Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tracker2] Rev E recive filter?

Expand Messages
  • Scott Miller
    Could be - C2 should be 0.001 uF, not 0.01 uF. Scott
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Could be - C2 should be 0.001 uF, not 0.01 uF.

      Scott

      Dan Zubey wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hey Scott...I remember something awhile back that the OT2 rev E had a
      > wrong part on the rx filter..is that right? I'm tweaking my setup in
      > advance of my Nuvi 350 coming, and I noticed that the OT2 is only
      > receiving less than 1/2 of the packets that it "should", and wondered if
      > that might be the problem.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > -Dan N7NMD
      >
      >
    • Randy Love
      Scott, I have a couple of OT2m s that I got from you back in September 08 that don t seem to hear as well as they should. Could this possibly be their
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 12, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Scott,

        I have a couple of OT2m's that I got from you back in September '08 that don't seem to hear as well as they should. Could this possibly be their problem?

        I get the solid or flickering RX led on most packets, but only 1 out of every 6 or so seems to decode.

        Thanks,
        Randy
        WF5X


      • Scott Miller
        That could definitely be it. If you need the EQ circuit, replacing C2 makes a big improvement. I can do the replacement if you want, or I can send you the
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 12, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          That could definitely be it. If you need the EQ circuit, replacing C2
          makes a big improvement. I can do the replacement if you want, or I can
          send you the parts. They're 0603 size SMTs.

          Scott

          Randy Love wrote:
          >
          >
          > Scott,
          >
          > I have a couple of OT2m's that I got from you back in September '08 that
          > don't seem to hear as well as they should. Could this possibly be their
          > problem?
          >
          > I get the solid or flickering RX led on most packets, but only 1 out of
          > every 6 or so seems to decode.
          >
          > Thanks,
          > Randy
          > WF5X
          >
          >
          >
        • Dan Zubey
          Too late for me. I just finished scratching^H^H^Hunsoldering the chip cap off and slapped a 103 on it. ...I m right in that a 103 is .001, right?
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 12, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Too late for me. I just finished scratching^H^H^Hunsoldering the chip
            cap off and slapped a 103 on it.

            ...I'm right in that a 103 is .001, right?


            On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 20:59 -0700, Scott Miller wrote:
            > That could definitely be it. If you need the EQ circuit, replacing C2
            > makes a big improvement. I can do the replacement if you want, or I can
            > send you the parts. They're 0603 size SMTs.
            >
            > Scott
            >
            > Randy Love wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > Scott,
            > >
            > > I have a couple of OT2m's that I got from you back in September '08 that
            > > don't seem to hear as well as they should. Could this possibly be their
            > > problem?
            > >
            > > I get the solid or flickering RX led on most packets, but only 1 out of
            > > every 6 or so seems to decode.
            > >
            > > Thanks,
            > > Randy
            > > WF5X
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Randy Love
            Scott, Thanks for the offer. Let me do a test this weekend though before I ask for those squished half grains of wild rice. :) I just found the packet test CD
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 13, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Scott,

              Thanks for the offer. Let me do a test this weekend though before I
              ask for those squished half grains of wild rice. :)

              I just found the packet test CD image that Stephen, WA8LMF, has out
              there. I'll run it against the 2 Tracker2's with and without the EQ in
              and see what the difference in decode is. That will help me isolate if
              its the EQ or not. I've been running the one primarily as a mobile
              using the packet/data port on a Yaesu FT-8900. I need to put them
              against a 'known standard' first to determine if the issue is the set
              level from the FT-8900 or not. I've run it mobile on the 8900 with and
              without EQ and there seems to be little difference in decode
              performance.

              Randy
              WF5X
            • Bob Donnell
              Nope - that s 0.01 uF a.k.a. 10000 pF ... From: tracker2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tracker2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Zubey Sent: Thursday, March 12,
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 13, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Nope - that's 0.01 uF a.k.a. 10000 pF

                -----Original Message-----
                From: tracker2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tracker2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of Dan Zubey
                Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:51 PM
                To: tracker2@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [tracker2] Rev E recive filter?

                Too late for me. I just finished scratching^H^H^Hunsoldering the chip cap
                off and slapped a 103 on it.

                ...I'm right in that a 103 is .001, right?


                On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 20:59 -0700, Scott Miller wrote:
                > That could definitely be it. If you need the EQ circuit, replacing C2
                > makes a big improvement. I can do the replacement if you want, or I
                > can send you the parts. They're 0603 size SMTs.
                >
                > Scott
                >
                > Randy Love wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Scott,
                > >
                > > I have a couple of OT2m's that I got from you back in September '08
                > > that don't seem to hear as well as they should. Could this possibly
                > > be their problem?
                > >
                > > I get the solid or flickering RX led on most packets, but only 1 out
                > > of every 6 or so seems to decode.
                > >
                > > Thanks,
                > > Randy
                > > WF5X
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >



                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Scott Miller
                I ve got another recording someone sent in of a radio (a Midland, I think) that really needs the EQ jumper installed to work right. That was what led me to
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 15, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  I've got another recording someone sent in of a radio (a Midland, I
                  think) that really needs the EQ jumper installed to work right. That
                  was what led me to the mistake in the circuit - the WA8LMF CD still
                  worked well enough with the wrong value.

