[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: LMR400 or 400UF? (Thanks and further comments)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tondee" <mat_62@netcommander.com>
To: <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:23 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LMR400 or 400UF? (Thanks and further comments)

> I think I sent this to Sebastian when I in fact meant to send it to the
> whole BBS. My aplogies if it's a duplicate post.
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Tondee" <mat_62@netcommander.com>
> To: "Sebastian" <w4as@bellsouth.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: LMR400 or 400UF? (Thanks and further comments)
>
> > So what I'm getting from everyone is to go with a section of 400UF
> > between
> > the antenna and the preamp and the just the regular 400 down into the
> > shack.
> > I think that should certainly be better than what I have now anyway. Any
> > further comments?
> > Tnx and 73,
> > Michael
> >
Hi Michael,

No further comments and concerning transmission line losses It is the best
compromise both for RX and TX conditions. Have you looked at the following
article ?

"Receiver Noise Figure Sensitivity and Dinamic Range ,what the Numbar mean"
by James R. Fisk, W1DTY Ham Radio Magazine october 1975

73" de

i8CVS Domenico


_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home