Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+LMR\-900\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+LMR\-900\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: RICHARD SOLOMON <w1ksz@q.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 04:21:51 +0000; Check out page 64 of the August issue of QST. If it's in print, it must be true !! 73, Dick, W1KSZ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Towe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00278.html (6,378 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:57:33 -0500; What is the implication? Is LMR series cable not quality cable? Seems to be a good choice to me for 430 MHz. 73, de Nate >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00279.html (7,378 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: TexasRF@aol.com; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:52:36 EDT; Just for clarification about LMR900: There absolutely is a coaxial cable called LMR900 made by Times Microwave and sold through their distributors. It is a low loss and quality cable with performance; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00281.html (7,932 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Blake Bowers" <bbowers@mozarks.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:08:02 -0500; There is a school of thought out there that many subscribe to, myself included, that will not use LMR cables for long runs on a repeater, due to the noise that tends to be generated. Just as an aside; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00289.html (10,050 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:43:44 -0400; I would say unusual, but not extremely unusual. In fact there is a lot of 1-5/8" Heliax out there. I know, I'm nit-picking :) -Steve K8LX _______________________________________________ _____________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00291.html (7,519 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:53:14 -0400; I've never seen it to be a problem. Is this something they are afraid of, or something they have experienced and documented. If some one did have a problem, was it water getting in the coax. I've had; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00292.html (11,695 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:22:22 -0400; My entire system is LMR-600 with the exception of some Davis BuryFlex(TM) pigtails, and drops to the 80 meter slopers. I use RG-8X to the 40 meter half wave slopers. I opted for the 8X due to the sma; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00293.html (9,037 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:44:56 -0400; I've got long runs to deal with - 500' to the base of one tower, 400' to another, etc., and good stock on 1-5/8" Heliax and 1-5/8" Cell Reach, so you can guess what became irresistible. Plus I sold t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00295.html (9,266 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:35:44 -0400; First, I doubt that either of us have typical systems and yours if welll...I hate to admit it, but yours is bigger than mine. I'm not sure if I'd have enough muscle to pull that stuff up the tower an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00297.html (10,869 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Blake Bowers" <bbowers@mozarks.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:41:47 -0500; In my case, pretty well documented. UHF Community Repeater, and a VHF public safety repeater. After replacing everything else, replace the LMR and the recieve issues go away - no more noise introduce; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00298.html (9,990 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 02:51:46 -0400; I'd be inclined to think the problem lies with the connections rather than the cable. There really aren't enough examples to be anything other than anecdotal. I never had problems with it. What I did; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00299.html (11,187 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:49:08 -0700; Just for clarification about LMR900: There absolutely is a coaxial cable called LMR900 made by Times Microwave and sold through their distributors. It is a low loss and quality cable with performance; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00304.html (9,521 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Blake Bowers" <bbowers@mozarks.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:04:15 -0500; Your mileage may vary. I merely said that there was a school of thought about it. In the commercial world there are even tower owners that ban LMR from their sites. Connectors? Could be of course, bu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00305.html (12,751 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: George <n4ua.va@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:16:41 -0400; UF is probably not the ideal cable for most outdoor uses. The jacket on all of the UF (Ultraflex) Times cables does not withstand UV as well as the non-UF cables. Any sun-exposed use is likely a trad; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00307.html (10,008 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:45:43 -0400; This is theoretically possible if the connectors are installed in such a way as to separate the shields. If the connectors are installed UNDER the inner shield, LMR cables should be no different than; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00309.html (12,368 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:14:54 -0700; Interesting. Let's say I'm installing an Amphenol PL-259 on something like LMR400 or Commscope 3227 (similar shield construction). The connector is a tight screw-on fit to the jacket, the braid and f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00310.html (9,059 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: TexasRF@aol.com; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:57:37 EDT; Joe and others, I have installed many connectors on LMR400/500/600 both standard and U versions. I can't see any way to make a positive connection between the connector body and the INSIDE of the foi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00311.html (13,553 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: TexasRF@aol.com; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:13:48 EDT; Jim, if the braid and foil were in poor contact, they would constitute a very low impedance transmission line with the foil acting as center conductor and braid as outer conductor. After a very short; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00312.html (9,948 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR-900 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:45:07 -0400; Jim, In theory it would depend on the thickness of the inner shield vs. frequency (skin depth) and whether the inner shield was insulated (aluminum oxide is an insulator) and the electrical length be; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-07/msg00314.html (10,985 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]