Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

On 4/6/07, allan crites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jeff DePolo, Gary Schafer, Nate Duehr, and Burt Lang, Thanks for the kind words, Allan -- but I really didn't add much to the topic other than to direct folks to information publicly available via Amphenol's website. It's been just as enter

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

75 ohm cable has a smaller diameter center conductor than a 50 ohm cable that has the same outer shield size. 73 Gary K4FMX - From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of allan crites Sent: Thursday, M

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

At 3/22/2007 16:33, you wrote: > >From: Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! > >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

> -Original Message- > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:04 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and rev

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

> -Original Message- > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:15 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and re

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! I sure would like to hear what you all mean by " constant impedance ". Allan Crites, WA9ZZU Gary Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -Original Message---

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

At 07:48 AM 3/23/2007, you wrote: >DOH! That should have said "screw up" a UHF connector. Blame Freud, and >Ken with his Anna Nicole comment... < Ken

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

> One of the reasons you see UHF connectors on VHF and UHF > mobile radios, > including commercial radios, is because it is a lot harder to > screw a UHF > connector. DOH! That should have said "screw up" a UHF connector. Blame Freud, and Ken with his Anna Nicole comment...

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

> I've stayed out of the debate so far, but even Amphenol claims > "nominal 50 ohm impedance" for their 50 ohm BNC connectors up to 4 > GHz. On their N-connector they drop the "nominal" but they don't > elaborate. BNC's are rated for a lower MUF because the mechanics of the bayonet lock aren't id

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

I think I will continue to use crimps and proper rubber seal wrap . >From: Burt Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! >Date: Fri, 23 Ma

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

True, but I don't think she was constant impedance, either... Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Fred Flowers I think she could take any size pin. Fred Sorry couldn't resist. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

; dips. This cannot be achieved with RF connectors that do not have constant > impedance. > > 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > > > -Original Message- > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of allan crites > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:57 PM >

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

epeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! > > > Gary wrote: > > Yes I know you can plug an N connector into a bnc. > > > Yes you can but I believe you will find the pin on a N male is larger than > a BNC >

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

AIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of allan crites Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! I sure would like to hear what you all mean by " constant impedance ". Allan Crites, WA9ZZU

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

I think she could take any size pin. Fred Sorry couldn't resist. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Arck Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

On 3/22/07, Gary Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you really want to get picky use only N connectors and not even bnc. A > bnc is not a constant impedance connector either although somewhat better > than a PL259. Yes I know you can plug an N connector into a bnc but the bnc > still is not a

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

Ken Arck > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:42 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! > > At 04:33 PM 3/22/2007, you wrote: > > > > > > > >doesn't make it right though considering

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

At 07:47 PM 3/22/2007, you wrote: >Yes you can but I believe you will find the pin on a N male is >larger than a BNC >female is designed to take.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

Gary wrote: Yes I know you can plug an N connector into a bnc. Yes you can but I believe you will find the pin on a N male is larger than a BNC female is designed to take. A 75 ohm N pin is probably close to the same as a BNC. Years ago after finding broken BNC jacks on some high d

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

> -Original Message- > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Arck > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:42 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

Barry C' wrote: Why would you even use pl259 connectors on uhf? Why not? Motorola and GE did? doesn't make it right though considering the potentual losses. Yea, what the heck do they know about radio anyway? Kevin

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

At 04:33 PM 3/22/2007, you wrote: >doesn't make it right though considering the potentual losses. <---Pt...don't tell anyone but a PL259 ain't as horrible (loss wise at least) at VHF & UHF as "folklore" would have you believe. The real issue is not of loss but rather that of a PL259 no

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

>From: DCFluX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:05:09 -0700 > > > Wby would you even use pl259 con

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

>From: Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:03:43 -0400 > > >>Why would you even use p

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

>From: Dexter McIntyre W4DEX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:39:25 -0400 > > > > Wby would you

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

> Wby would you even use pl259 connectors on uhf ? > Because a PL-259 is required for the best mobile UHF radio ever made. Motorola Syntor X W4DEX

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

> Wby would you even use pl259 connectors on uhf ? Because 90% of the ham equipment (not including HT's) I have seen made for UHF does. The UHF MASTR-II series comes with SO-239s, N was common on the 800 stuff. About the only time I have seen N seriously used is on duplexers and circulators. Pe

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

Why would you even use pl259 connectors on uhf? Why not? Motorola and GE did?

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

>From: "N9WYS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:10:58 -0500 > >FWIW - I used to weld aluminum with a gas torch (Oxy-Acet

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

At 11:58 AM 3/22/2007, you wrote: >I prefer to use 300 ohm twinlead and connect it right to the screw >terminals on the back of the repeater. No connectors, no dissimilar >metals- and the taller the tower the larger the radiator! <---And here I thought balanced lines were only needed for SSB (

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

At 3/22/2007 11:58 AM, you wrote: >I prefer to use 300 ohm twinlead and connect it right to the screw >terminals on the back of the repeater. No connectors, no dissimilar >metals- and the taller the tower the larger the radiator! Under ideal conditions twinlead doesn't radiate at all. However,

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:53:06 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised! At 11:20 AM 3/22/2007, you wrote: >Yea, but dont you have that anyway? copper/zinc/tin/whatever pl259's and >2 p

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

At 11:20 AM 3/22/2007, you wrote: >Yea, but dont you have that anyway? copper/zinc/tin/whatever pl259's and >2 piece N's are made of? <---Let's see here. The braid is aluminum, the foil is aluminum but the connector is copper/zinc/tin or maybe silver. Sounds like dissimilar metal contact to me!

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

Yea, but dont you have that anyway? copper/zinc/tin/whatever pl259's and 2 piece N's are made of? Ken Arck wrote: > > > At 06:16 AM 3/22/2007, you wrote: > > >That is exactly what I am talking about. Aluminum braid on aluminum > >foil.. No more dissimilar metal problems right? > >

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

FWIW - I used to weld aluminum with a gas torch (Oxy-Acetylene) a few years ago. And you are correct, it really took a bit to learn the "touch" needed to be able to do this. The rod melted at about 100 degrees lower than the work. (I repaired aluminum air conditioning condensers for cars...) Of

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

Remember folks, you can't solder to aluminum. Anyone who says different and shows you the magic stick that can is a liar. I see demos of this crap at ham fests every now and then and every time I try to use it the joint looks good until you pick it up and the entire thing falls apart. That aluminum

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

At 06:16 AM 3/22/2007, you wrote: >That is exactly what I am talking about. Aluminum braid on aluminum >foil.. No more dissimilar metal problems right?

Re: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

That is exactly what I am talking about. Aluminum braid on aluminum foil.. No more dissimilar metal problems right? Eric Lemmon wrote: > > > Jay, > > You are referring to the blurb on the lower right corner of page 69 of the > April, 2007, issue of QST. > > The notion of a "lite" version of

RE: [Repeater-Builder] LMR feedline revisited and revised!

Jay, You are referring to the blurb on the lower right corner of page 69 of the April, 2007, issue of QST. The notion of a "lite" version of any coaxial cable raises a red flag in my mind. Emotions aside, my take is that it will be LESS suitable for duplex work, and will enjoy the same low estee