Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+more\s+CATV\s+questions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+more\s+CATV\s+questions\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] more CATV questions (score: 1): Author: Ted.Boerkamp.boerkamp@nt.com (Ted Boerkamp); Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 10:07:13 -0400; hello everyone....first, i wish to thank everyone who has responded to my earlier msg concerning the measuring/cutting of CATV cable.... I guess at this point I have a choice to make....my dilema is; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00136.html (8,779 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] more CATV questions (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (T A RUSSELL); Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:50:04 -0600; My preferred method is to use multiples of 1/2 WL on 80M, but then most of my long runs are 300 to 600 ft. Answers to your questions are included below. For less than 200 ft, some of the new low loss; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00151.html (10,856 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] more CATV questions (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 08:19:16 -0400; Hi Ted, With 112 feet, you won't have a half wave on 160. A length about that long would be OK for the other bands. Just be sure the VF is what you think it is, because a very slight error can totall; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00177.html (9,326 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] more CATV questions (score: 1): Author: Chad_Kurszewski@csg.mot.com (WE9V Chad Kurszewski); Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 10:48:15 -0500; Yes, be careful!! I measured 0.87 for VF in the hardline I just installed (3/4" CATV). A friend assumed 0.81 plus a little in his CATV and was way SHORT. -- Chad Kurszewski, WE9V e-mail: WE9V@qth.com; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00180.html (8,536 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]