Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+fancy\s+switches\s+Re\:\s+Antenna\s+Switch\s+Needed\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] fancy switches Re: Antenna Switch Needed (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:07:38 -0800
I've been thinking about using a small microcontroller with 802.11b on it (like from Rabbit Semi) for running remote switches. Do away with the control cables entirely. I wonder if anyone has any pra
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-01/msg00460.html (11,160 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] fancy switches Re: Antenna Switch Needed (score: 1)
Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:18:23 +0000
Don't forget you'll still need power at the remote box for the receiver and also for the relays themselves. Its easy enough to put dc or 60hz on feedlines to power remote equipment, its easy to switc
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-01/msg00464.html (13,119 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] fancy switches Re: Antenna Switch Needed (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:33:51 -0800
Yes.. but once you get past the switch one of 4 using rectified AC to get 2 bits to the other end, you're into some sort of remote control The rcs8v is fine, but once you start getting beyond that to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-01/msg00468.html (9,670 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] fancy switches Re: Antenna Switch Needed (score: 1)
Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:22:57 +0000
Yes, but if you are going to have to run power you can just as easily run control on the same cable, which might as well be the coax itself. If you want to do some fancy encoding and remote processor
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-01/msg00469.html (12,378 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu