CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

N9ITX E-Mail Address

Subject: N9ITX E-Mail Address
From: WA7FOE@aol.com (WA7FOE@aol.com)
Date: Fri Jul 5 14:29:52 1996
Sorry for the Bandwidth but I have lost the E-Mail address for N9ITX.


Thanks

Ron

>From donovanf@sgate.com (Frank Donovan)  Fri Jul  5 21:07:30 1996
From: donovanf@sgate.com (Frank Donovan) (Frank Donovan)
Subject: connector losses
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.94.960705160456.846B-100000@jekyll.sgate.com>

Darrel,
If u haven't seen this chart, here's a convenient way to compare cable
losses and make tradeoffs before investing lotsa $$$ in new coax.

73!
Frank
W3LPL

                       
                            CABLE ATTENUATION  (dB per 100 ft)
           
             1.8   3.5   7.0  14.0  21.0  28.0  50.0   144   440  1296 

LDF7-50A     .03   .04   .06   .08   .10   .12   .16   .27   0.5   0.9
FHJ-7        .03   .05   .07   .10   .12   .15   .20   .37   0.8   1.7
LDF5-50A     .04   .06   .09   .14   .17   .19   .26   .45   0.8   1.5
FXA78-50J    .06   .08   .13   .17   .23   .27   .39   .77   1.4   2.8
3/4" CATV    .06   .08   .13   .17   .23   .26   .38   .62   1.7   3.0
LDF4-50A     .09   .13   .17   .25   .31   .36   .48   .84   1.4   2.5
RG-17        .10   .13   .18   .27   .34   .40   .50   1.3   2.5   5.0
SLA12-50J    .11   .15   .20   .28   .35   .42   .56   1.0   1.9   3.0
FXA12-50J    .12   .16   .22   .33   .40   .47   .65   1.2   2.1   4.0
FXA38-50J    .16   .23   .31   .45   .53   .64   .85   1.5   2.7   4.9
9913         .16   .23   .31   .45   .53   .64   .92   1.6   2.7   5.0
RG-213       .25   .37   .55   .75  1.0    1.2  1.6    2.8   5.1  10.0
RG-8X        .49   .68  1.0   1.4   1.7    1.9  2.5    4.5   8.4


                            CABLE ATTENUATION (Ft per dB)

             1.8   3.5   7.0  14.0  21.0  28.0  50.0   144   440  1296

LDF7-50A    3333  2500  1666  1250  1000   833   625   370   200   110
FHJ-7       2775  2080  1390  1040   833   667   520   310   165    92
LDF5-50A    2500  1666  1111   714   588   526   385   222   125    67
FXA78-50J   1666  1250   769   588   435   370   256   130    71    36
3/4" CATV   1666  1250   769   588   435   385   275   161    59    33
LDF4-50A    1111   769   588   400   323   266   208   119    71    40
RG-17       1000   769   556   370   294   250   200    77    40    20
SLA12-50J    909   667   500   355   285   235   175   100    53    34
FXA12-50J    834   625   455   300   250   210   150    83    48    25
FXA38-50J    625   435   320   220   190   155   115    67    37    20
9913         625   435   320   220   190   155   110    62    37    20
RG-213       400   270   180   130   100    83    62    36    20    10
RG-8X        204   147   100    71    59    53    40    22    12


             FEET REQUIRED FOR 1 DB ADVANTAGE LDF5-50A VS:

             1.8   3.5   7.0  14.0  21.0  28.0  50.0   144   440  1296

LDF4-50A    2000  1430  1250  910    715   625   435   250   165   100
RG-17       1666  1430  1110  770    560   475   420   120    60    30
FXA12-50J   1250  1000   770  525    435   355   255   120    75    40
9913         835   590   455  320    280   220   150   85     53    29

            
             FEET REQUIRED FOR 1 DB ADVANTAGE LDF4-50A VS:
            
             1.8   3.5   7.0  14.0  21.0  28.0  50.0   144    440  1296
             
RG-17         -     -     -    -     -     -     -     220     90    40
FXA12-50J     -     -   2000  1250  1100  835    625   250    145    65  
9913        1430  1000   715   500   455  345    235   135     75    40
RG-213       910   600   285   200   150  120    85     45     20    13



>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills)  Fri Jul  5 21:41:36 1996
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: Fwd: source of word HAM

There are several versions, and you might want to take this to
rec.radio.amateur.misc., where it comes up about twice a year,
always with inconclusive results.  Some of the more convincing
answers have been proved wrong factually, which doesn't stop
them being posted every time.

The answer I like the best is that it stands for "Have Any Mail?",
which was Craig Shergold's daily question to the mailman...

Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu

>From wb4iuy@nando.net (Dave Hockaday)  Fri Jul  5 21:48:42 1996
From: wb4iuy@nando.net (Dave Hockaday) (Dave Hockaday)
Subject: connector losses
Message-ID: <199607052048.QAA12950@bessel.nando.net>

This has probably been hashed over before, but would someone post insertion
losses for connectors and splices (barrel connectors, etc)?

Thanks!

73 de Dave Hockaday WB4IUY
wb4iuy@nando.net  

http://www.webbuild.com/~wb4iuy/
(alternate) http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3489/
http://www.webbuild.com/~wb4iuy/teara.html
(alternate) http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3341/
http://www.RTPnet.org/~fcarc/
(alternate) http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3212/
http://www.RTPnet.org/~rdrc/
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3349/


>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Fri Jul  5 22:44:37 1996
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: Towers: Misery Loves Company
Message-ID: <199607052144.OAA28203@desiree.teleport.com>


>On the plus side, however, is the fact that the cellular phone industry,
>soon to be expanded in size by the arrival of five new systems built for
>personal communications, is, according to this article, lobbying to get a
>clause included in the new telecommunications legislation that "bars
>communities from blocking towers on saftey grounds." Wonder how much that
>might help us, or if we could piggyback on to some of this legislation.

I can't believe what I think I am reading here.  If the proposed legislation
goes through, it sounds like it will illegal for a community to prevent the
installation of an unsafe tower!!  What am I missing?  As the owner of 4
towers and a Rohn dealer, I could possibly benefit by such legislation but I
would NEVER favor it.  Nobody should put up an unsafe tower and there should
be laws against it.  I HAVE, however, seen a lot of so-called "safety
arguments" against towers that are just plain BS.  If someone is going to
claim a tower is hazardous, they should be REQUIRED to prove the hazard
really exists by citing examples of known failures or demonstrating a hazard
exists by doing an engineering study that proves it.

Legislation that prevents a community from disallowing a tower on asthetics
grounds I would fully support . . . 

Stan  w7ni@teleport.com


>From ke6ber@tiac.net (Alfred J. Frugoli, KE6BER/1)  Fri Jul  5 22:56:59 1996
From: ke6ber@tiac.net (Alfred J. Frugoli, KE6BER/1) (Alfred J. Frugoli, 
KE6BER/1)
Subject: Ameratron AL-80 Amp
Message-ID: <v01540b00ae030645b8c3@[206.119.237.38]>

Any contesters out there using the AL-80 Amp?  Sounds like a descent amp
from the catalog paragraph.  Curious about fan noise, etc.  Please reply
direct and I'll summarize for those interested.  Thanks.

Al, KE6BER/1, ke6ber@tiac.net  http://www.tiac.net/users/ke6ber



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • N9ITX E-Mail Address, WA7FOE@aol.com <=