Now Neil, be nice. Just because your license was endorsed by Edwin Armstrong doesn't mean that you can't be pleasant to us new QCWA members.
At 09:50 PM 5/23/05, you wrote: > Humpf ... new-comer ... > > Neil - WA6KLA > > >"Mark A. Holman" wrote: > > > > Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were > > discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz. was on the exam > > probably. > > > > Mark AB8RU > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM > > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > > > > > Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to > > > Hertz transition. > > > To all else, > > > cycles-per-second = Hertz > > > Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz > > > Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz > > > From this point add what ever prefix that applies. > > > Gee, What kind of table do you need? > > > My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second = > > > Hertz" > > > 73 > > > AC0Y > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would > > > be: > > > > > > > > KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before > > > KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old. > > > > > > > > Joe K5FOG > > > > > > > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > > > > > > > On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote: > > > > > > > > >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study. > > > > > > > > > >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> KiloHertz is the correct term! > > > > >> > > > > >> Richard, N7TGB > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: [email protected] > > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX > > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM > > > > >> To: [email protected] > > > > >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles? > > > > >> > > > > >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >------- Original Message ------- > > > > >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM > > > > >> > >To : [email protected] > > > > >> > >Cc : > > > > >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >Alexander, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >The > > > > >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on > > > a network > > > > >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem. > > > It's only > > > > >a > > > > >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation, > > > so no > > > > >amount > > > > >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above > > > its design > > > > >> > >limit. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please > > > realize that > > > > >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M > > > duplexer at > > > > >500 > > > > >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter > > > repeaters > > > > >> are > > > > >> > operated. This added frequency separation allows for the > > > duplexer to > > > > >> > provide more than the stated isolation at the 500 kiloHertz > > > > >specification. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The Wacom WP-641 is specified at 85 dB of isolation at a 500 > > > kiloHertz > > > > >> > split, but provides 93 dB of isolation at 600 kiloHertz. The > > > Sinclair > > > > >> Q202G > > > > >> > is similar in its factory specifications, and isolation > > > provided. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Kevin Custer Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
