--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBT00007 Date: 07/22/96 From: WAYNE SAROSI Time: 09:43pm \/To: ROB DENNIS (Read 7 times) Subj: SATELLITE DISHES In a message to Wayne Sarosi <20 Jul 96 17:10> Rob Dennis wrote: BL>>commercial signals here,and if this IS the case then wouldn't it be BL>>'off-topic' and not worthy of this thread ? WS> Yep. That's why I'm reviewing all this. I've been on vacation in CA from WS> FL and have not been here to make a decision (Chris? Rob?). However, WS> I have not seen a violation of the rules save the digression of WS> argument. WS> (Probably why they haven't commented). RD> I saw it as an interest in satellite reception as part of the RD> amateur hobby and treated it as such,so no comment on it from me. RD> -IF- it had drifted into a discussion on RD> descrambling commercial (HBO-type) RD> VideoCypherII-style broadcasts I would have asked for it be stopped. RD> It didn't so I let it go. RD> I think Chris did they same. RD> BTW... RD> WELCOME BACK FROM VACATION ! That's the way i saw it save the arguement. So, I directed the thread more toward Amateur radio. TNX. That and the first day at my new job was interesting. -WS --- * Origin: Editor HTL, Moderator HAM_TECH (Quick 1:374/73.2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBT00008 Date: 07/22/96 From: WAYNE SAROSI Time: 09:52pm \/To: CLAY HARTSOE (Read 7 times) Subj: di-pole In a message to Wayne Sarosi <22 Jul 96 2:29> Clay Hartsoe wrote: > WS> That will work. I just thought you were bending the legs down like an > WS> inverted vee. That would take up less room. CH> Don't have a high enough pole for a V, CH> but you sparked a thought. How well CH> do think an inclined dipole would work? With the arms coming off at an CH> inclined angle, sort of a V partialy laying down.----Later----Clay It would be like a center fed sloper then. It should work just fine. The only problem with the sloper is that it is particially directional in the direction of the slope. \ \ \ ---> \ \ If that is what you are going to do. I know the angle is not that steep but it should be similar. -WS --- * Origin: Editor HTL, Moderator HAM_TECH (Quick 1:374/73.2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBT00009 Date: 07/23/96 From: MIKE MCMAHAN Time: 12:12am \/To: DAVID SWART (Read 7 times) Subj: IC-2000H Help... DS> I have looked cover to cover in my book. I can NOT find address DS> to write ICOM about getting a schematic for an IC-2000H 2m mobile. Maybe this will help... ICOM America, Inc. 2380 116th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Customer Service Hotline (206) 454-7619 18102 Skypark South, Suite 52-B Irvine, CA 92714 1777 Phoenix Parkway, Suite 201 Atlanta, GA 30349 ICOM CANADA, A Division of ICOM America, Inc. 3701 - #5 Road, Unit 9 Richmond, B.C., V6X 2T4 Canada 73 de KE6JNF - Mike ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 --- GOMail v2.0 [94-0489] * Origin: The Holodeck (805) 489-7977 Oceano, Ca. (1:212/1007) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBT00010 Date: 07/22/96 From: BOB ROACH Time: 11:06am \/To: WAYNE SAROSI (Read 7 times) Subj: Antenna info Hi Wayne, I need a little info that doesn't quite come through in the books that I have. I know that hieght and nearby objects have an effect on the radiation resistance (and feed point impedance) of di-poles. This means that each modification must be evaluated with the antenna replace in its operating position. What I wanted to find out is whether this same factors affect resonance. Can a di-pole be tuned to resonance on (near) the ground and then be matched for impedance in position? TNX es 73 de KE4QOK Bob * SLMR 2.1a * Instant Human: Just Add Coffee... -+- OLMS 2.52p UNREG --- GEcho/32 1.20/Pro * Origin: Sherwood Forest, Newport News VA (804)888-6899 [KE4PGV] 1:271/269) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBT00011 Date: 07/23/96 From: WAYNE SAROSI Time: 07:57pm \/To: RICHARD PLASENCIA (Read 7 times) Subj: new address In a message to Wayne Sarosi <22 Jul 96 10:41> Richard Plasencia wrote: >WS>Did you make a bunch of DX contacts from EI land? RP> Did I!!! Helping Cork Radio Club, EI4M, put up 40 meter cubical quad. RP> Good grief that is a BIG sucker. My job was to cheer them on and take RP> pictures for the non-believers. All of EI is fantastic DX location. All RP> high overlooking the ocean. Sounds like a big one. I can relate since I built a 40m two element yagi for the Titusville ARC. It worked very well. Kind of a bear to put up and rotate. They later cut it down to a 20m three element yagi. BTW, day two at work was fun working with some Ku equipment. -WS --- * Origin: Editor HTL, Moderator HAM_TECH (Quick 1:374/73.2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBT00012 Date: 07/23/96 From: WAYNE SAROSI Time: 08:09pm \/To: BOB ROACH (Read 7 times) Subj: Monopole antenna In a message to Wayne Sarosi <21 Jul 96 16:14> Bob Roach wrote: BR> Where can I learn more about