Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BULK\]\s+\-\s+\[TowerTalk\]\s+RG\-11\s+Source\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BULK\]\s+\-\s+\[TowerTalk\]\s+RG\-11\s+Source\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. RE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:19:29 -0800; Tower Talkians, Anyone have a good source for quality RG-11? I need to install a moderately long run for cable tv. use RG216/U as a minimum (double shielded RG11/U), but frankly RG6 quad shielded, sa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00247.html (8,051 bytes)
2. Re: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:01:50 -0500; really is a much reduced where multipath is I don't think so Steve. In the field or outside a lab you can't measure the signal leakage through a single shield cable, unless the cable is defective or; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00271.html (10,247 bytes)
3. Re: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:36:38 -0500; Tom Rauch wrote: cheaper -- and it accepts the correct connectors. There really is a difference with the extra shielding -- you can see it in much reduced ghosting on signals, especially in metropoli; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00278.html (11,079 bytes)
4. RE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:13:17 -0800; That's not entirely true. Ever try to make a vhf or uhf duplexer on a two way radio system work with only single shield interconnects on the cavities? Especially with a close spaced system. You will; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00280.html (9,989 bytes)
5. Re: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:13:22 -0500; duplexer on a interconnects on the Not that this has much to do with TV ghosts, but it works perfectly for me. The feedlines routed around the repeater room here, even between cans and TX and RX sys; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00283.html (11,101 bytes)
6. RE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:18:12 -0600; About 30 years ago, I worked for an MATV contractor who had lots of installations in high rise buildings on Chicago's Lake Shore Drive, in the shadow of VHF and UHF transmitters on Hancock and Sears,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00284.html (9,914 bytes)
7. Re: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:50:54 -0500; had lots of Shore Drive, in the and with the vertical plane (1 shielded cable was less simply would We had dozens of large headends that used the worse possible thing, straight through 11 and 13 wit; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00290.html (10,991 bytes)
8. Re: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:36:15 -0500; Tom Rauch wrote: If someone thinks increasing something that doesn't set the limit is important, that's fine. Let's just not pretend it is good engineering or good science. 73 Tom Just saying it does; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00294.html (11,427 bytes)
9. Re: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source? (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:08:06 -0600; Channels 11 and 13 are NOT severe -- there is vertical directivity in their antenna system that knocks their signal down by AT LEAST 6 dB and probably 10 dB in the 1-3 mile range. The example I gave; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-02/msg00300.html (9,793 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]