Dunestar 200w (as stated in Power Ratings chapter in manual)
W3NQN 200w (not 100% sure)
But those figures might not be very significant, Under a severe load
mismatch, their worst case condition as far as reliability is concerned,
they might behave differently. The W3NQN seems to be the most rugged unit.
73
-----Mensaje original-----
De: kd4e [mailto:doc@kd4e.com]
Enviado el: miércoles, 02 de enero de 2008 1:54
Para: Juan EA5RS
CC: rfi@contesting.com
Asunto: Re: [RFI] I. C. E. products question
Just curious ...
Are the Dunestar and W3NQN filters also 150W max.,
same as the ICE models?
> I have recently measured a couple of ICEs419 (6 band switched BPF) and a
> Dunestar600 (similar to the 419) with an accurrate Vector Network
Analyzer.
>
> While frequency response is similar between both models on the lower
bands,
> the Dunestar is significantly sharper and has a higher ultimate rejection
> (although not spectacular) on 20, 15 and 10m, at the expense of roughly
0,1
> to 0,2 dB additional insertion loss vs the 419.
>
> I chose the Dunestar for my application (SO2R-M/S).
>
> I also have a single-band 160m W3NQN BPF which outperforms both the ICE
and
> the Dunestar in terms of insertion loss and selectivity
>
> I have the data if someone is interested.
>
> 73 Juan EA5RS
--
Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
Sent Using: ChurchPup-Linux
http://www.churchpup.com/
Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/ \ {|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_|~~~~|
| -| | |
============\ # KD4E
__________ Información de NOD32, revisión 2759 (20080101) __________
Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system
http://www.nod32.com
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|