Hi guys .just been following this thead .When you talk about 1/4 wavelength 
is there a formula  available to make these coax lengths.
I found a calculator and I am wondering if this is the right one http://www
csgnetwork.com/freqwavelengthcalc.html
Going off that 1/4 wavelength for my coax's should be 0.15 meters or 6
inches which is very short.
Does this 1/4 wavelength work between the transmitter and the diplexer as
well as interconnection cable length or should we have a different length
for it .
Thank You,
Ian Wells,
Kerinvale Comaudio,
361 Camboon Road.Biloela.4715
Phone 0749922574 or 0409159932
www.kerinvalecomaudio.com.au
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: ka1jfy
Date: 18/09/2008 6:41:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Cavity interconnection cable length
 
One of our engineers had a factory tour of EMR.
They did NOT calculate critical cable lengths, rather they had a pile 
of various length cables that they swapped in until it met specs. 
They were NOT optimized.

That same engineer finally got a SWAG from them that the loops in the 
EMR cavities are approximately 1/10th of a wavelength for calculation 
purposes.
That figure seems to have served us well over the last few years.
I'll ask whether I can publish the spreadsheet that we use for those 
calculations.
We use an HP 8711C network analyser to setup the cavities for our UHF 
radio system, and various other users [VHF, UHF, 800].

Walter, KD7BJJ

--- In [email protected], "kb9bpf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> 
> Many writings about the optimum length of cavity interconnecting 
cables 
> mention that the length of the coupling loops needs to be taken 
into 
> account, but they don't get any more specific. 
> 
> Does that mean the length of the conductor in the loop 
(circumference 
> if it were round) or connector-to-end length (diameter if it were 
> round) or something else?
> 
> I find it pretty easy to get the cables cut to a pretty precise 
> electrical 1/4 wavelength but this loop length thing leaves me 
guessing.
> 
> 73
> Brad KB9BPF
>


 
 

Reply via email to