[Top] [All Lists]

JRC review

Subject: JRC review
From: PEMS_ST_DK@noeca.ohio.gov (PEMS_ST_DK@noeca.ohio.gov)
Date: Thu Aug 24 18:31:39 1995
The  recent issue of QST has a review of the JRC JST-245 that makes it sound
like a great deal PLUS you get 6 meters (and antenna tuner and room for 
a zillion filters, etc.) So, the reveiew sounds good and lots of talk about 
870, OMNI, FT-1000mp, etc.   IS there a contestor (got in in TREY!)
who owns one ?  One of the dealers is in Ohio (Universal) and sounds
like service is possible.  Any interest in this gem (even NEWKIRK liked
*  W8CAR pems_st_dk@noeca.ohio.gov                                 * 
*  Dan Kovatch                                                     *
*  Antennas are the key - BUT an ALPHA sure doesn't hurt!          *

>From Hodge Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA <hodge@servidor.unam.mx>  Thu Aug 24 
>22:40:06 1995
From: Hodge Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA <hodge@servidor.unam.mx> (Hodge 
Thorgerson David Cameron-INBA)
Subject: naqp score rumors
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950824153547.7894C-100000@servidor>

Greetings!  I did get a 40mtr wire in the air and had some fun.
Lacking the details I will guesstimate my results.

209 QSOs X 50 MULTS? = 16k approximate score  about 5 hours on the air

15 sounded DEAD at 1800Z but picked up later in the afternoon.  I didn't
try 20 until later and was surprized that anyone could hear me.  My old
40 wire never got out on 20!
73,  David  XE1/AA6RX

>From richard.frey@Harris.COM (DFREY)  Thu Aug 24 22:11:35 1995
From: richard.frey@Harris.COM (DFREY) (DFREY)
Subject: Ladder filters
Message-ID: <03cf94b0@maila.harris.com>

     Ladder filters are nonsymmetrical, but once you have more than one in 
     series and the Omni V/VI has 3, the effect is minimal (unless you are 
     an uncompromising teutonic purist).  One of the perverse features of 
     crystal filters their not-well-understood nonlinearities.  I prefer 
     ladders in this regard. The internal node impedances are much lower.
     All lattice filters have transformers in them and I have seen quite a 
     few in which the teeny xfmr core was limiting the signal handling 
     performance of the filter. Ladder filters have no such encumbrances.
     Technically and practically, ladders vs lattice is a non-issue.  
     But of course, I'm biased.
     Dick,   K4XU

>From richard.frey@Harris.COM (DFREY)  Thu Aug 24 22:50:44 1995
From: richard.frey@Harris.COM (DFREY) (DFREY)
Subject: Omni VII  desired features
Message-ID: <03d03de0@maila.harris.com>

     >I just talked to Ten-Tec and there have not been any changes on the
     >OMNI-VI lately. The RIT is still the same.
     >However, some one sent them a FAX about our discussions. Best bet
     >is call Tom Salvetti next week and bug him. He is on vacation now.
     >Maybe if enough of us call, maybe they will update the ROM
     >73, Jim, WA6SDM
     ...and their fax number is 615 428 4483.  If you feel Ten-Tec should 
     be able build what you want in a CONTEST radio, tell them about it.  
     Market surveys are not their long suit.  Since I left in '85 and K4FW 
     is no longer active in the daily operations, T-T has had limited 
     contest-oriented input to their product design goals.
     I've pushed 'em for years and even got an input to the changes from 
     the V to VI.  The only thing that sways Salvetti (VP Sales) is hard 
     numbers: how many people out there would buy what if it only had....  
     Now here is your chance.
     Dick, K4XU

>From Steve Runyon WQ5G  512-838-7008 <steve@austin.ibm.com>  Fri Aug 25 
>01:14:43 1995
From: Steve Runyon WQ5G  512-838-7008 <steve@austin.ibm.com> (Steve Runyon WQ5G 
Subject: Future Radio (inside the computer!)
Message-ID: <9508242314.AA22587@runyon.austin.ibm.com>

>> ... someone commented about doing dsp in a host computer.

>That was me. I think it is a good idea, and I can back it up.

>>that is probably not a good idea.  dedicated dsp processors are streamlined
>>for doing exactly what is needed for dsp, and even a cheap one has a much
>>better throughput than a general purpose processor like an 80x86 or pentium.

>I was talking RISC - specifically the PowerPC family. Floating point
>performance is quite good. A 601 processor can do a single-precision
>multiply with a latency of 4 clocks. There's even a set of special
>instructions for multiply-accumulate operations. They also have a latency
>of 4 clocks (5 for double-precision). Those instructions are designed for
>DSP computations.

I think Bill is right... I don't know that much about DSPs, but doesn't
the Omni's run at 25MHz? Modern processors like the 604 are running 
at well over 100MHz with more to come, and extremely high bus rates
and wide buses. The 604 can do a full double precision Multiply and Add
every cycle, so 100MHz would be a peak rate of 200 million double
precision ops per second. (And they're a lot faster than 100MHz.) 
That's a LOT of number crunching!

Most modern processors have sophisticated interrupt structures and 
can handle real-time applications quite well. So you can still have 
all your other junk running, it'll just run slower when you're using
the processor for your radio.

TACO, huh?? Oh, well, guess I can still drink coffee during the 'test!

