Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Kevin, I recall reading about using cans on the 3rd harmonic. I have thought of trying it with a set of Sinclair's I have that are useless for 2 meters due to the split they were made for. Just might work, my Sinclair set are notch filters, made for mobile phone type split. I also thought about just trying two of them to notch out the TX on 2 meters, but have not tried that yet. - Original Message - From: "Kevin Custer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans > > > Neal Newman wrote: > > >Interesting. > >I have a set of 639 cans on my repeater on 446.175 with No problems at all. > >have no problem with the length of the tuning rods. No desense. and last time > >I checked about 50 watts out.. > > > > Yes it is interesting. > How did you manage to tune up a set of 2 meter cavities on a UHF repeater? > http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp639.pdf > > Kevin > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
K1CWB wrote: >Hello Kevin, > >Thanks for the info, do you think I'll have better luck with the >TPRD-1554's? Or should I just stay with split antennas on the tower >(which actually doesn't work all that bad) > >The repeater is an MSR-2000 running 10 watts out of a 110w PA. > If you are running the MSR at 10 watts, you'll likely have big noise problems. PA's aren't clean at 1/10 their power rating. Have you tried turning the power up? You might just be surprised. Kevin Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re[2]: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Hello Kevin, Thanks for the info, do you think I'll have better luck with the TPRD-1554's? Or should I just stay with split antennas on the tower (which actually doesn't work all that bad) The repeater is an MSR-2000 running 10 watts out of a 110w PA. -K1CWB Sunday, November 30, 2003, 9:46:38 AM, you wrote: KC> Received: from n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.80]) KC> by mail.fission2.com (Merak 6.2.1) with SMTP id CPA74271 KC> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:49:45 -0500 KC> X-eGroups-Return: KC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] KC> Received: from [66.218.66.160] by n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with KC> NNFMP; 30 Nov 2003 14:46:44 - KC> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] KC> X-Apparently-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com KC> Received: (qmail 8582 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2003 14:46:38 - KC> Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) KC> by m20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2003 14:46:38 - KC> Received: from unknown (HELO S-UTL01-SFNOC.stsn.com) (199.107.154.76) KC> by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2003 14:46:38 - KC> Received: from kuggie.com ([10.11.39.112]) KC> by S-UTL01-SFNOC.stsn.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id M2003113006470404916 KC> for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:47:04 -0800 KC> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KC> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; KC> rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) KC> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en KC> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com KC> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KC> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KC> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KC> X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 199.107.154.76 KC> From: Kevin Custer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KC> X-Yahoo-Profile: repeaterbuilder KC> MIME-Version: 1.0 KC> Mailing-List: list Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com; contact KC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] KC> Delivered-To: mailing list Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com KC> Precedence: bulk KC> List-Unsubscribe: KC> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KC> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:46:38 -0800 KC> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans KC> Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com KC> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 KC> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit KC> KE1AI wrote: >>I'm not sure that those "smaller" cans are good at 600Kc?? Or if >>they are, then you may have the wrong interconnecting cables on them. >> KC> Actually, the specifications listed in Wacom's original documentation KC> **for this duplexer** is *AT* 600 Kc. : KC> http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp639.pdf KC> Many duplexer manufacturers, like Wacom, specified their highband KC> products at 500 Kc, which resulted in better performance when properly KC> tuned for a 600 Kc split like on 2 meters. Wacom originally specified KC> their WP-641 duplexer to provide 85 dB of isolation at a 500 Kc split, KC> but when tuned to 600 