                  Scott

                  Randy Love wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Scott,
                  >
                  > Thanks for the offer. Let me do a test this weekend though before I
                  > ask for those squished half grains of wild rice. :)
                  >
                  > I just found the packet test CD image that Stephen, WA8LMF, has out
                  > there. I'll run it against the 2 Tracker2's with and without the EQ in
                  > and see what the difference in decode is. That will help me isolate if
                  > its the EQ or not. I've been running the one primarily as a mobile
                  > using the packet/data port on a Yaesu FT-8900. I need to put them
                  > against a 'known standard' first to determine if the issue is the set
                  > level from the FT-8900 or not. I've run it mobile on the 8900 with and
                  > without EQ and there seems to be little difference in decode
                  > performance.
                  >
                  > Randy
                  > WF5X
                  >
                  >
                • Mike Zwingl oe3mzc
                  Scott, I also have an OT2m from same period (autumn08) and have difficulties to get it receive on a Bosch KFxxx (former Taxi radio) Could you please specify
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 17, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Scott,
                    I also have an OT2m from same period (autumn08) and have difficulties to get it receive on a Bosch KFxxx (former Taxi radio)
                    Could you please specify again, which value of which capacitor you are talking and what should be the correct value,pse
                    so that I can fix it locally.
                    tnx
                    de oe3mzc
                    Mike
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:47 PM
                    Subject: Re: [tracker2] Rev E recive filter?

                    I've got another recording someone sent in of a radio (a Midland, I
                    think) that really needs the EQ jumper installed to work right. That
                    was what led me to the mistake in the circuit - the WA8LMF CD still
                    worked well enough with the wrong value.

                    Scott

                    Randy Love wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Scott,
                    >
                    > Thanks for the offer. Let me do a test this weekend though before I
                    > ask for those squished half grains of wild rice. :)
                    >
                    > I just found the packet test CD image that Stephen, WA8LMF, has out
                    > there. I'll run it against the 2 Tracker2's with and without the EQ in
                    > and see what the difference in decode is. That will help me isolate if
                    > its the EQ or not. I've been running the one primarily as a mobile
                    > using the packet/data port on a Yaesu FT-8900. I need to put them
                    > against a 'known standard' first to determine if the issue is the set
                    > level from the FT-8900 or not. I've run it mobile on the 8900 with and
                    > without EQ and there seems to be little difference in decode
                    > performance.
                    >
                    > Randy
                    > WF5X
                    >
                    >

                  • Scott Miller
                    C2 should be 1000 pF / 0.001 uF. Scott
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 17, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      C2 should be 1000 pF / 0.001 uF.

                      Scott

                      Mike Zwingl oe3mzc wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Scott,
                      > I also have an OT2m from same period (autumn08) and have difficulties to
                      > get it receive on a Bosch KFxxx (former Taxi radio)
                      > Could you please specify again, which value of which capacitor you are
                      > talking and what should be the correct value,pse
                      > so that I can fix it locally.
                      > tnx
                      > de oe3mzc
                      > Mike
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > *From:* Scott Miller <mailto:scott@...>
                      > *To:* tracker2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tracker2@yahoogroups.com>
                      > *Sent:* Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:47 PM
                      > *Subject:* Re: [tracker2] Rev E recive filter?
                      >
                      > I've got another recording someone sent in of a radio (a Midland, I
                      > think) that really needs the EQ jumper installed to work right. That
                      > was what led me to the mistake in the circuit - the WA8LMF CD still
                      > worked well enough with the wrong value.
                      >
                      > Scott
                      >
                      > Randy Love wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Scott,
                      > >
                      > > Thanks for the offer. Let me do a test this weekend though before I
                      > > ask for those squished half grains of wild rice. :)
                      > >
                      > > I just found the packet test CD image that Stephen, WA8LMF, has out
                      > > there. I'll run it against the 2 Tracker2's with and without the
                      > EQ in
                      > > and see what the difference in decode is. That will help me
                      > isolate if
                      > > its the EQ or not. I've been running the one primarily as a mobile
                      > > using the packet/data port on a Yaesu FT-8900. I need to put them
                      > > against a 'known standard' first to determine if the issue is the set
                      > > level from the FT-8900 or not. I've run it mobile on the 8900
                      > with and
                      > > without EQ and there seems to be little difference in decode
                      > > performance.
                      > >
                      > > Randy
                      > > WF5X
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.