... snicker ... You are 20 months younger then me too ...
Neil vmckever wrote: > > 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 > > > > 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/