Kc, 93 dB actually resulted. The specification KC> for the WP-639 is 80 dB. So, we need to be careful of specifications. KC> If you don't read the specifications carefully the WP-641 *looks* like KC> it is only 5 dB better than the WP-639, when in reality, it is actually KC> 13 dB better when apples are compared to apples. KC> As suggested by Eric, there is nothing wrong with the WP-639 duplexer. KC> This duplexer was designed back in the day when an 80 dB isolation unit KC> was sufficient to keep a 100 watt tube transmitter and a more deaf .5 uV KC> (-113 dBm) receiver separated. Now, we have solid-state (read dirtier) KC> transmitters and GaAs FET assisted receivers that can easily hear a 12 KC> dB SINAD signal at .1 uV (-127 dBm). What am I getting at? Today's KC> receivers (with preamps) can hear about 15 dB better than those of 30 KC> years ago, and today's transmitters are significantly dirtier than their KC> tube-type counterparts. Obviously in today's world either a better KC> duplexer is needed or we need to run better exciters (like the GE PLL) KC> or like I, run TUBE power when big power is a necessity. I guess we KC> could choose to use deafer receivers but I for one am opposed to that if KC> the radio site allows for a better actual sensitivity rating. KC> So, can I use a WP-639 duplexer on my solid-state repeater? Yes, but KC> don't expect it to fully isolate 100 watts when using a really sensitive KC> receiver. A good suggestion would be a receiver hearing at .2 uV (-121 KC> dBm) could likely be used with a *typical* transmitter (sideband noise KC> at -80 dB from carrier) running about 25 watts or so. Now, put that old KC> GE Mastr Pro (ER-41-C) receiver on your repeater (.5 uV or -113 dBm) and KC> you'll be able to run 9 dB more transmitter power or 200 watts. See my KC> poin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
On the sets I have I had to add about 2 1/2" of copper brasing rod to the rod that is in the center of the tunning capacitor. Also if you have PL-259s on the cans the "Tees" like to go bad, I had one disintegrate in my hand once. If you have "N" connectors, the solder joints from the connector to the metal plate like to crack with time and tempreture variations, or some one arm stronged it with a pair of pliers. Any way to get the coupling loop out, you need to unscrew the PL-259 on the side of the can and remove the screws holding the plate on top. When re-soldering use Kester 44 solder with 2% silver and a 80 watt soldering iron, not a soldering gun. They work good, but you may want to run a PLL exciter if you are using MASTR-IIs. The PLL is cleaner and will allow less isolation from TX to RX which is what you need with these cans. -- Original Message -- From: "cwbunting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:41:51 - >I couldn't get these cans to work with my repeater, I ran out of room >on the rexelite rod when I was trying to tune them. It seemed that I >could have gotten a better notch out of them, but the rod didn't go >any further... Anyone else have experiance with these cans, are they >any good?? > >They would desense like crazy, I switched to a Telewave TPRD-1554's >and they work 10 times better. > > > > > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Hi Neal Neal Newman wrote: >Hey Kevin > I have a set of WP-678 cans on the 446.175 machine. > Oh, Okay. I have about 6 sets of these and yes they are a great UHF duplexer. > A set of 522-509's on the 440.085 machine >a set of WP 639's on the spare 147.345 machine. >and 641's on the 145.23 machine. > It was My error But I knew I had a Set of those cans... > No problem, everyone makes mistakes.. > Now I need a spare spectrum 2 meter transmitter board.. > Like I said, everyone makes mistakes. Kevin Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
I have used VHF cavities in 3/4 mode many times for UHF combining - Cabling would not be the same, but the 10" Sinclairs I use for a 5 channel UHF combiner work well. Ssb Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Hey Kevin It was Late the wife was Bitchen the Kids were winning I checked My Error I have a set of WP-678 cans on the 446.175 machine. A set of 522-509's on the 440.085 machine a set of WP 639's on the spare147.345 machine. and 641's on the145.23 machine. It was My error But I knew I had a Set of those cans... Now I need a spare spectrum 2 meter transmitter board.. Kevin Custer wrote: > Neal Newman wrote: > > >Interesting. > >I have a set of 639 cans on my repeater on 446.175 with No problems at all. > >have no problem with the length of the tuning rods. No desense. and last time > >I checked about 50 watts out.. > > > > Yes it is interesting. > How did you manage to tune up a set of 2 meter cavities on a UHF repeater? > http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp639.pdf > > Kevin > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
