X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:00:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.5) with ESMTP id 1803322 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:07:59 -0500 Received: from jacky0da39824a ([71.111.116.86]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JCR00LEHQ8S81X4@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:07:43 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:07:34 -0800 From: "Tom Gourley" Subject: Re: [LML] LEDs-Xmit X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Reply-to: "Tom Gourley" X-Original-Message-id: <006d01c745be$e2b76100$650610ac@jacky0da39824a> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006A_01C7457B.D3F214A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C7457B.D3F214A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The other good thing to do, if you've put a lot of money in your stack, = is to throw out any RG 58 or even the RG 400, and replace it with Andrew = FSJ1-50 coax; there's no better on the market. You'll tx an rx much = farther, with lots less nulls in your pattern, because of its low loss = and solid outer conductor with essentially NO leakage! Paul, Just curious, how did you determine that FSJ1 will allow you transmit = and receive much farther? Comparing the specs of FSJ1 with RG400 shows = that the difference in loss over 10' of coax at com frequencies is about = 0.25dB. That's trivial. And I was under the impression that nulls in = the pattern were primarily the result of the antenna and its physical = installation. Tom Gourley ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C7457B.D3F214A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The other good thing to do, if you've put a = lot of=20 money in your stack, is to throw out any RG 58 or even the RG 400, and = replace=20 it with Andrew FSJ1-50 coax; there's no better on the market. = You'll=20 tx  an rx much farther, with lots less nulls in your pattern, = because of=20 its low loss and solid outer conductor with essentially NO=20 leakage!
 
Paul,
 
Just curious, how did you determine = that FSJ1 will=20 allow you transmit and receive much farther?  Comparing the specs = of FSJ1=20 with RG400 shows that the difference in loss over 10' of coax at com = frequencies=20 is about 0.25dB.  That's trivial.  And I was under the = impression that=20 nulls in the pattern were primarily the result of the antenna and its=20 physical installation.
 
Tom Gourley
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C7457B.D3F214A0--