Can anyone provide a reasonable explanation for this issue..?
What would be technically incorrect about filtering before and after the
73, Larry - W1GOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Shauger" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>; "David Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Are All Low-Pass Filters Alike? -
> Absolutely, Don. Also, resist the temptation of putting a second LP
> after the amp. Someone mentioned that by doing so would tend to make
> Bob W7KD
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Havlicek" <email@example.com>
> To: "David Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Are All Low-Pass Filters Alike? -
>> Why don't hams place the LP filter between the Xcvr and the Amp? That
>> way, the amount of harmonics reaching the Amp will be minimized,
>> rendering their output levels relatively the same, if not lower, than if
>> the LP filter was AFTER the Amp.
>> BTW: this is what I have done since the 50's. Never blew up a LP
>> filter yet!
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list