What do you think about putting a Kenwood tk750 and a WP639 90 ft below a 50KW channel 6 TV transmitter, soon to have hdtv added on the side, on a tower with a cage life and cables that chaff when the wind blows at 1750 feet above ground with #12 power service (120VAC) shared with an APRS repeater and a UFH Flexar? Recipe for Disaster Ssb Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
KE1AI wrote: >I'm not sure that those "smaller" cans are good at 600Kc?? Or if they are, >then you may have the wrong interconnecting cables on them. > Actually, the specifications listed in Wacom's original documentation **for this duplexer** is *AT* 600 Kc. : http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp639.pdf Many duplexer manufacturers, like Wacom, specified their highband products at 500 Kc, which resulted in better performance when properly tuned for a 600 Kc split like on 2 meters. Wacom originally specified their WP-641 duplexer to provide 85 dB of isolation at a 500 Kc split, but when tuned to 600 Kc, 93 dB actually resulted. The specification for the WP-639 is 80 dB. So, we need to be careful of specifications. If you don't read the specifications carefully the WP-641 *looks* like it is only 5 dB better than the WP-639, when in reality, it is actually 13 dB better when apples are compared to apples. As suggested by Eric, there is nothing wrong with the WP-639 duplexer. This duplexer was designed back in the day when an 80 dB isolation unit was sufficient to keep a 100 watt tube transmitter and a more deaf .5 uV (-113 dBm) receiver separated. Now, we have solid-state (read dirtier) transmitters and GaAs FET assisted receivers that can easily hear a 12 dB SINAD signal at .1 uV (-127 dBm). What am I getting at? Today's receivers (with preamps) can hear about 15 dB better than those of 30 years ago, and today's transmitters are significantly dirtier than their tube-type counterparts. Obviously in today's world either a better duplexer is needed or we need to run better exciters (like the GE PLL) or like I, run TUBE power when big power is a necessity. I guess we could choose to use deafer receivers but I for one am opposed to that if the radio site allows for a better actual sensitivity rating. So, can I use a WP-639 duplexer on my solid-state repeater? Yes, but don't expect it to fully isolate 100 watts when using a really sensitive receiver. A good suggestion would be a receiver hearing at .2 uV (-121 dBm) could likely be used with a *typical* transmitter (sideband noise at -80 dB from carrier) running about 25 watts or so. Now, put that old GE Mastr Pro (ER-41-C) receiver on your repeater (.5 uV or -113 dBm) and you'll be able to run 9 dB more transmitter power or 200 watts. See my point Spectral Purity and Receiver Sensitivity both play an important role in "How much power can I run through this 4, 5 inch cavity duplexer". Hope this helps... Kevin Custer Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
I'm not sure that those "smaller" cans are good at 600Kc?? Or if they are, then you may have the wrong interconnecting cables on them. James *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 11/30/2003 at 6:41 AM cwbunting wrote: >I couldn't get these cans to work with my repeater, I ran out of room >on the rexelite rod when I was trying to tune them. It seemed that I >could have gotten a better notch out of them, but the rod didn't go >any further... Anyone else have experiance with these cans, are they >any good?? > >They would desense like crazy, I switched to a Telewave TPRD-1554's >and they work 10 times better. > > > > > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
The tuning for the WP-642 is the same as the 641, but you'll have to tune the additional 2 cavities on the radio side; which are simply Band-Pass: http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp641.pdf Kevin This may also help: http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp643.pdf Kevin I *may* have gotten the 642 and 643 mixed up. At any rate, the information is in the two PDF's above. The 642 *appears* to have 6-BPBR cavities, whereas the 643 is 4-BPBR (like the 641) with 2 additional BPF's on the radio side. It's early.. WCIS Kevin Yes, the 642 has 6 BP/BR cavities, unlike my 222Mc duplexer (WP-652) that has 4 BP/BR cavities with 2 BP cavities like the 643. Thanks for the links. -KGB Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Kevin Custer wrote: Kevin Custer wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps someone has the tuning instructions for the WP-642 handy? I haven't had success in finding it, but I admit that my search hasn't been thorough nor up-to-date while I've been busy the past several months. It was purchased in like-new condition, and while I believe I've figured out its peculiarities on my own, it would be nice to see the factory's take on it. 73, -Matt W6KGB The tuning for the WP-642 is the same as the 641, but you'll have to tune the additional 2 cavities on the radio side; which are simply Band-Pass: http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp641.pdf Kevin This may also help: