| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
UHF Mounts ??
Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig?
-- Cheers Southern Kiwi Word of wisdom from high in the mountains....you know...like a Guru...but not as old....or mystic......or wise....or high... :) |
"Southern Kiwi" wrote in message ... Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig? Probably, but how much of your signal do you want to waste, heating up the coax? With some types, it wouldn't be a surprise to see 3/4 of your power lost between the rig and the antenna.. Andrews LMR-400 is good, as is all large hardline. N connectors are much better than the old "UHF" connectors (so named when 30 MHz was "Ultra-high frequency") |
"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... "Southern Kiwi" wrote in message ... Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig? Probably, but how much of your signal do you want to waste, heating up the coax? With some types, it wouldn't be a surprise to see 3/4 of your power lost between the rig and the antenna.. Andrews LMR-400 is good, as is all large hardline. N connectors are much better than the old "UHF" connectors (so named when 30 MHz was "Ultra-high frequency") I am wanting to use it on a 476 MHz set putting out 5 watts only |
I am wanting to use it on a 476 MHz set putting out 5 watts only Well, not knowing exactly what you have, I'd say look on the side of the coax, and find the loss figures online. If it's low cost stuff that was "ok" for 30 MHz, it's likely lossy as hell at half a GHz. I use LMR-400 for that sort of thing, which is not lossless, but it's pretty darned good. The connectors themselves won't be horrible, but I wouldn't put PL-259's and similar on LMR-400. That would be a waste of good cable. You really want N connectors up here. |
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:29:17 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote in : "Southern Kiwi" wrote in message ... Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig? Probably, but how much of your signal do you want to waste, heating up the coax? With some types, it wouldn't be a surprise to see 3/4 of your power lost between the rig and the antenna.. Andrews LMR-400 is good, as is all large hardline. If the line is short, the type won't make much difference unless it's RG-174 (really thin stuff). E.g, for a length of 18' @ 500 MHz I got the following loss figures: 1/2" HL -- 0.3 dB RG-17 -- 0.3 9913 -- 0.5 RG-8 -- 0.9 RG-58 -- 1.5 RG-174 -- 4.9 N connectors are much better than the old "UHF" connectors (so named when 30 MHz was "Ultra-high frequency") I don't know where you get your information but it's wrong. UHF connectors work fine for UHF. And to the best of my knowledge, the current limits of the UHF spectrum (300 MHz to 3 GHz) were defined long before the connectors ever existed. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:29:17 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" wrote in : "Southern Kiwi" wrote in message ... Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig? Probably, but how much of your signal do you want to waste, heating up the coax? With some types, it wouldn't be a surprise to see 3/4 of your power lost between the rig and the antenna.. Andrews LMR-400 is good, as is all large hardline. If the line is short, the type won't make much difference unless it's RG-174 (really thin stuff). E.g, for a length of 18' @ 500 MHz I got the following loss figures: 1/2" HL -- 0.3 dB RG-17 -- 0.3 9913 -- 0.5 RG-8 -- 0.9 I've seen quite a spread for RG-8, and that's just from reputable manufacturers, not including "no name" cable. Try the calculator he http://www.ocarc.ca/coax.htm 100' of 8237 at 4.5dB loss (over half your signal gone, in both directions btw, or 9913, which is not bad stuff, at 2.85dB, nearly half your signal gone.. Or 9258 at (gag) 8.28dB loss, and Tandy at 8.03dB! LMR-400 at 2.69 RG-58 -- 1.5 RG-174 -- 4.9 N connectors are much better than the old "UHF" connectors (so named when 30 MHz was "Ultra-high frequency") I don't know where you get your information but it's wrong. UHF connectors work fine for UHF. And to the best of my knowledge, the current limits of the UHF spectrum (300 MHz to 3 GHz) were defined long before the connectors ever existed. By "uhf" I'm assuming he means PL-259/SO239 sorts of connectors, which are lossy at UHF. "works" is a pretty sloppy definition. Lots of junk "works". Works well, is a different story. Here's one fairly authorative source: http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/pl259tst.html The charts are somewhat slow to load, but worth it. Insertion loss of about 1dB, compared to "almost immesurable" for an N connector. So let's take my reccomendation, LMR-400 with Ns, 100' at 3dB loss vs middle of the road RG-8 (not the worst junk) and PL-259s at 6.5dB. So with 1W up the pipe, I get about half a watt to the antenna, you suggest that 1/4 W is ok? Here's VK3JEG's summary: I would like to finish with these few points. The first being that the so named UHF connector from the past is not really suitable for use above 300 MHz at all. Perhaps