Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+LMR600\s+male\s+DIN\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+LMR600\s+male\s+DIN\s*$/: 51 ]

Total 51 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign@ssvecnet.com>; Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 18:36:17 -0400; I was logged in and seeing a discounted price - $3.11! I couldn't even find the cable you had specified. If indeed you can get 7/8" brand new for under $2 ... that is one heck of a buy. Do you have a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00104.html (9,442 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 21:09:48 -0700; Probably related to skin effect. conductor thickness, and the precise o.d. of each conductor in each cable. At RF, resistance is related more to o.d. than to thickness, but at DC, it's all cross sect; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00110.html (9,389 bytes)
23. [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 01:49:44 -0700; I would not use LMR600 for the runs to the tower. Even the small LDF4 has less loss, it is tougher, UHF, N and DIN connectors are readably available and if purchased surplus it is cheaper than LMR600; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00114.html (8,660 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 08:00:29 -0400; According to the timesmicrowave and commscope websites at 30MHz LMR600 has 0.4dB/100ft loss and LDF4 has 0.357/100ft. They are very close in specs and price so of the two I would pick the most durabl; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00143.html (9,583 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 10:27:08 -0700; John, Point well taken and I appreciate your input. This is uncharted waters for me going beyond RG8 and PL-259's, hihi. I did what probably most of you have done and made an excel spreadsheet showin; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00150.html (10,931 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:22:58 -0400; It was an interesting tower discussion. When I moved 11 years ago and completely rebuilt my station I would have used DIN connectors if I had known about them. My main runs are mostly 1 1/4 and 1 5/8; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00153.html (9,675 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "Hardy Landskov" <n7rt@cox.net>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:17:02 -0400; All, I abandoned PL259's, SO239's, etc years ago. I found many coax switches, couplers, were made with N connectors at prices that I could not pass up on surplus markets. They are truly 50 ohm, water; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00154.html (11,004 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 01:08:48 -0400; Take care! According to the Amphenol page N-Type are not water proof/weather proof. 73 Roger (K8RI) On 9/6/2016 Tuesday 4:17 PM, Hardy Landskov wrote: All, I abandoned PL259's, SO239's, etc years ago; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00160.html (12,010 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 06:36:44 -0400; Is any TX connector really water proof? Are DIN's being professionally installed with no external butyl rubber and tape? On the two outdoor DINs that I have, I weather proofed the connection the same; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00162.html (8,462 bytes)
30. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: TexasRF--- via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:56:34 -0400; John, you bring up a valid concern. I am not aware of any coaxial type connector that could be considered waterproof. The fundamental reason is because the threaded connections do not create a hermet; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00165.html (10,329 bytes)
31. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign@ssvecnet.com>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:26:53 -0400; Forgive me - I've replied to Gerald's email but this is directed to the thread in general: WHY all the concern for sealed connectors and connector types? I've been using UHF for 49 years and the only; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00168.html (11,352 bytes)
32. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: TexasRF--- via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:25:13 -0400; Gary, your tape wrapping procedure obviously gave adequate protection. My perspective of the discussion has been more focused on not expecting various connectors to be self sealing against water intr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00172.html (11,881 bytes)
33. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 18:54:30 -0400; Connectors *can* be waterproof (those that have internal gaskets). However experience tells us there is no guarantee that they are, and that's the rub. So commercial practice is to always add additio; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00174.html (10,029 bytes)
34. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 19:09:33 -0400; Gerald, I'm not aware of any foam filled cables that can be pressurized. Pressurized corrugated cable is normally of the air dielectric variety - the Andrew HJ series being the most common but there; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00175.html (8,975 bytes)
35. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: Kevin <kstover@ac0h.net>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 18:50:15 -0500; I believe it all started with the superiority of heliax/hard-line from a loss perspective and since UHF type connectors for such cable are expensive and rare why not use 7/16 DIN, a commercial standa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00177.html (12,568 bytes)
36. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 20:24:03 -0400; I've said it many times, I used to feel like you toward connectors, until a direct lightning strike to the top of my tower removed all of the weatherproofing and 15 minutes later I had water running; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00180.html (14,392 bytes)
37. [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 08:18:49 -0700; I've said it many times, I used to feel like you toward connectors, until a direct lightning strike to the top of my tower removed all of the weatherproofing and 15 minutes later I had water running; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00189.html (9,868 bytes)
38. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:57:34 -0400; N4CC and I are gearing up to move our remote internet station about a half-mile down the edge of the Okefenokee Swamp. The move is a big hassle but topography is even better than the current site. A; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00194.html (8,945 bytes)
39. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:11:16 -0700; Paul, Good question. I was comparing both of these feedlines also. I haven't used either one so I rely on the comments here on our reflector. Here's a quote from Roger, K8RI "I found 1/2" Heliax too; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00199.html (9,842 bytes)
40. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR600 male DIN (score: 1): Author: charlie@thegallos.com; Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 16:10:03 -0400; <snip> Everyone misses why I like DIN and/or N connectors I've never had much luck with UHF crimp connectors, despite investing quite a bit. I've NEVER had N or BNC CLAMP connector fail me (I have al; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-09/msg00200.html (8,579 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]