--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: "Phil T. (VE3OZZ)" <phil@vaxxine.com>
To: km1h@juno.com
Cc: amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [AMPS] I.C.E. filters - reply to Carl
To: <amps@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:45:51
Message-ID: <3.0.5.16.19981224084551.383f2404@vaxxine.com>
snip
>>the filters. Marv sited high insertion loss at 29 MHZ amongst other
>>things.
>
>Hmmmm. I mentioned experiences that Marv then commented on, guess you
>forgot me...
>
>Let me repeat that after a very early problem I have been 100% happy
with
>ICE products
>
>73 Carl KM1H
>
I think you're right Carl. I think I got 7 e-mails about ICE filters.
Rather than recite all comments in those e-mails, I chose to just
"summarise" the general gist of them in this most recent post. Marv and I
were back and forth a few times about this subject 'off-line', so his
comments ended-up sticking with me. Now I must admit that I did forget
that you had stated that you were happy with more recent ICE
products...my
apologies. I'm perhaps a good example of what happens when an issue like
this comes up - after some time passes, I remember all the NEGATIVE stuff
quite well.
snip
Hello All,
Since my comments to Phil were being utilized here, in fairness to
I.C.E., the FULL extent of them should be provided to all concerned. I
told Phil that I was NOT familiar with the quality of I.C.E.'s CURRENT
products but that I did have reservations from my earlier observations
and measurements.
My appraisal of their filters was based on measurements that were made by
three different test setups; mine, another by W6GNX, and with both of us
using HP141T/8443 Spectrum Analyzers/Tracking Generators. This was
followed, most significantly, by those made by an HP Tech Rep who
demonstrated his measurments on a number of different LPFs to a gathering
in 1992. He was using their finest HP Network Analyzer/plotter. With
that system, he demonstrated that the I.C.E. LPF and BP filters did not
meet their specs. However, one must remember that this was a relatively
small sample and that I.C.E. apparently had changed their filter design
in the early days of their operation. Since their nomenclature did not
change, it would be difficult to determine which version was under test.
I have two reservations..........based on what I last saw. One, was the
risk of cold flow in the Teflon capacitors causing drift plus possible
arcing. Secondly, is the possible lowered Q in the filter elements due to
the relatively small shielding enclosures in which they are housed.
It is rewarding to learn that their policies regarding product warranty
are
so exceptionaly good as this is often not the case elsewhere. Since I
believe that there are many of us here, looking for a top notch LPF, it
would be a great service to all concerned if I.C.E. would post their
current, detailed specs including their Swept Frequency response and
Return Loss measurements.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!
Marv, W6FR
snip
The ICE units appear to be robust well made units, and they are a
reasonable price. It would be a shame to overlook using a product because
of negative impressions that aren't fully justified.
Thanks
Phil
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
--------- End forwarded message ----------
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|