>From much of the E-Mail lately, it seems that the OMNI VI may be the
performance/value leader in the transceiver market. In a market so dominated
by the Japanese over the last decade, I wonder if TenTec is willing to really
listen to the customer and make those changes to the Omni VI that would make
it the clear winner? It seems obvious to me that any changes that make a
contester happy will benefit the HF community as a whole.
What changes are needed in the OMNI VI to correct the major irritants? What
do we want to see from the OMNI VII?
Hey TenTec, anybody listening?
>From email@example.com (Walt Deemer) Wed Aug 23 23:33:42 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Walt Deemer) (Walt Deemer)
Subject: IRC Report
I stopped by International Radio and Computers this afternoon and had a
nice chat with Peggy, KB4LRD, who is the wife of the owner (Rod, N8RT).
Here's what i found out:
1. Their computer business was sold a while back, and their phone
number went with the business. They still have the radio repairing and
filter business ("IRC"), but it's been moved to a back room due to the
expansion of their much bigger business in the same building (a Honda
motorcycle/jet ski showroom).
2. Unbeknownst to IRC, their two filter suppliers, both in Japan,
closed down a while ago. IRC did not learn of this for some time: seems
it is illegal for them to talk directly to a Japanese company, so they
have to go through an agent over there. IRC's agent (of 16 years)
apparently knew all about the supplier closings, but chickened out when
it came to telling IRC the news. (Among other things, IRC gave their
suppliers a 50% down payment when placing their tri-annual orders, and
they have lost that money, at least for the time being.) In fact, IRC
had to eventually go through the Japanese Consulate in Miami to reopen
the lines of communication.
3. IRC, through their agent, has now lined up two new suppliers
in Japan. If all goes according to plan, IRC will get a shipment of CW
filters in two months. SSB filters will be delayed beyond that. (Sorry.)
4. Their source? I dunno -- but Peggy mentioned that Kenwood put
through a 30% price increase on their filters the Monday after Dayton,
then never shipped them. "I think they use the same source we do".
Peggy indicated that she and Rod would like to sell their Honda showroom
and radio servicing business and "sort of" retire, but they intend to keep
the filter business as a retirement business. "We would sell it, but no
one would pay what we want for it; they'd think the price would be too
I told Peggy of the concerns expressed on the reflector about the delays,
etc. (but only hinted at the rude treatment that so many had complained
about getting from IRC in the past). Peggy seemed very willing to talk
to hams, and very sorry at the problems that had arisen (which she said
were beyond IRC's control in most cases). You might thus want to ask
for Peggy personally if you ever need to contact IRC:
Peggy Pohorence, KB4LRD, at IRC: (407) 489-0956.
Good Luck!! 73 de Walt, AC1O/4 "AC1O@sunken.gate.net"
>From email@example.com (Tyler Stewart) Thu Aug 24 04:46:42 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Subject: Modeling and reality
>>>I will tell you that in my experience from here and W3LPL, I'd almost
>guarantee >>that a single beam at 100 ft on 20 meters is going to outperform
>the lower stack >>to EU about 50% of the time under current conditions, and
>it will ALWAYS be >>louder...
>Even in Texas, it's tough to beat a good 20M yagi at 100' For years at N5AU,
>the best antenna was the Telrex 546 at 100'. At one point, we stacked
>another one below it at 50' fixed on EU. I did a single op on CW, and this
>setup kicked butt, but the 20M ops in the other contests didn't seem to be
> impressed. A massive windstorm the night B4 the '87 WPX CW test ripped out
>the side mount bracket on the lower antenna, but miraculously (sp?!) there
>was no tower damage; a couple of the elements stabbed the tower & the beam
>was just hanging with suprisingly little damage.
>Anyway, we had tried a high 204BA at 190' & all different heights with other
>20M yagis over the years, but until 1988 nothing beat the Telrex at 100'
> What happened in 1988? We moved the repaired Telrex to the top of a 190'
>foot tower. Wow! Awesome! Gordon's "Siberian Express" gave new meaning to
>20M in Texas. Trey (KKN) did some single op CW tests and mentioned it was
>THE antenna to use whenever possible. Short or long haul, it was always
>better!! Must be all the lobes.
>Just shows what it takes to be better than 100'. A massive array out of the
>reach of most of us.
>73, Gator N5RZ -------------------------;--;<< N5RZ@aol.com
Yeah, even more incredible is the 10 meter beam at 200'! As you said, I think
all the lobes help sometimes with the wierd stuff you get on 10...
But I dont think we miss a stack on 10 either.
For some reason, tho we havent been very successful on 15, so we've been
trying all sorts of things...but as it turns out we may have had some feed
problem with one of the antennas, so who knows... anyway 15M at LPL is just
getting a refurb... 73, Tyler KF3P
>From email@example.com (Joe Ham) Wed Aug 23 14:38:23 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joe Ham) (Joe Ham)
Subject: contest writeup; no play rule
I think anyone who puts as much effort into making a contest happen, get
properly reported, awarded, etc. and is still enough of a competitor to
play hard and well enough to win ought to be able to do both. Besides,
having the sponsor, coordinator, or whatever you want be "current" as a
contester contributes to the contest being improved by the sponsor each
>From email@example.com (Bill Turner W7LZP) Thu Aug 24 07:25:51 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Turner W7LZP) (Bill Turner W7LZP)
Subject: FT-1000/OMNI VI
At 07:03 PM 8/23/95 -0400, Tim Totten, KJ4VH wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Dave W6QHS wrote:
>But Dave has also hit on one of my big gripes--the RIT is a pain in the
>butt. Not only do you have to hold the button for an eternity to clear
>it, but the knob doesn't function during xmt. In other words, if I'm
>running stns, someone comes back a bit off freq, and I adjust the RIT, I
>can't even manually turn the RIT back to zero (or near-zero) while I'm
>sending TU/QRZ. So when I finish my QRZ, I'm listening off freq until I
>quickly try to turn the RIT back to zero. If someone calls me far enough
>on the other side of zerobeat, I miss the first letter or two.
May I make a suggestion that I find works really well for me: Instead of
using the RIT control, put the rig in the split mode but on the same
frequency, receiving on VFO A and transmitting on VFO B. That way you're
using the VFO A as the RIT. Punch it into the "scratchpad" memory. Then
when you're off freq, just hit the mem recall and there you are. Works like
a charm on the 'ol TS-850S.
73, Bill W7LZP
>From Marijan Miletic <email@example.com> Thu Aug 24 07:19:02 1995
From: Marijan Miletic <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Marijan Miletic)
Subject: CW PTT
My 11 years old contest software has CW PTT implemented from the very begining
with 2 dots delay (40ms minimum). I use Ready_To_Send signal in case of RS232
interface, 3k3 resistor, 1N4148 reverse polartity protection diode and NPN
transistor with decent DC gain. Same RTS signal is used to delay RTTY AFSK
tone in order to prevent hot switching. And my 20+ years old SB-220 lives
happily with BY graphite tubes... 73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU.
>From email@example.com (Patrick Dayshaw) Wed Aug 23 23:47:06 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Patrick Dayshaw) (Patrick Dayshaw)
Subject: DSP Radios
Paul KB8N wrote..... (in part)
>Doug's comments on "ham radio on a card" bring up a couple of very
>interesting and germane issues. The first is that of the concept of the
>"virtual transceiver" and what level of acceptance it will have in the
>community. The USAF developed a prototype "virtual receiver" for its HF
>sites a couple years ago. This was not a receiver on a card as Doug
>describes, but rather total computer control of the WJ and Racal military
>receivers. The computer screen displayed the receiver and the operator was
>able to access the controls through the use of touchscreen and mouse inputs.
>The operators who tested this concept did not like it! At the very minimum,
>they wanted the tactile feel of a tuning knob and the responsiveness of at
>least minimal physical controls. As the "hamcard" concept evolves, I
>believe that there will still be a necessity for some type of physical
>controls, probably something that sits next to the keyboard and is tied to
the computer. It seems obvious to me that commercial DSP available on
>inexpensive sound cards will be the audio processor of choice in this >scheme.
> 73, Paul KB8N
All the major airplane manufacturers have spent considerable dollars
providing physical "feed-back" on the control sticks in their "fly-by-wire"
airplanes so that it feels like the "old style analog" types (with cables
going out to the flaps etc.). Even though the computers do all kinds of
neat stuff for the pilot, they still want, and some say need, the tactile
feedback/sensations that they acquired when they learned to fly on other
aircraft. Big, big bucks are being spent exploring all kinds of control
sticks other than the traditional wheel/stick based approach that most are
familiar with, but the pilots for the most part don't seem to like them.
Funny how certain types of interfaces between humans and machines just seem
to be "natural". Interesting that the interface between the operator and
the radio would be similarly affected.
In the case of the radio, is it a matter of nature or nurture?
Patrick, WA7VNI........ email@example.com