> ... (Totally Automated Contest Operation)

>From aa6tt@frontier.net (William H. Hein)  Fri Aug 25 01:11:19 1995
From: aa6tt@frontier.net (William H. Hein) (William H. Hein)
Subject: FT-1000MP QSK
Message-ID: <v02110100ac62634465c0@[]>

Someone (I lost the message) asked me how the FT-1000MP will handle QSK.  I
spoke with Chip at Yaesu who reported that the forthcoming FT-1000MP (and
also the current FT-1000 and FT-1000D models) can operate QSK with amps
like the Alpha 87a using a solid-state switch (with the internal mechanical
relay disabled).

Whoever emailed me wanting to purchase my FT-1000D (all options installed),
please email me (direct, not via reflector) again.  I also misplaced your

Bill AA6TT

William H. Hein, PO Bx 579, Ignacio, Colorado 81137-0579 USA
fone 970/883-2415  fax 970/883-2408  Internet aa6tt@frontier.net
AA6TT is in Tiffany, Colorado, grid square DM67fb
*** To subscribe to the 160m DX Internet mailing list, email the message
"subscribe" to topband-request@lists.frontier.net ***

>From James White <0006492564@mcimail.com>  Fri Aug 25 01:35:00 1995
From: James White <0006492564@mcimail.com> (James White)
Subject: Omni VI - Potential Contesters' Dreamradio?
Message-ID: <32950825003523/0006492564PK2EM@MCIMAIL.COM>

Welcome to the information superhighway, all aboard!

After a contest there is someone on the contest reflector who volunteers to
collect the score rumors...he will then post the results of his collecting
to the reflector for all to glean knowledge from and enjoy...

As an active OMNI VI using contester who wants just a lil more from Ten Tec
I hereby volunteer my services as far as collecting comments for Ten Tec as
to how they could improve their radio for the competitive radio user.

I know Trey likes to keep his reflector clear of all non-contest traffic and
by addressing comments to myself for compilation and then submittal to Ten
Tec we can do just that. If interest exists and Trey would not mind I then
could summarize these results down the road. OK - senor Dos?

This could be a very interesting exercise in just how powerful we as a
community are when it comes to affecting a radio's design. Contesters
arguably have always been on the leading or cutting edge, we are the ones
who want the rig to work its best at of all things - making contacts!

Unless someone objects to this approach - send me your wishes, your dreams,
your - "they'll never put it in" hopes...the Omni VI is a very good rig, and
I think many - including myself - would argue that currently its receiver is
the best in a contest. If you want the headphone jack on the backside of the
rig so you don't always bump into the thing - let me forward your e-mail to
that effect!  I'll try and generate a cover letter highlighting the "main
beefs with" that the community has and the major "I wish it hads" as well as
forwarding all the actual e-mail messages. If you wish to remain anonymous
please be sure to say so in your message, I will edit your address out of
the message.

It is in my best interest to demonstrate to Ten Tec that maybe a lil
firmware alteration could make a button push turn that remote tuning knob
turn into an RIT control for contest run time, that alone would make me all
warm and fuzzy!

I am particularly interested in hearing from owners of Ten Tec rigs, as I am
sure that their comments as people who have demonstrated their willingness
to invest in a first class transceiver will be heard better by Ten Tec.
Contesters spend more money on their antenna farms than any other segment of
the ham community - and for years, amplifier manufacturers like ETO have
designed and marketed their amplifiers with contesters in mind. We are a
powerful voice when it comes to spending money on our hobby - why shouldn't
there be a rig that is full of the features we need?




                                        Jim, K1ZX
...I do not subscribe to the DX reflector, I would appreciate someone cross
posting this message....same goes for the Top Band reflector....tnx

>From Doug Grant <0006008716@mcimail.com>  Fri Aug 25 02:03:00 1995
From: Doug Grant <0006008716@mcimail.com> (Doug Grant)
Subject: No-Play Rule
Message-ID: <54950825010345/0006008716NA5EM@MCIMAIL.COM>

Count me against any sort of No-Play rule for contest sponsors.

Doug  K1DG
Sponsor, Poisson d'Avril Contest
Undefeated Champion, Poisson d'Avril Contest, 4 years running

p.s. No matter what you do, even if you're K1AR, you're never gonna beat me
in *my* contest on *my* birthday, neener neener neener. Even if I don't 
operate. So there.

p.p.s. Geez, I hope conditions get better soon. Perhaps everyone's sense of
humor will return too.

>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>  Fri Aug 25 03:39:59 1995
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: Omni VI - Potential Contesters' Dreamradio?
Message-ID: <809318399.576395.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>

> I know Trey likes to keep his reflector clear of all non-contest traffic and
> by addressing comments to myself for compilation and then submittal to Ten
> Tec we can do just that. If interest exists and Trey would not mind I then
> could summarize these results down the road. OK - senor Dos?

I think it would be great if people sent their comments directly to Jim
and then he eventually summarized to CQ-Contest.  The key here is 
sending your comments directly to Jim and *not* sending them to

Similarly, I think it would be great if we could do something similar
with claimed scores after contests, where they could all be posted to
one place and then posted daily in one big chunk, maybe with a summary
at the top.  Anyone wanna volunteer to do that too?  :-)

--Trey, WN4KKN/6

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • JRC review, PEMS_ST_DK@noeca.ohio.gov <=