the exception to this would be when a cheap and rugged system is required where loss and good signal to noise ratio is of little concern. Unfortunately it appears that both Amateur and CB Radio UHF type equipment fall into this category as many manufactures still supply SO-239 UHF receptors as standard equipment. (DVH: I know MANY hams that would take exception to that!) The second point is that from our results we can see that utilisation of the UHF connector at 146 MHz for FM type transceivers is not such a problem. A cheap rugged connector is probably an advantage as many FM units are used for mobile applications. However, for 144 MHz SSB type work where low loss and good signal to noise ratio is very desirable, again I would not recommend the use of UHF type connectors. The UHF connector still has a place in many applications where a robust economical RF connector is required but for serious applications its use should be limited to below 100 Mhz. As we have shown the N type is far superior in performance, it should also be noted the BNC type connector is similar in performance to that of the N type but has the disadvantage of being less rugged. In the end, one should always check with the manufactures specifications. |
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:43:02 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:29:17 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" wrote in : "Southern Kiwi" wrote in message ... Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig? Probably, but how much of your signal do you want to waste, heating up the coax? With some types, it wouldn't be a surprise to see 3/4 of your power lost between the rig and the antenna.. Andrews LMR-400 is good, as is all large hardline. If the line is short, the type won't make much difference unless it's RG-174 (really thin stuff). E.g, for a length of 18' @ 500 MHz I got the following loss figures: 1/2" HL -- 0.3 dB RG-17 -- 0.3 9913 -- 0.5 RG-8 -- 0.9 I've seen quite a spread for RG-8, and that's just from reputable manufacturers, not including "no name" cable. Try the calculator he http://www.ocarc.ca/coax.htm 100' of 8237 at 4.5dB loss (over half your signal gone, in both directions btw, or 9913, which is not bad stuff, at 2.85dB, nearly half your signal gone.. Or 9258 at (gag) 8.28dB loss, and Tandy at 8.03dB! LMR-400 at 2.69 Maybe you missed the part where I said "If the line is short...." RG-58 -- 1.5 RG-174 -- 4.9 N connectors are much better than the old "UHF" connectors (so named when 30 MHz was "Ultra-high frequency") I don't know where you get your information but it's wrong. UHF connectors work fine for UHF. And to the best of my knowledge, the current limits of the UHF spectrum (300 MHz to 3 GHz) were defined long before the connectors ever existed. By "uhf" I'm assuming he means PL-259/SO239 sorts of connectors, which are lossy at UHF. "works" is a pretty sloppy definition. Lots of junk "works". Works well, is a different story. Here's one fairly authorative source: http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/pl259tst.html The charts are somewhat slow to load, but worth it. I read the page, but it doesn't jibe with my experience. The best example I can provide comes from servicing several dozen television translaters over the years, ranging in frequency from 50 MHz to over 800 MHz, and most of which used the PL-259/SO-239 connectors. In fact, I have several in the shop right now that I rescued after they were replaced due to the recent FCC-forced conversion. But in all those years I have never seen connector losses that come close to what he has described (1.0 dB @ 432 MHz). Maybe tomorrow evening I'll fire up the Adler and measure the actual losses of the connectors, but I highly doubt it will even be measurable. Insertion loss of about 1dB, compared to "almost immesurable" for an N connector. So let's take my reccomendation, LMR-400 with Ns, 100' at 3dB loss vs middle of the road RG-8 (not the worst junk) and PL-259s at 6.5dB. So with 1W up the pipe, I get about half a watt to the antenna, you suggest that 1/4 W is ok? I made no such suggestion, and you are assuming that the OP is using 100' when all he said was "my old coax". Again, I said, "If the line is short...." Here's VK3JEG's summary: I would like to finish with these few points. The first being that the so named UHF connector from the past is not really suitable for use above 300 MHz at all. Perhaps the exception to this would be when a cheap and rugged system is required where loss and good signal to noise ratio is of little concern. Unfortunately it appears that both Amateur and CB Radio UHF type equipment fall into this category as many manufactures still supply SO-239 UHF receptors as standard equipment. (DVH: I know MANY hams that would take exception to that!) The second point is that from our results we can see that utilisation of the UHF connector at 146 MHz for FM type transceivers is not such a problem. A cheap rugged connector is probably an advantage as many FM units are used for mobile applications. However, for 144 MHz SSB type work where low loss and good