I wonder if all you guys ever operate your radios or just sit around
running tests on them.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve M" <hondo@kscable.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>; "John Rippey" <w3uls@3n.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD [6+]
| I just reread the qst reveiw of the 6+. They were not happy with their
| measurements so they got another one. It was better except on 80
meters
| where it still missed 30db down by 3db.
| The first one was sent back to Ten Tec for repair. It missed
30db
| down by 2db on 10 meters when retested.
| This doesn't prove anything but it does show that 3 examples
of the
| 6+ didn't meet the Ten Tec spec of 30db down.
|
| Several radios with good audio reputations have intermod specs all
over
| the map from band to band--very good to horrible.
| John I know you were talking about the Omni 6 but I think info
about
| the 6+ is needed too.
|
| 73
| Steve wd0ct
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "John Rippey" <w3uls@3n.net>
| To: <tentec@contesting.com>
| Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 4:24 PM
| Subject: [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD
|
|
| > Steve et al:
| >
| > This is known as avoidance--I'm way behind in sending out QSL's, so
I'm
| > sitting in front of the computer posting to the Ten-Tec reflector
instead
| . . .
| >
| > It's peculiar that what must be essentially the same final comes in
with
| > much worse numbers when tested as the OMNI VI +. (THe MP and Mark-V
tested
| > essentially the same.) The QST reviewer, Larry Wolfgang, got pretty
testy
| > about what he determined to be inexcusable faults with the OMNI VI +
ARRL
| > had bought for testing. Maybe that particular rig was faulty.
Otherwise,
| > who knows? Anyone have an explanation?
| >
| > I own the VI not the VI +, OBTW.
| >
| > 73,
| > John, W3ULS
|