Labgear MSE113 aerial booster.
ian field
can't be for anything but boosting, there's no gain figure marked on the
label and an internet search only found forums with other people asking the
same question.
Does anyone know the spec for this unit?
TIA.
Jeff Layman
Had anyone tried emailing Labgear?
--
Jeff
ian field
"Jeff Layman" <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h3qekj$3oo$1...@news.albasani.net...
Just done - but putting the model number in the search box on their website
gives no results, so I won't hold my breath.
Once most companies stop making a product they practically deny it ever
existed!
Terry Casey
No, but guessing that it came from the days before incomprehensible
computerised part numbers became the norm, when many manufacturers used
model numbers that actually translated into something useful ...
... I'd guess something on these lines:
M Mains operated
SE Model type identifier
1 Single output
13 13dB Gain
I could, of course, be completely wrong ...!
Terry
Doctor D
"Jeff Layman" <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h3qekj$3oo$1...@news.albasani.net...
Labgear were swallowed up by Philex in 2004 and their product lines and
market position changed markedly.
I suspect anything from before that date may be meaningless to the new boys.
Ian Jackson
<k.t...@example.invalid> writes
Labgear+MSE113 gets lots of hits on Google, lot seem to be dead ends,
and those which aren't don't give you the spec.
--
Ian
Bill Wright
"Doctor D" <an...@anon.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ZednbMs6MbnbP3X...@brightview.co.uk...
Andy Wade will know. If you're really bothered email him care of Blakes,
Sheffield.
Bill
Andy Wade
> Andy Wade will know.
Well, IIRC, the MSE113 was a 1-in 1-out 'setback' amp made for the
retail market (probably Argos). The gain will be in the 12 to 15 dB
range at UHF and I think it had VHF coverage down to 88 MHz with the
gain throttled back a bit in the VHF bands. The noise figure is likely
to be 2.5 to 3 dB.
I'll have a look in my archives next week - I might be able to find an
instruction leaflet.
--
Andy
Brian Gaff
engineered job?
I have a Televerter like that here.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"ian field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:OG38m.10971$ay4....@newsfe27.ams2...
ian field
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XCj8m.57949$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Especially when they changed hands so much in between. Probably a Pye
> badge engineered job?
> I have a Televerter like that here.
>
My email bounced so whoever they are now they don't want to help!
It would be much better if you followed the widely accepted convention by
not top posting - it chops up the quoted text making the thread a PITA to
read.
ian field
"Andy Wade" <spamb...@maxwell.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7cdmm2F...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks - if you can give an exact figure for gain that would be very
helpful.
It seems to work very marginally better than a 2-way Commtel which has
18.6dB marked on the label.
Peter Duncanson
Brian Gaff is blind. This makes it physically difficult for him to
bottom post. Newsreader software, whether for the sighted or the blind,
automatically puts the cursor at the top of the reply ready for input.
Those of us who are sighted can easily move the cursor to the bottom of
the quoted text. This is not easy for the blind.
Java Jive
the fact that Brian has an unavoidable, overriding reason for
top-posting, which is plainly readable in his sig, others such as
myself prefer to do it as a matter of course, except when the nature
of the post dictates otherwise, such as when I am replying to more
than point in another person's post, when I interleave the reply with
the original points.
Personally I find threads much of a more a PITA to read where people
insist on bottom posting, so that I have to scroll all the way down
stuff I've already read just to read a new comment. Imagine what
conversation would be like if, before you are allowed to say anything
new, you have to repeat verbatim everything that has been said before.
That is what bottom posting does to usenet.
People like myself have heard all the arguments for and against the
different methods of posting uncountable times over and do what we do
as a matter of rational choice. The world doesn't need an upstart
job's worth such as yourself to add to the millions of hits you will
already find if you Google "top posting" or "bottom posting".
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:20:28 +0100, "ian field"
<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> It would be much better if you followed the widely accepted convention by
> not top posting - it chops up the quoted text making the thread a PITA to
> read.
======================================
Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
ian field
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com> wrote in message
news:5mm365l64lsps8rhh...@4ax.com...
