RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   CB (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/)
-   -   UHF Mounts ?? (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/32320-uhf-mounts.html)

Southern Kiwi August 13th 04 09:17 PM

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... :)




Dave VanHorn August 13th 04 09:29 PM


"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")




Southern Kiwi August 13th 04 10:08 PM


"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



Dave VanHorn August 14th 04 04:22 AM


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.



Frank Gilliland August 14th 04 06:43 AM

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! =-----

Dave VanHorn August 14th 04 07:43 AM


"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.





Frank Gilliland August 14th 04 06:16 PM

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! =-----

Leland C. Scott August 15th 04 01:54 AM


"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




Steveo August 15th 04 02:51 AM

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:

Ewe got mail.

Frank Gilliland August 15th 04 12:52 PM

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! =-----

Leland C. Scott August 15th 04 09:26 PM


"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



Steveo August 15th 04 09:51 PM


"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
You checked your E-mail?

When are you going to reply to my emails, nad?



Frank Gilliland August 15th 04 10:22 PM

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! =-----

Steveo August 15th 04 10:40 PM

"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.

Frank Gilliland August 15th 04 10:50 PM

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! =-----

Leland C. Scott August 15th 04 11:25 PM


"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



Leland C. Scott August 16th 04 12:02 AM


"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



Steveo August 16th 04 12:05 AM

"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.

Leland C. Scott August 16th 04 12:11 AM


"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



Leland C. Scott August 16th 04 12:17 AM

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




Leland C. Scott August 16th 04 12:44 AM


"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



Steveo August 16th 04 02:06 AM

"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.

Leland C. Scott August 16th 04 02:25 AM


"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



Steveo August 16th 04 02:44 AM

"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.

I Am Not George August 16th 04 02:58 AM

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 August 16th 04 03:01 AM

(I Am Not George) wrote:
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!!!!!!!!!!

When did they move the Woodward dream cruise to Ohio?

Nervous -rotflmao- is not very becoming.

--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

Leland C. Scott August 16th 04 03:52 AM


"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



I Am Not George August 16th 04 03:56 AM

"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

Steveo August 16th 04 11:38 AM

"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.

Steveo August 16th 04 11:47 AM

(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?

--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

Lancer August 16th 04 06:31 PM

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.







I Am Not George August 16th 04 06:53 PM

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?

I Am Not George August 16th 04 06:58 PM

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

Steveo August 16th 04 07:20 PM

(I Am Not George) wrote:
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

Are you Leland?

--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

Dave VanHorn August 16th 04 08:55 PM


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.



Leland C. Scott August 17th 04 04:37 AM


"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



Leland C. Scott August 17th 04 04:41 AM


"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 August 17th 04 04:46 AM

"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.

Leland C. Scott August 17th 04 05:30 AM


"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



Steveo August 17th 04 12:21 PM

"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 11:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com