap? >> >> What is nothing fancy? >> >> Is the use of a PC a requirement? >> >> I'm in the process of building a controller myself. Check this link for >> current status: >> >> http://home.swipnet.se/sm4rpq/elec/slcrc/slcrc.html >> >> I'd say you get away with something around 5-15$ depending on you >> junkboxes size. >> >> Warning, there are some dead links on it and no diagrams yet. >> >> /Leif >> >> Bill wrote: >> > I am in the process of building a 2M repeater. I have everything >> > except > for >> > a controller. I am looking for a cheap controller or a circuit to >> > build > my >> > own. I don't need anything fancy. Also is there any PC Controller > software >> > besides EchoStation? >> > >> > Bill >> > >> > >> > > Article: 94840 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Mario Bros" Subject: 100W PA ITT MACKAY SSB6100 Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:01:10 +0100 Message-ID: <436e0ca0$0$6008$4fafbaef@reader4.news.tin.it> Hello OM, I am trying the schematics of the 100W final amplifier of the ITT MACKAY Marine RadioThelephone SSB6100. You it is possible to help me in some way? I say to you infinite thanks. 73's de IK6GQC Rocco Article: 94841 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: nothermark Subject: Re: Battery quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever Message-ID: References: Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:10:23 GMT On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:11:01 GMT, "Asimov" wrote: >"mcalhoun@ksu.edu" bravely wrote to "All" (03 Nov 05 13:46:08) > --- on the heady topic of "Battery quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever" > > mc> From: mcalhoun@ksu.edu > mc> Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.homebrew:88699 > > mc> Has anyone investigated the > mc> quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/ whatever of ordinary AA (or > mc> other) cells? I recently saw the following in a local store: > > mc> (I determined COST as the price for the most-economical > mc> blister-pack divided by the number of cells in that pack.) > > mc> $ COST > mc> EACH MANUFACTURER BRAND NAME OTHER CLAIM > mc> ------ ------------ ---------- ------------------------------ > mc> 0.4435 Duracell CopperTop > mc> 0.4435 Energizer Max > mc> 0.81 Energizer Titanium > mc> 0.2875 Rayovac Alkaline Same Performance, Better Price > mc> 0.235 Rayovac Heavy Duty > mc> 0.36 (StoreBrand) Ever Alive > > mc> 2.105 Energizer Lithium > mc> 2.4575 Energizer Rechargable > mc> 2.2425 Rayovac Rechargable > mc> -- > mc> --Myron A. Calhoun. > > >Have a look at AAA's for a chuckle. If we compare them by mass, one >gets 4 times less in AAA's (2 cells) than in AA's (4 cells) for the >*same* price. The battery makers must be giggling all the way to the >bank over this one. Howver, my remote control doesn't care if it is a >fine vintage Union Carbide or a China special. That will have an >effect eventually, especially in lost jobs. > > A*s*i*m*o*v > >... I came, I saw, I got sidetracked, I forgot why I was here. >From a manufacturer's point of view AA and AAA probably cost about the same. Small long tubes are harder to draw and fill without rejects. What really annoys me is the way designers are pushing toward AAA in LED flashlights and small portable radios to keep the weight/size down. I would much rather have AA. Article: 94842 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Bill Sohl" References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Message-ID: <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:55:54 GMT "Spike" wrote in message news:51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com... > > Polymouth wrote: > >>>Radio Hams are in a unique privileged position in that >>>they can construct and operate their own equipment! No-one >>>else has this privilege. > > [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to > specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some > circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter. That is essentially true also for the US. The amateur license is ONLY needed for "on-the-air" operation of a transmitter. In contrast, anyone can construct and operate a reciever. > [ ] A pass in a current examination for a UK Amateur Licence qualifies > the successful candidate for the issue of a UK Licence. Holders of the > appropriate levels of licence are permitted to operate transmitting > equipment that is not subject to a formal approvals procedure, and to > carry out technical investigations. A qualification for a Licence, or > the Licence itself, is not, repeat not, a qualification to specify, > design, construct, modify, repair, or own transmitting equipment. I think that can be generally said as true also for the US. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Article: 94843 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Jim Higgins Subject: Re: Problem with soldering gun Message-ID: References: <43607616$0$5437$626a14ce@news.free.fr> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:36:45 GMT On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:36:06 -0400, Bill wrote: >Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote: > > >> >> My worry with many of the "big iron" methods is that it's very hard to >> be sure you have a good solder joint, all the way down the sides of the >> hole. More often, I suspect it makes a good joint to the braid but a >> cold joint to the sides of the hole. This may look OK, but the plug of >> solder may eventually work loose in the hole. >> >> >A handy trick is to enlarge the holes with a drill or reamer or to make >them slightly oblong with a small triangular file. I've seen some >connectors with an oblong opening as standard. It does make for easier >soldering. This is where silver plated connectors really excel. They are soooo easy to solder to. Otherwise I scrape - not ream - away the nickel plating on standard connectors to expose the brass underneath to improve solderability. For standard connectors I use a knife - not the tip, but the usual long cutting surface - to scrape across the holes. This leaves an oblong section of exposed brass around a hole that is still round and still original size. If you want to ream the inside edges of the hole, be my guest, but no real need to enlarge it beyond just exposing the underlying brass. It's really easy