Humpf ... new-comer ... 

  Neil - WA6KLA 


"Mark A. Holman" wrote:
> 
> Yep I even recall the Novice Class I had back in 1976 we were 
> discussing the KC's , MC's to Khz. and Mhz.  was on the exam 
> probably.
> 
> Mark AB8RU
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:18 PM
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX
> 
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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/
 


Reply via email to