Be nice Neil. Some of us still remember when the Novice was re-introduced.
Vincent N6OA got mine 50 years ago this year. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil McKie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Poor Repeater RX > > 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 > > > > > > 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/