to see whether that exposed tapered brass surface has been wetted by the solder. It's not easy to determine whether the brass on the inside edge of a hole that has been carefully reamed with a small drill bit has been wetted. Article: 94844 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Spike Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 16:20:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> Bill Sohl wrote: > >"Spike" wrote > >> Polymouth wrote: >> >>>>Radio Hams are in a unique privileged position in that >>>>they can construct and operate their own equipment! No-one >>>>else has this privilege. >> >> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to >> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some >> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter. > >That is essentially true also for the US. The amateur license is >ONLY needed for "on-the-air" operation of a transmitter. >In contrast, anyone can construct and operate a reciever. Yes, it's a reasonably common theme that seems to have been totally missed by this chap. It makes one wonder if he has a full grasp of his Licence conditions >> [ ] A pass in a current examination for a UK Amateur Licence qualifies >> the successful candidate for the issue of a UK Licence. Holders of the >> appropriate levels of licence are permitted to operate transmitting >> equipment that is not subject to a formal approvals procedure, and to >> carry out technical investigations. A qualification for a Licence, or >> the Licence itself, is not, repeat not, a qualification to specify, >> design, construct, modify, repair, or own transmitting equipment. > >I think that can be generally said as true also for the US. > >Cheers, >Bill K2UNK The other thing to be aware of is that this chap, in this sock-puppet and his innumerable previous ones, has alternately decried e.g contest operating as being the act of a "CBer", and then swung completely about and used it as a justification for the description of a 'radio ham'. I've lost count now of how many times this circle has been gone round. It must make anyone who is keen on becoming a 'radio ham' very confused, as the fundamental basis on which it is built changes so often! from Aero Spike Article: 94845 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:18:51 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> "Spike" wrote in message news:hqasm110vl3bk7cicjsbe87rb9k03g1af4@4ax.com... > > Bill Sohl wrote: > > > > >"Spike" wrote > > > >> Polymouth wrote: > >> > >>>>Radio Hams are in a unique privileged position in that > >>>>they can construct and operate their own equipment! No-one > >>>>else has this privilege. > >> > >> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to > >> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some > >> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter. > > > >That is essentially true also for the US. The amateur license is > >ONLY needed for "on-the-air" operation of a transmitter. > >In contrast, anyone can construct and operate a reciever. > > Yes, it's a reasonably common theme that seems to have been totally > missed by this chap. It makes one wonder if he has a full grasp of his > Licence conditions > > >> [ ] A pass in a current examination for a UK Amateur Licence qualifies > >> the successful candidate for the issue of a UK Licence. Holders of the > >> appropriate levels of licence are permitted to operate transmitting > >> equipment that is not subject to a formal approvals procedure, and to > >> carry out technical investigations. A qualification for a Licence, or > >> the Licence itself, is not, repeat not, a qualification to specify, > >> design, construct, modify, repair, or own transmitting equipment. > > > >I think that can be generally said as true also for the US. > > > >Cheers, > >Bill K2UNK > > The other thing to be aware of is that this chap, in this sock-puppet > and his innumerable previous ones, has alternately decried e.g contest > operating as being the act of a "CBer", and then swung completely > about and used it as a justification for the description of a 'radio > ham'. I've lost count now of how many times this circle has been gone > round. It must make anyone who is keen on becoming a 'radio ham' very > confused, as the fundamental basis on which it is built changes so > often! > > from > Aero Spike I wonder where the law stands as far as CB radio's go. Are CB's allowed to be repaired by the average CB'er who has the knowledge or are they only repairable by a qualified technician of some kind. I ask along the lines of the UK but would find the answer for America just as interesting. Regards, Graham Article: 94846 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Spike Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 17:37:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> The Magnum wrote: >I wonder where the law stands as far as CB radio's go. Are CB's allowed to >be repaired by the average CB'er who has the knowledge or are they only >repairable by a qualified technician of some kind. I ask along the lines of >the UK but would find the answer for America just as interesting. I can't answer your question, but perhaps this is one of those cases where it is better not to ask, but to carry on as before. Having a piece of gear repaired by a certified authority will probably cost more than buying a new one.... from Aero Spike Article: 94847 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:44:29 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> "Spike" wrote in message news:ckfsm1li70gu4tej6ov6k1tfo2mcd8qcu4@4ax.com... > > The Magnum wrote: > > >I wonder where the law stands as far as CB radio's go. Are CB's allowed to > >be repaired by the average CB'er who has the knowledge or are they only > >repairable by a qualified technician of some kind. I ask along the lines of > >the UK but would find the answer for America just as interesting. > > I can't answer your question, but perhaps this is one of those cases > where it is better not to ask, but to carry on as before. Having a > piece of gear repaired by a certified authority will probably cost > more than buying a new one.... > > from > Aero Spike Thanks for that, quick answer too :o) I would agree about the cost from a Certified Authority as most CB's in the UK are only worth between $26 - $52 and the repair bill