signal to noise ratio is very desirable, again I would not recommend the use of UHF type connectors. The UHF connector still has a place in many applications where a robust economical RF connector is required but for serious applications its use should be limited to below 100 Mhz. As we have shown the N type is far superior in performance, it should also be noted the BNC type connector is similar in performance to that of the N type but has the disadvantage of being less rugged. In the end, one should always check with the manufactures specifications. I never suggested that the N-type connector -wasn't- better. I will agree that they are better. But I said that the UHF connectors work fine, and for the OP's intended use they will probably work just as well as an N-type connector. This discussion reminds me of some OC audiophiles that think their 10-watt triode amps sound better with gold-plated capacitor screws and #2 oxygen-free speaker wires. Nobody is saying that such components aren't better, but at some point you need to heed the law of diminishing returns. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... I never suggested that the N-type connector -wasn't- better. I will agree that they are better. But I said that the UHF connectors work fine, and for the OP's intended use they will probably work just as well as an N-type connector. This discussion reminds me of some OC audiophiles that think their 10-watt triode amps sound better with gold-plated capacitor screws and #2 oxygen-free speaker wires. Nobody is saying that such components aren't better, but at some point you need to heed the law of diminishing returns. Frank I agree with your comments about "losses" in the UHF style of connectors. The problem is the impedance bump they cause. And this varies depending on the dielectric used. If nothing else they should use Teflon dielectric. If you look at some of the really "cheap" ones they use some kind of penolic that really increases the impedance bump. Also if you look at the high quality V/UHF antenna mounts and SWR-Power Meters, that use the female UHF connector, you will notice the center pin is held in place by several vanes between the ID of the outer shell to the OD of the center pin. This is NOT a cost saving measure. If you calculate the impedance of that connector assuming the dielectric is mostly air it works out to between 40 to 50 ohms minimizing the impedance bump. When you go to a manufacture's site to get the data sheet for a high quality V/UHF connector they state they are not "constant impedance". -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
Ewe got mail. |
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:54:21 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . I never suggested that the N-type connector -wasn't- better. I will agree that they are better. But I said that the UHF connectors work fine, and for the OP's intended use they will probably work just as well as an N-type connector. This discussion reminds me of some OC audiophiles that think their 10-watt triode amps sound better with gold-plated capacitor screws and #2 oxygen-free speaker wires. Nobody is saying that such components aren't better, but at some point you need to heed the law of diminishing returns. Frank I agree with your comments about "losses" in the UHF style of connectors. The problem is the impedance bump...... Leland, Measure it. If you actually find this impedance "bump", maybe you can explain why impedance is so significant for these connectors while impedance will "unnecessarily complicate things" for mag-mounts. Are you saying that impedance is important for connectors but not for antenna grounds? Why not fall back to your "pure capacitance" excuse where UHF connectors are concerned? Make up your mind, Leland. What's important -- impedance or 'pure capacitance'? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... Measure it. If you actually find this impedance "bump", maybe you can explain why impedance is so significant for these connectors You checked your E-mail? You have the detailed answer there in the attached zip file. while impedance will "unnecessarily complicate things" for mag-mounts. You have "unnecessarily complicate things" because you don't understand the difference. Are you saying that impedance is important for connectors but not for antenna grounds? See the file I sent to you. Why not fall back to your "pure capacitance" excuse where UHF connectors are concerned? Why don't you explain it. Funny why "N" connectors and other "constant impedance" connectors are used at UHF almost exclusively. Make up your mind, Leland. What's important -- impedance or 'pure capacitance'? Its very clear to me Frank. What is also clear is you don't. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You checked your E-mail? When are you going to reply to my emails, nad? |