http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp643.pdf Kevin I *may* have gotten the 642 and 643 mixed up. At any rate, the information is in the two PDF's above. The 642 *appears* to have 6-BPBR cavities, whereas the 643 is 4-BPBR (like the 641) with 2 additional BPF's on the radio side. It's early.. WCIS Kevin Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Kevin Custer wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps someone has the tuning instructions for the WP-642 handy? I haven't had success in finding it, but I admit that my search hasn't been thorough nor up-to-date while I've been busy the past several months. It was purchased in like-new condition, and while I believe I've figured out its peculiarities on my own, it would be nice to see the factory's take on it. 73, -Matt W6KGB The tuning for the WP-642 is the same as the 641, but you'll have to tune the additional 2 cavities on the radio side; which are simply Band-Pass: http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp641.pdf Kevin This may also help: http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp643.pdf Kevin Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Perhaps someone has the tuning instructions for the WP-642 handy? I haven't >had success in finding it, but I admit that my search hasn't been thorough >nor up-to-date while I've been busy the past several months. It was >purchased in like-new condition, and while I believe I've figured out its >peculiarities on my own, it would be nice to see the factory's take on it. > >73, >-Matt W6KGB > The tuning for the WP-642 is the same as the 641, but you'll have to tune the additional 2 cavities on the radio side; which are simply Band-Pass: http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp641.pdf Kevin Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Neal Newman wrote: >Interesting. >I have a set of 639 cans on my repeater on 446.175 with No problems at all. >have no problem with the length of the tuning rods. No desense. and last time >I checked about 50 watts out.. > Yes it is interesting. How did you manage to tune up a set of 2 meter cavities on a UHF repeater? http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/wp639.pdf Kevin Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Indeed, everyone has made a good point (or more) in this thread. I agree with Kevin, GE's MASTR II PLL VHF Exciter, or a tube set on any band, are certainly better. There's a high-performance UHF system that I'm involved with utilizing a B94MSY (1/4KW tube PA) with only a PD526 duplexer and isolator; the receiver has a Chip Angle pre-amp ahead of it as well. The antenna is a 10dB stick - and it hears as well as it talks! Proof positive that Tubes are lovely for high-power duplex operations. I find it interesting that a WP-639 (2-Meter duplexer) is utilized on a UHF repeater/relay system, however. If it works, it works - it seems that it'd be more trouble than it's worth, though. As for the Spectrum (a.k.a. Spread Spectrum) equipment, I'm glad that it works for you. Some are fortunate to have that experience. We each have our preferences, and as mature adults we should simply agree to disagree, acknowledging that we each find our own merits in various types. On another hand (why have only two?), conflict (to a degree) makes life interesting. Perhaps someone has the tuning instructions for the WP-642 handy? I haven't had success in finding it, but I admit that my search hasn't been thorough nor up-to-date while I've been busy the past several months. It was purchased in like-new condition, and while I believe I've figured out its peculiarities on my own, it would be nice to see the factory's take on it. 73, -Matt W6KGB >Interesting. >I have a set of 639 cans on my repeater on 446.175 with No problems at all. >have no problem with the length of the tuning rods. No desense. and last time >I checked about 50 watts out.. BTW the repeater is a SPECTRUM...has been >working for years sitting out in the barn. NO I would never use it at a >commercial site > But its been giving me years of trouble free service. I last tuned it when >it was installed back in 1994. last checked it in july this year. Bad >connector up at the antenna. > >Kevin Custer wrote: > > > Eric Lemmon wrote: > > > > >I have used several Wacom duplexers over the years, and I think they are > > >excellent products. I recently tuned a WP-639 duplexer in a 2m portable > > >repeater, and followed the tuning steps exactly per the instructions to > > >achieve a high performance system. The Rexolite rods were between two > > >and four inches extended on all cavities, and the response curves were > > >almost identical to the curves shown in the instructions. When the PA > > >is no more than 20 watts or so, and the receiver has very good front-end > > >selectivity, the WP-639 works quite well. > > > > > > > I agree with what is said, but will add one detail. If the repeater > > transmitter has a *better than usual* sideband noise