Good For you Joe! I too, went through the "cycles-per-second" to
Hertz transition.
To all else,
cycles-per-second = Hertz
Kilo cycles-per-second = KC = KiloHertz = KHz
Mega cycles-per-second = MC = MegaHertz = MHz
>From this point add what ever prefix that applies.
Gee, What kind of table do you need?
My memory is not real good BUT I CAN remember "cycles-per-second =
Hertz"
73
AC0Y
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This has to be OT for this group but the proper conversion would
be:
>
> KiloCycles per Second = KiloHertz.
>
> Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember "time before
KiloHertz" . . . . or maybe its fortunate I've lived to be that old.
>
> Joe K5FOG
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 5/21/2005 at 9:32 PM DCFluX wrote:
>
> >I've got a kiloCycle to kiloHertz conversion table you can study.
> >
> >On 5/21/05, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> KiloHertz is the correct term!
> >>
> >> Richard, N7TGB
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DCFluX
> >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:17 PM
> >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't you mean, kiloCycles?
> >>
> >> On 5/21/05, Kevin K. Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >------- Original Message -------
> >> > >From : Eric Lemmon[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > >Sent : 5/21/2005 4:05:15 PM
> >> > >To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >> > >Cc :
> >> > >Subject : RE : Re: [Repeater-Builder] Poor Repeater RX
> >> > >
> >> > >Alexander,
> >> > >
> >> > >The
> >> > >Sinclair Q-202G duplexer can barely make 85 dB when tuned on
a network
> >> > >analyzer, so that's the major part of your desense problem.
It's only
> >a
> >> > >four-cavity duplexer, specified at 80 dB minimum isolation,
so no
> >amount
> >> > >of tuning is going to make it operate at an isolation above
its design
> >> > >limit.
> >> >
> >> > While I don't disagree with what has been written, please
realize that
> >> > *most* commercial manufacturers 'rate' their highband/2M
duplexer at
> >500
> >> > kiloHertz split, not 600 kiloHertz where most amateur 2 meter
repeaters
> >> are
> >> > operated. This added frequency separation allows for the
duplexer to
> >> > provide more than the stated isolation at the 500 kiloHertz
> >specification.
> >> >
> >> > The Wacom WP-641 is specified at 85 dB of isolation at a 500
kiloHertz
> >> > split, but provides 93 dB of isolation at 600 kiloHertz. The
Sinclair
> >> Q202G
> >> > is similar in its factory specifications, and isolation
provided.
> >> >
> >> > Kevin Custer
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
> >> >
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
