Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+LMR240\s+for\s+stub\s+filters\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+LMR240\s+for\s+stub\s+filters\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] LMR240 for stub filters? (score: 1): Author: "Robert Pack, NX5M" <nx5m@txcyber.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:18:18 -0500; Wondering what the group thinks about the use of LMR240 as stub filters for the 80 and 160 stations here. I have a bunch of it that I am not going to use for anything so if you guys think it would wo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00691.html (7,455 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR240 for stub filters? (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:44:41 -0400; When I was building the 2 station operation here I tested a wide variety of flexible coax looking for the best null. CATV RG-11 was the best, giving a solid 25dB+ null, The impedence doesnt matter. I; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00693.html (8,564 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR240 for stub filters? (score: 1): Author: Eric Scace K3NA <eric@k3na.org>; Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:19:54 -0400; The main effects of coax choice for the stubs: 1. voltage handling capacity -- The stub terminates in open/short and thus the VSWR will be very high on other than the design fundamental (pass) freque; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00724.html (10,779 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] LMR240 for stub filters? (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:46:17 -0400; The bandwidth comment is correct Eric. I had to swap stubs between CW/SSB contests for 80/75M. Other bands were adequate set in the middle. My initial attempt was CATV RG-59 which arced thru at 1200W; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00725.html (11,764 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]