Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+RFC400\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+RFC400\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] RFC400 (score: 1): Author: "Kurt Cathcart, KR2C" <Kurt@KuhlRoad.net>; Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:34:15 -0500; Does anybody have any opinions on RFC400. It's touted as an equivalent to LMR400. -Kurt KR2C _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00594.html (6,656 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] RFC400 (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:30:47 -0500; I've used the CNT or Andrews equivelant, but never the RFC400. I'm always a bit leery of "equivalent" cables until some one actually tests them. By that I mean tested when new and periodically for so; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00600.html (7,982 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] RFC400 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:05:46 -0800; Touted is the right word. Who makes the cable? What are its published specifications? At a minimum, you should be able to find the following information on the website of the mfr, the mfr should be c; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00601.html (8,013 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] RFC400 (score: 1): Author: "Kurt Cathcart, KR2C" <Kurt@KuhlRoad.net>; Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:08:45 -0500; Here is a link to the spec sheet for the cable. http://www.shireeninc.com/images/cables/coaxcable-sheet.pdf It appears to me like it's the same as the Times product and the vendor tells me it is made; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00602.html (9,641 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] RFC400 (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:14:05 -0800; slightly echoing K9YC's comments.. "made in same factory" could mean that "made without QA folks because you didn't want to pay for them, and we use a different source for the plastic loaded into the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00606.html (9,145 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] RFC400 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:20:50 -0800; It is a fairly comprehensive spec sheet. The questions are 1) Who is Shireen? I've never heard of them. The website lists a rather broad product line, but very much geared toward UHF applications. 2); /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00611.html (8,703 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] RFC400 (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:02:25 -0800; But Jim, you HAVE heard of them <grin> (but like the rest of us, our memories aren't as good as google's, especially for back in 2008) http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/2008-03/msg00500.html and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00613.html (10,371 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] RFC400 (score: 1): Author: "Perry - K4PWO" <k4pwo@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:00:14 -0600; I have used some of Shireen's LMR-400 clone coax on HF and VHF and it was fine. However, the batch I got about 3 years ago had a "pure" copper center conductor. The current coax has the typical coppe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00614.html (11,852 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]