antennas? I have or have read most of the BR> commonly available books but would like to understand more simce this is BR> the most critical part of most systems. I have taken part of the BR> electronics technology program at the local community college and this BR> supplied a great deal of theory and background but they don't really get BR> into antennas much. There are a few books and here they are: William Orr W4SAI and Stuart Cowan W2LX The Radio Amateur Antenna Hanbook Balanis, Antenna Theory Carr, The Practical Antenna Handbook Johnson & Jask, Antenna Engineering Handbook Kraus, Antennas ARRL Antenna Handbook These are the ones I use most. BR> BTW I saw your other message. Congrats on the new job. Sounds like you BR> are looking forward to it. It's real good so far. -WS --- * Origin: Editor HTL, Moderator HAM_TECH (Quick 1:374/73.2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBT00013 Date: 07/23/96 From: MICHAEL SOMERS Time: 08:51pm \/To: 瀼? (Read 7 times) Subj: R-500 *** Forwarded by : Kurt Kuehne *** *** Originally to : All *** *** Originally dated: 27 May 96 19:23 *** *** Comment : None *** Here's a shot in the dark... I have a Conar R-500 that is missing its tubes, but did work fine. I know its probably worth at LEAST 50 cents, but I figured it would be nice to have working. I also have the Model 400 80/40/15 ransmitter as well. Also, I understand that there is a mod to get the Uniden HR-2510 to put out 100 watts SSB. However unlikely this is, I hear that there was an article in 73 Magazine. If anyone has any input please let me know. 73 DE KT4QF --- * Origin: The Bear's Cave Titusville FL 407-383-9372 V34/VFC/H16 (1:374/73) --- * Origin: The Air Studio BBS - Livonia, MI 1-313-522-5349 (1:2410/814) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBT00014 Date: 07/23/96 From: BRIAN K. WATSON Time: 11:30am \/To: SID ASHEN-BRENNER (Read 8 times) Subj: coax info -> BK> I need info on the following types of coax. -> BK> RG58/U -> BK> RG213 -> BK> RG8/U -> BK> RG62A/U -> -> What are you considering using it for (Frequency range)? In what -> sort of a length? -> Worst to best rating would look something like this: -> RG-62A -> RG-58 -> RG-8 -> RG-213 -> 9913 I guess I should have put that in. I am going to be using it on 2meters. I am currnetly using RG 58/u but just got about 50 ft. of RG 213 and was wondering about the loss with the cable. I know 213 was better than 58 but I didn't know how much better. Thanks. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: On-Line Entertainment (1:3609/8.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBY00000 Date: 07/24/96 From: TOM WALKER Time: 07:45am \/To: BRIAN K. WATSON (Read 7 times) Subj: coax info -> I guess I should have put that in. I am going to be using it on -> 2meters. I am currnetly using RG 58/u but just got about 50 ft. of -> RG 213 and was wondering about the loss with the cable. I know 213 -> was better than 58 but I didn't know how much better. Thanks. First almost ANYTHING will be better, Except a Shorted or open cable than RG-58. I would NEVER recomend using more than 6 ft for any use. But for the losses lets look at it this way. For 2 meters and 50 Ft of cable you will loose about 21% of the signal with RG-213 and about 68% of the Signal with RG-58 Others have provided exact losses at various frequencies. Plug those figures into the following dB vs loss table; dB Loss Percent of Signal 1 21% 2 37% 3 50% 4 60% 5 68% 6 75% 7 80% 8 84% 9 87% 10 90% --- GEcho 1.20/Pro * Origin: Alpine Wildcat! BBS, Alpine, CA * 1.619.445.6028 (1:202/1919) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: DBY00001 Date: 07/27/96 From: FRED MCKENZIE Time: 11:22pm \/To: BRIAN K. WATSON (Read 7 times) Subj: Coax Info BKW> I am currnetly using RG 58/u but just got about 50 ft. of RG 213 BKW> and was wondering about the loss with the cable. Brian- RG-213 would be a good choice for a 50 ft run on Two Meters. If anyone is interested in data on a wide range of RG numbered coax, there is a cable company called "Times....." (I forget what their latest name is!). Their catalog has tables of loss and power handling capability for most RG cables. I noticed that a couple of the other responses to your first request, had conflicting data for RG-213 and RG-8. According to the Times catalog, these two cables are electrically identical. The ONLY difference is the material used for the outer jacket. The RG-213 cable jacket is called "non contaminating", and RG-8 isn't! RG cable numbers are based on Military Specifications. Unfortunately, not all cables with the RG number printed on them, will meet the Mil Specs. "Generic" RG cables are sometimes cheaply made. They may not use as much copper in the shield, so there is less than 100% coverage. Published RG data is therefore only a guide. 73, Fred, K4DII This copy of Freddie 1.2.5 is being evaluated. --- * Origin: The Bear's Cave Titusville FL 407-383-9372 V34/VFC/H16 (1:374/73)