from a qualified "tech" would be more than this... and would they indeed bother as they could make far more money with the same effort repairing other items more valuable... I was just curious as to the legallity of repairing a CB. I wasnt admitting to anything.. honest .... ;o) Regards, Graham Article: 94848 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Spike Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:26:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> The Magnum wrote: >I was just curious as to the legallity of repairing a CB. I wasnt admitting >to anything.. honest .... ;o) LOL! Unfortunately, Amateur Radio has seen increasing restrictions placed on it due to people seeking 'clarification' from the authorities, rather than enjoying freedom given by the sometimes loosely-worded regulations.... from Aero Spike Article: 94849 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:18:18 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> "Spike" wrote in message news:khism191mjcd9jtlhrk8jt2gsp7r125c3k@4ax.com... > > The Magnum wrote: > > >I was just curious as to the legallity of repairing a CB. I wasnt admitting > >to anything.. honest .... ;o) > > LOL! > > Unfortunately, Amateur Radio has seen increasing restrictions placed > on it due to people seeking 'clarification' from the authorities, > rather than enjoying freedom given by the sometimes loosely-worded > regulations.... > > from > Aero Spike Sounds good to me, now wheres my hammer and screwdriver.. im sure theres an extra half watt in there somewhere ;o) Article: 94850 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "PowerHouse Communications" References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:45:58 -0600 "The Magnum" wrote in message news:dkldtm$72s$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > I wonder where the law stands as far as CB radio's go. Are CB's allowed to > be repaired by the average CB'er who has the knowledge or are they only > repairable by a qualified technician of some kind. I ask along the lines of > the UK but would find the answer for America just as interesting. > I'm not sure why this thread is even being cross-posted into a CB group, but to answer your question, in the US, the radio must be serviced by a qualified, licensed individual. That is the "legal" way of doing it anyway. It doesn't happen very often, but that is another story for another time... Article: 94851 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Ralph Mowery" References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Message-ID: Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:25:13 GMT > I'm not sure why this thread is even being cross-posted into a CB group, but > to answer your question, in the US, the radio must be serviced by a > qualified, licensed individual. That is the "legal" way of doing it anyway. > It doesn't happen very often, but that is another story for another time... > > Get a new rule book like one that is newer than say about 10 or so years. The CB radios in the US has not required a license to repair them in many years. The GROL is the replacement for the 1st and 2 nd class licenses that used to be required to repair many transmitters. For about 95 % of the transmitters in the US it is now worthless and not needed. Some companies may require it as they think they are getting someone that may know something. Now it is only needed for : ***************** General Radiotelephone Operator License (GROL) is required to adjust maintain, or internally repair FCC licensed radiotelephone transmitters in the aviation, maritime and international fixed public radio services. It conveys all of the operating authority of the MROP. It is required to operate the following: any maritime land radio station or compulsorily equipped ship radiotelephone station operating with more than 1500 watts of peak envelope power; voluntarily equipped ship and aeronautical (including aircraft) stations with more than 1000 watts of peak envelope power ******************** Go here for more info on the licenses that are now issued. http://www.narte.org/h/fccabout.asp Article: 94852 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 22:46:56 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> "PowerHouse Communications" wrote in message news:CXtbf.9915$7s1.1097@fe04.lga... > > "The Magnum" wrote in message > news:dkldtm$72s$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > > I wonder where the law stands as far as CB radio's go. Are CB's allowed to > > be repaired by the average CB'er who has the knowledge or are they only > > repairable by a qualified technician of some kind. I ask along the lines > of > > the UK but would find the answer for America just as interesting. > > > > I'm not sure why this thread is even being cross-posted into a CB group, but Because its a question about CB's ?????????? > to answer your question, in the US, the radio must be serviced by a > qualified, licensed individual. That is the "legal" way of doing it anyway. > It doesn't happen very often, but that is another story for another time... Thanks for that. So the theory i get so far is anyone can build an Amateur radio but they cant "repair" a CB radio.... lol.. it is a crazy world Article: 94853 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Ralph Mowery" References: <1131116439.255278.104600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9jbnm1tne70t07vanlm9gdcm0i5hgq732d@4ax.com> <51lnm1pddpiph0ei9081g8ouhajt17721u@4ax.com> <_Pobf.4907$2y.3846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: The FAQ - because no-one has an alternative one. Message-ID: Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:37:03 GMT > Thanks for that. So the theory i get so far is anyone can build an Amateur > radio but they cant "repair" a CB radio.... lol.. it is a crazy world > > See comments above about license not needed any more for CB repair in the US. It used to be the Amateur tests were about on par with the comercial class licenses. The main differance was just the regulatory rules and not the electrical part. That was about 1972 when I passed the 1 st class license. The way they are now anyone with a good memory can pass the tests. My wife passed the Technichan class about 1987 or 88 just by memorizing the Q&A pool. She doesn't know or care about the technical part of radio.