> It would be much better if you followed the widely accepted convention
> of not quibbling with the posting styles of others. Quite apart from
> the fact that Brian has an unavoidable, overriding reason for
> top-posting, which is plainly readable in his sig, others such as
> myself prefer to do it as a matter of course, except when the nature
> of the post dictates otherwise, such as when I am replying to more
> than point in another person's post, when I interleave the reply with
> the original points.
>
> Personally I find threads much of a more a PITA to read where people
> insist on bottom posting, so that I have to scroll all the way down
> stuff I've already read just to read a new comment. Imagine what
> conversation would be like if, before you are allowed to say anything
> new, you have to repeat verbatim everything that has been said before.
> That is what bottom posting does to usenet.
>
> People like myself have heard all the arguments for and against the
> different methods of posting uncountable times over and do what we do
> as a matter of rational choice. The world doesn't need an upstart
> job's worth such as yourself
You are an arsehole.
ian field
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:09n365tpa580e97fc...@4ax.com...
Point taken - but I often read some people who claim to have newsreaders
that automatically crop sigfiles (and can get pretty abusive to people who
don't and don't do so manually). So its not a great stretch of the
imagination that the technology is out there to make life easier for people
with all kinds of disability.
Perhaps Brian has been badly advised on what equipment/software to use.
Java Jive
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:42:27 +0100, "ian field"
<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> You are an arsehole.
Peter Duncanson
<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Possibly, but I'm not going to make that assumption. I get the
impression from what Brian writes on various technical matters that he
is an originally sighted person who has lost his sight later in life. If
this is correct he would have the background knowledge to be able to ask
the right questions about suitable equipment/software.
ian field
> Plonk!
No great loss.
Jeff Layman
> "Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:XCj8m.57949$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Especially when they changed hands so much in between. Probably a Pye
>> badge engineered job?
>> I have a Televerter like that here.
>>
>
> My email bounced so whoever they are now they don't want to help!
>
I must say that I'm not surprised, but sometimes the easiest route works!
Pity it didn't this time.
--
Jeff
neverwas
> helpful.
Out of interest, why would "an exact figure" be helpful?
It might also be worth mentioning for others what you no doubt found -
that in 2005 someone reported that the gain was not specified in the
leaflet or on the box. See #17 in the link below
http://www.avforums.com/forums/satellite-tv/259680-signal-booster-2.html
--
R
ian field
"neverwas" <notah...@all.all> wrote in message
news:imA8m.58175$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Thanks - if you can give an exact figure for gain that would be very
>> helpful.
>
> Out of interest, why would "an exact figure" be helpful?
>
To compare it with another booster I have to hand that does have the spec on
the label.
Andy Wade
> To compare it with another booster I have to hand that does have the spec on
> the label.
If you're still interested I've found the instruction leaflet for this
unit and, FWIW, have put a copy here
http://www.maxwell.myzen.co.uk/uk.tech.digital-tv/MSE113-01.pdf
I also found a production test spec which gives the gain limits as 14±2
dB at UHF and 7±2 dB at VHF (Band II).
Don't get too obsessed with 'exact' gain figures. There's always
variation with frequency, temperature and from unit to unit. In a
typical system of set-back amp, flylead with 0.5 dB loss and receiver
with 8 dB noise figure and assuming a NF of around 3 dB for the booster,
each 1 dB increase in booster gain will only make about 0.1 dB
difference to the overall system NF. Noise figure and input filtering
are more interesting things to look at than the gain of a booster.
Any label claiming 18.6 dB gain should be viewed with a great deal of
scepticism as it's conveying a wholly inappropriate impression of precision.
--
Andy
ian field
Thanks - much appreciated.
Java The Twat
> Plonk!
>
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:42:27 +0100, "ian field"
><gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> You are an arsehole.
That's his answer to everything and everyone he doesn't like. He is a
useless arrogant twat.
Mike
> Plonk!
>
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:42:27 +0100, "ian field"
>
>
> > You are an arsehole.
>
> ======================================
>
> Please always reply to news group as the email address in
> this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
> contact addresses at:
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Top posted plonks don't count.
Please try again.
J G Miller
> Top posted plonks don't count.
> Please try again.
And can we also include postings with signatures which do not use
the --<space> delimiter, as per UseNet standard?