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:26:51 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . Measure it. If you actually find this impedance "bump", maybe you can explain why impedance is so significant for these connectors You checked your E-mail? You have the detailed answer there in the attached zip file. Mailbox is empty. Did you remove the "nospam"? while impedance will "unnecessarily complicate things" for mag-mounts. You have "unnecessarily complicate things" because you don't understand the difference. Now that's an interesting answer..... the difference between impedance and capacitance is that I don't understand the difference? Are you saying that impedance is important for connectors but not for antenna grounds? See the file I sent to you. Checked again. Still empty. Why not fall back to your "pure capacitance" excuse where UHF connectors are concerned? Why don't you explain it. Alrighty..... Any capacitor is basically a network of capacitance, inductance and resistance. The circuit can't see the "pure capacitance" without seeing the inductance and resistance, hence the necessity of measuring a capacitor as an impedance since impedance = resistance + reactance. And because frequency is directly related to reactance, impedance changes in relation to frequency. The other issue to consider is the dielectric of the capacitance, which will affect the frequency linearity (Z/f curve) of the device. For all practical purposes, only vacuum and air capacitors are linear in this respect -- all others are not. This means that as the frequency changes, so will the resistance and/or 'pure' capacitance, or both. And this is why you -must- measure impedance at the operating frequency. As far as connectors are concerned, both N-type and UHF-type connectors are low-impedance coaxial designs, so unless the wavelength is a few cm or higher there will be little or no reflection due to impedance mismatch (assuming there -is- an impedance mismatch). With that out of the way, the insulation is the other cause of concern. It is effectively the dielectric of the capacitance between the center conductor and the shield. So in this respect, the quality of the connector depends on the quality of the insulation. Cheap insulation will have poor high-frequency characteristics, while.... well, you get the idea. So if there is power loss it will be due to poor insulation properties (cheap materials, contamination, etc.). And -that- is why the N-type connectors are preferred for UHF and up since it is (or rather, it's -supposed- to be) a sealed connector, thereby preventing humidity and other crud from contaminating the dielectric (or corroding the contacts) and therefore causing power loss. There you have it. It's ironic that while impedance is the primary factor in both these issues, you have misunderstood both from totally opposite ends of the spectrum. But hey, nobody's perfect. Funny why "N" connectors and other "constant impedance" connectors are used at UHF almost exclusively. Make up your mind, Leland. What's important -- impedance or 'pure capacitance'? Its very clear to me Frank. What is also clear is you don't. Checked again. Mailbox is still empty. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
You checked your E-mail? Have you checked yours, coward? 14 mile road! -- Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready. |
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:26:51 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . Measure it. If you actually find this impedance "bump", maybe you can explain why impedance is so significant for these connectors You checked your E-mail? You have the detailed answer there in the attached zip file. I finally got the file but the images are sourced for a local directory. If you want to send an html that will pull pics from a remote website, the full url must be used in the call or the website must be sourced in the header. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... Mailbox is empty. Did you remove the "nospam"? I did. In fact I just sent it again just now. It does have a file attached so if your E-mail program filters out mail with attachments you will have to turn it off. while impedance will "unnecessarily complicate things" for mag-mounts. You have "unnecessarily complicate things" because you don't understand the difference. Now that's an interesting answer..... the difference between impedance and capacitance is that I don't understand the difference? You haven't impressed me with knowing the difference. I was addressing a capacitance measurement only, exclusively and separate from any other electrical property. You can't seem to figure out that your impedance measurement combines capacitance, inductance, and resistance all together. If I took a 1000pf vacuum capacitor and connected it in series with a 1000 ohm resistor, placed it in a black box you can't open, and brought out two leads for you to connect to your Z-bridge then asked you to make your measurement you would tell me I have a crappy capacitor. Then if I wanted to give you somthing to think about I can stick a small inductor in series with the capacitor and resistor to give some strange impedance variations with frequency. Now try to figure out what's in the box from your Z-bridge measurement. That's the problem you have with your measurements where the black box is the mag-mount. Making a capacitance measurenet, or some simple calculations, would be like peeking inside the black box and saying, Oh now I see what is going on. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... When are you going to reply to my emails, nad? What E-mail? -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... When are you going to reply to my emails, nad? What E-mail? The three I've sent to . -- Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready. |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... I finally got the file but the images are sourced for a local directory. If you want to send an html that will pull pics from a remote website, the full url must be used in the call or the website must be sourced in the header. Frank it works just fine on my laptop. I stuck the whole thing in a directory named "temp". You should have ONE file named "AdapterSWRcalsRevC.htm, and ONE DIRECTORY named "AdapterSWRcalsRevC_images" with everything else in it. That should work. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
Frank check your E-mail again. It looks like the image files didn't go
through. I'll send them separately. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... When are you going to reply to my emails, nad? What E-mail? The three I've sent to . You wated your time. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... When are you going to reply to my emails, nad? What E-mail? The three I've sent to . You wated your time. Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend? -- Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready. |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend? So where are you going to be at? -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend? So where are you going to be at? Read the email, nad. -- Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready. |
Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend? So where are you going to be at? dont bother reading the email leland all steveochicken is willing to admit is that he is going to be somewhere in ohio ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! |
|
"Steveo" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend? So where are you going to be at? Read the email, nad. What's wrong? Can't muster up the courage to publicly answer the question? You hide your identity, scared to publicly answer my question as to where exactly you will be at can't be trusted and isn't worth wasting my time on. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
|
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend? So where are you going to be at? Read the email, nad. What's wrong? Can't muster up the courage to publicly answer the question? This is now between you and I, I've told you where I'll be. Now lets see who is lacking the courage to run his pie hole to my face, you ****ing coward. You hide your identity, I've told you my real name, you keep insisting I'm Peebles since you've claimed to have ran my plate from the last visit. scared to publicly answer my question as to where exactly you will be at I'll be in Madison heights Michigan for three days, attending the Woodward dream cruise. This is old news already, pussy. can't be trusted and isn't worth wasting my time on. Huh? You said I'd never show up, and I'd never tell you the details, well I'm doing both and now you can't waste your time!? Sounds more like you're afraid of what might happen to you if you said any of the **** you like to type, to my face. What's wrong Nadia, big man behind the keyboard but a coward when I'll be right in your neighborhood? -- Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready. |
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:43:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:29:17 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" wrote in : "Southern Kiwi" wrote in message ... Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig? Probably, but how much of your signal do you want to waste, heating up the coax? With some types, it wouldn't be a surprise to see 3/4 of your power lost between the rig and the antenna.. Andrews LMR-400 is good, as is all large hardline. If the line is short, the type won't make much difference unless it's RG-174 (really thin stuff). E.g, for a length of 18' @ 500 MHz I got the following loss figures: 1/2" HL -- 0.3 dB RG-17 -- 0.3 9913 -- 0.5 RG-8 -- 0.9 RG-58 -- 1.5 RG-174 -- 4.9 N connectors are much better than the old "UHF" connectors (so named when 30 MHz was "Ultra-high frequency") I don't know where you get your information but it's wrong. UHF connectors work fine for UHF. And to the best of my knowledge, the current limits of the UHF spectrum (300 MHz to 3 GHz) were defined long before the connectors ever existed. Frank; Back in the 40's UHF was defined a low as 100 MHZ. I had a friend in school that had a Hallicrafters S-36A, covered 27 to 143 MHZ. S-36's were made in the 40's. The front panel had a "logo" on it, " Ultra High Frequency Communications Receiver". I think that the UHF connectors first showed up in the mid 1930's. |
Steveo wrote in message ...
(I Am Not George) wrote: "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend? So where are you going to be at? Read the email, nad. What's wrong? Can't muster up the courage to publicly answer the question? You hide your identity, scared to publicly answer my question as to where exactly you will be at can't be trusted and isn't worth wasting my time on. you have got him pegged leland if he does show you wont see him he is the type to hide behind corners and take pictures Nad claims he doesn't want to "waste his time" meeting me, just like his felon hero N8WWM was a chicken**** when confronted in person. Are you ****ers french? What's your real name and address? |
Steveo wrote in message ...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend? So where are you going to be at? Read the email, nad. What's wrong? Can't muster up the courage to publicly answer the question? This is now between you and I, I've told you where I'll be. Now lets see who is lacking the courage to run his pie hole to my face, you ****ing coward. You hide your identity, I've told you my real name, you keep insisting I'm Peebles since you've claimed to have ran my plate from the last visit. scared to publicly answer my question as to where exactly you will be at I'll be in Madison heights Michigan for three days, attending the Woodward dream cruise. This is old news already, pussy. can't be trusted and isn't worth wasting my time on. Huh? You said I'd never show up, and I'd never tell you the details, well I'm doing both and now you can't waste your time!? what details? you didnt email anything that is a lie leland and n8 are in qrz. you have no real name and no real address you are nobody. the only way you can prove you went somewhere is with pictures ROTFLMFAO and even then it might be some one else taking them not you lol |
|
Frank; Back in the 40's UHF was defined a low as 100 MHZ. I had a friend in school that had a Hallicrafters S-36A, covered 27 to 143 MHZ. S-36's were made in the 40's. The front panel had a "logo" on it, " Ultra High Frequency Communications Receiver". I think that the UHF connectors first showed up in the mid 1930's. These guys could argue for a month, over anything. |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... This is now between you and I, I've told you where I'll be So there isn't a problem with refreshing my memory then is there? So where? Exactly. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... I've told you at least 50 times, Medina Ohio. Putz. Where's your street address chicken. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
|
"I Am Not George" wrote in message m... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... This is now between you and I, I've told you where I'll be So there isn't a problem with refreshing my memory then is there? So where? Exactly. you have every right to ask that question leland. email addresses can be faked. who knows who sent you that email. could be anybody. for that matter usenet posts can be faked. the only way to prove it is steve is to get his real name phone number and address. other wise its a waste of your time. Steveo is a waste of everybody's time. I offered to meet him once and he said it was too far to drive. He chickened out. You can do a google search to find the relevant post. Well he lied because he later claimed to have shown up at my apartment. Guess it wasn't too far after all. He was just too much of a chicken to meet me at the place I posted the address for the meeting. You can find that post as well. So I have zero reason to believe him whatever he says now. If he can't provide his real name, address, and phone number he can forget it. He has mine and I don't really give a flip. So what is he so scared of anyway? -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
Steveo is a waste of everybody's time. I offered to meet him once and he said it was too far to drive. He chickened out. You can do a google search to find the relevant post. Well he lied because he later claimed to have shown up at my apartment. Guess it wasn't too far after all. He was just too much of a chicken to meet me at the place I posted the address for the meeting. You can find that post as well. So I have zero reason to believe him whatever he says now. If he can't provide his real name, address, and phone number he can forget it. He has mine and I don't really give a flip. So what is he so scared of anyway? Hey Lee, read the email. -- Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com