figure, the power > > can be significantly higher than 20 watts. The GE PLL exciter and solid > > state PA will allow about 100 watts with no desense with this duplexer, > > or if you are fortunate to have a GE 4EF5A, about 200 watts. > > > > PLL and/or Tubes are better. > > > > Kevin Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Interesting. I have a set of 639 cans on my repeater on 446.175 with No problems at all. have no problem with the length of the tuning rods. No desense. and last time I checked about 50 watts out.. BTW the repeater is a SPECTRUM...has been working for years sitting out in the barn. NO I would never use it at a commercial site But its been giving me years of trouble free service. I last tuned it when it was installed back in 1994. last checked it in july this year. Bad connector up at the antenna. Kevin Custer wrote: > Eric Lemmon wrote: > > >I have used several Wacom duplexers over the years, and I think they are > >excellent products. I recently tuned a WP-639 duplexer in a 2m portable > >repeater, and followed the tuning steps exactly per the instructions to > >achieve a high performance system. The Rexolite rods were between two > >and four inches extended on all cavities, and the response curves were > >almost identical to the curves shown in the instructions. When the PA > >is no more than 20 watts or so, and the receiver has very good front-end > >selectivity, the WP-639 works quite well. > > > > I agree with what is said, but will add one detail. If the repeater > transmitter has a *better than usual* sideband noise figure, the power > can be significantly higher than 20 watts. The GE PLL exciter and solid > state PA will allow about 100 watts with no desense with this duplexer, > or if you are fortunate to have a GE 4EF5A, about 200 watts. > > PLL and/or Tubes are better. > > Kevin > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Eric Lemmon wrote: >I have used several Wacom duplexers over the years, and I think they are >excellent products. I recently tuned a WP-639 duplexer in a 2m portable >repeater, and followed the tuning steps exactly per the instructions to >achieve a high performance system. The Rexolite rods were between two >and four inches extended on all cavities, and the response curves were >almost identical to the curves shown in the instructions. When the PA >is no more than 20 watts or so, and the receiver has very good front-end >selectivity, the WP-639 works quite well. > I agree with what is said, but will add one detail. If the repeater transmitter has a *better than usual* sideband noise figure, the power can be significantly higher than 20 watts. The GE PLL exciter and solid state PA will allow about 100 watts with no desense with this duplexer, or if you are fortunate to have a GE 4EF5A, about 200 watts. PLL and/or Tubes are better. Kevin Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
Since the Wacom WP-639 duplexer is equal in capability to the Telewave TPRD-1554 duplexer (they both have four 5" cavities in a band pass/band reject configuration) the most likely reason that you could not get the Wacom unit to work properly is that it was not tuned per the manufacturer's instructions. A critical part of the tuning of this model is the completion of the "pre-tune" steps before commencing the final tuning. The eight-page document entitled "Field Tuning Instructions for 4-cavity BpBr Circuit Duplexer" is available for download at a number of repeater sites. I have used several Wacom duplexers over the years, and I think they are excellent products. I recently tuned a WP-639 duplexer in a 2m portable repeater, and followed the tuning steps exactly per the instructions to achieve a high performance system. The Rexolite rods were between two and four inches extended on all cavities, and the response curves were almost identical to the curves shown in the instructions. When the PA is no more than 20 watts or so, and the receiver has very good front-end selectivity, the WP-639 works quite well. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY cwbunting wrote: > > I couldn't get these cans to work with my repeater. I ran out of room on the > rexolite rod when I was trying to tune them. It seemed that I could have > gotten a better notch out of them, but the rod didn't go any further... > Anyone else have experience with these cans, are they any good? They would > desense like crazy, I switched to a Telewave TPRD-1554's and they work 10 > times better. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Repeater-Builder] Wacom WP-639 cans
I couldn't get these cans to work with my repeater, I ran out of room on the rexelite rod when I was trying to tune them. It seemed that I could have gotten a better notch out of them, but the rod didn't go any further... Anyone else have experiance with these cans, are they any good?? They would desense like crazy, I switched to a Telewave TPRD-1554's and they work 10 times better. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
