Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Non\s+TR\,\s+but\s+a\s+newer\s+LBC\s+question\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: Unknown
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:24:43 -0600
A couple of weeks ago I bought a 2000 Jag XK8 convertible, which is a beautiful car. It came with a built-in cell phone, which I removed, because it is about 15 generations out of date. I also remove
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00061.html (8,578 bytes)

2. Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: Unknown
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 16:13:53 -0600
Congrats on new "baby"!!!! We will ALL be awaiting Mark Endicott's input here, Michael!!! Ed PS: What ever you do, PLEASE do not reverse the polarity!!!!! == This list supported in part by The Vintag
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00063.html (7,055 bytes)

3. Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: Unknown
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 00:06:41 -0500
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 r
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00069.html (7,854 bytes)

4. Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: Unknown
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 12:01:24 EST
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 t
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00075.html (7,763 bytes)

5. Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: Unknown
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 12:53:08 -0600 reply-type=original
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 o
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00077.html (7,935 bytes)

6. Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Marr" <mmarr@notwires.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:24:43 -0600
A couple of weeks ago I bought a 2000 Jag XK8 convertible, which is a beautiful car. It came with a built-in cell phone, which I removed, because it is about 15 generations out of date. I also remove
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00161.html (9,381 bytes)

7. Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: "Ed" <justbrits@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 16:13:53 -0600
Congrats on new "baby"!!!! We will ALL be awaiting Mark Endicott's input here, Michael!!! Ed PS: What ever you do, PLEASE do not reverse the polarity!!!!! == This list supported in part by The Vintag
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00163.html (7,848 bytes)

8. Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: Hoyt <hoyt@cavtel.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 00:06:41 -0500
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 r
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00169.html (8,615 bytes)

9. Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: Dave1massey@cs.com
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 12:01:24 EST
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 t
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00175.html (8,523 bytes)

10. Re: Non TR, but a newer LBC question (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Marr" <mmarr@notwires.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 12:53:08 -0600 reply-type=original
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 o
/html/triumphs/2006-03/msg00177.html (8,746 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu