triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question

To: <Dave1massey@cs.com>, <hoyt@cavtel.net>, <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 12:53:08 -0600 reply-type=original
References: <202.11e422b3.313c7364@cs.com>
Hoyt and Dave:

Thanks for the input.  After a little research, I found that the satellite 
antenna is a type SMB and the connectors on the existing coax APPEAR to be 
SMA.  I have found several sources of adaptors, so I think I will just go 
ahead and spend a few bucks to see if it works.  If it doesn't, then I'll go 
to Plan B, which is to aske the Jag dealer to run the satellite antenna 
cable for me.

Mike

:
>> Hoyt Said:


>> Satellite frequencies are much higher than cellular phones. Coaxial cable
>> losses are greater at higher frequencies and the impedencies  of the coax
>> may
>> be different. I woudl stick with the satellite radio antenna coax for the
>> satellite radio antenna.
>>

And Dave Said:

> Not to mention the characteristic impeadence may be different.
>
> Dave
> N0FEJ


===  This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register
===     http://www.vtr.org


===  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>