com
>Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
>Duplexers
>
>Ron , Aw c'mon Ron, dig out those equations from your library so we can all
>see where you're comming from. That way we can get an idea how much reference
>materials you really
of pictures.
I hope you enjoyed this as much as I.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: allan crites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 04:09:58 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builde
ith HP piece of test
> > > equipment. Was quick and to the point.
> > >
> > > I did not think I had to dig into my libary and dig out the equations.
> > > Same with stating an SWR...thought most would take a reading from a meter
> > > and not having to
did not see you giving your basis for rejecting the statement, but
> > then again I really did not expect it, hi.
> >
> > 73, ron, n9ee/r
> >
> > >From: Gary Schafer < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> > >Date: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 08:29:08 CDT
> > >
aving to give the equations.
I did not see you giving your basis for rejecting the statement, but then again
I really did not expect it, hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: Gary Schafer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 08:29:08 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subjec
did not see you giving your basis for rejecting the statement, but then
> again I really did not expect it, hi.
>
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
>
> >From: Gary Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> >Date: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 08:29:08 CDT
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>
he statement, but then again
I really did not expect it, hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: Gary Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 08:29:08 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
&g
Hahaha a audiophiles... can sell them anything no need for real
physics, just tell them that this device will make things sound better, back
it up with a BS statment that doesn't apply, and charge them 100 bux.
On 9/3/07, Jeff DePolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > One can see there b
> One can see there becomes a point where the coax will not
> look like coax at low frequencies or atleast have a
> characteristic impedance of something other than it normal value.
Most of this is true (although I don't know what you mean by "coax will not
look like coax"), and I already ackno
RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
>
>But it is your statement.
>
>73
>Gary K4FMX
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright
>&
yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
>Duplexers
>
>I was wondering when someone was going to dredge that up from the Beldon
>papers. Good going Jesse.
>But that still doesn't mean or show that coax cable
>From: Gary Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 09:07:18 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
>Duplexers
>
>
>Isnât it interesting to note th
The equation is for characteristic impedance which means a line of infinite
length or one that is terminated with a resistive load equalling the
impedance of the transmission line. An interesting note, twisted pair telco
lines are about 600 ohms at baseband levels but are 120 ohms at DSL
frequenci
Correction to below: Change the word "frequency" to wavelength. It should
read;
There is no "high frequency cutoff" but as the spacing of the center
conductor and shield gets larger compared to WAVELENGTH a point is reached
where the propagation mode of the cable changes and other modes come in
ission line including standing waves.
73
Gary K4FMX
_
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jesse Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:10 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [R
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Condit
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:24 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
Duplexers
Hi all! If a piece of coax is sitting at ground and you suddenly attach a
battery (DC) across it, y
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
> Duplexers
>
> Ok. Coax doesn't have an impedance at DC it has a resistance.
>
> Coax impedance is found by:
> Zo = sqrt [ (R +j 2 pi f L ) / (G + j 2 pi f c) ]
>
> where:
> f is frequency
> L is
m
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
> Duplexers
>
> Gary,
>
> Now I know you are kidding, hi.
>
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
>
>
>
> From: Gary Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: 2007/09/01 Sat PM 08:58:13 CDT
> &g
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
> Duplexers
>
> Gary,
>
> I don't know. Why don't you tell us.
>
> I don't know why gravity will pull me to the ground real fast if I jump
> off a bridge, but I have all the faith in the world it will. Einstin
n, n9ee/r
>
> >From: Jeff DePolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> >Date: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 12:12:51 CDT
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
> Duplexers
>
> >
> >> Impedance refers t
freq differences in coax. Maybe not.
Oh well. Good discussion.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: Jeff DePolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 12:12:51 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-B
te: 2007/09/02 Sun PM 12:38:28 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
>Duplexers
>
>Ok. Coax doesn't have an impedance at DC it has a resistance.
>
>Coax impedance is found by:
&g
or
> engineers that allows one to look at some of these issues.
>
> Oh well.
>
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
>
> >From: Jeff DePolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: 2007/09/02 Sun AM 09:01:03 CDT
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE
> Impedance refers to both R and X, resistance and reactance. Impedance
affects all current flow, DC and AC. X affects AC only.
Impedance is specific to AC. There's no such thing as impedance at DC, only
resistance. Look up in the definition of impedance in any engineering text
and you'll find
RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
>
>>
>> The question is way off base. No one said one cannot carry
>> DC or any other signal on coax. The question was what was
>> the impedance of a coax at given frequencies.
>
>You said coax
>
> The question is way off base. No one said one cannot carry
> DC or any other signal on coax. The question was what was
> the impedance of a coax at given frequencies.
You said coax has a low-frequency cutoff. I'm asking about that
specifically. I didn't ask about about impedance.
> At
hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
>From: Gary Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/09/01 Sat PM 08:48:03 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
>
>Ron,
>
>Maybe you could tell us why
Gary,
Now I know you are kidding, hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: Gary Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/09/01 Sat PM 08:58:13 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
>
>
ss.
Hope this helps.
- Original Message -
From: Gary Schafer
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
How do you know it is not 75 ohms at DC?
How long do you th
peater-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 8:02 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re:
> Duplexers
>
> Jeff,
>
> The question is way off base. No on
ps.com [mailto:Repeater-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 8:49 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
>
> Gary,
>
> Yes the HP meter was spec'd to go b
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/09/01 Sat PM 01:18:35 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
>
>> I don't know where the confusion is...all coax and feedline
>> has a upper and
> I don't know where the confusion is...all coax and feedline
> has a upper and lower freq limit. Might try to learn
> something about this.
If what you say is true, can you tell me, using sound engineering and math,
why you can carry DC on coax if it has a low-frequency cutoff?
ri PM 05:59:28 CDT
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
>
>Are you sure that the impedance meter you used was speced for operation
>below .5 MHz?
>
>Yes all capacitors have inductance. Lead
31, 2007 7:12 AM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Duplexers
>
> Gary,
>
> To measure the impedance of the RG59 I used an HP impedence meter which
> displayed Z and phase. I use to use it to determine where caps bec
Gary,
To measure the impedance of the RG59 I used an HP impedence meter which
displayed Z and phase. I use to use it to determine where caps became resonant
as a demo for many caps look inductive above a given freq. Mica caps did
pretty good, but still hard to find a cap at 1000 pf that was a
36 matches
Mail list logo
