Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+rich\s+Richard\s+\-\s+tiny\s+antenna\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+rich\s+Richard\s+\-\s+tiny\s+antenna\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Steve Wright <stevewrightnz@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:24:51 +1200; What is the fixation on this list with antenna tuners? You lot are starting to sound like a bunch of rich appliance operators! Almost every thread has reference to a verrry expensive antenna tuner! S; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00035.html (7,376 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:14:39 -0700; At one frequency, perhaps. But it takes some real tricks (good ones) to get a dipole apparent SWR (as read at the transmitter) under 2:1 for 400 kHz of 80/75. Ditto for 160M. Maybe you alligators wan; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00040.html (11,876 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 05:19:57 -0400; As Jim said, IM products are a really big deal! Most of the rigs on the bands have very poor signals. Along with bipolar transistors and sweep tube amps, we have been inundated with many thousands of; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00041.html (15,214 bytes)
4. [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:41:45 -0700; What is the fixation on this list with antenna tuners? You lot are starting to sound like a bunch of rich appliance operators! Almost every thread has reference to a verrry expensive antenna tuner! S; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00044.html (11,226 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Vic Rosenthal 4X6GP <k2vco.vic@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:55:13 +0300; This is not correct. More like -30 dB for the new K3S and -27 dB for the older K3, according to ARRL lab test. http://www.elecraft.com/K3/K3S%20QST%20Review%20-%20RMDR%20updated.pdf 73, Vic, 4X6GP Re; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00045.html (7,935 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Steve <g8gsq72@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:36:45 +0100; The -30dB figure in the report is dB reference pep. Take 6dB off to get dBc so it's -24dBc. That's lousy. Steve This is not correct. More like -30 dB for the new K3S and -27 dB for the older K3, acco; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00047.html (8,378 bytes)
7. [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:45:42 -0700; IMD is a VERY big deal if you care about not making a mess on the band when you transmit. IMD ==> wide clicks on CW and splatter on SSB. A disgustingly large number of SSB signals have almost as much; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00048.html (10,395 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Thomas Walsh <w2co@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:59:59 -0600; This idea that everyone needs to have a tuner inline is rediculous it is NOT needed, as a matter of fact the insertion loss of any tuner is in the order of at least a couple db anyway. The homebrew g; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00049.html (14,192 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:35:15 -0700; IMD in the K3 and K3S are a function of output power and DC supply voltage. ARRL tests at rated power, where IMD is highest. IMD is considerably lower at 50W, which is what is needed to drive most am; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00053.html (9,885 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:35:13 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Does that include FCC fines and attorney's fees? Over engineering is a rookie's mistake. Good engineers get paid the good $$$ to make the product adequat; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00057.html (8,297 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:47:50 -0500; This sounds like the comments of the folks who are slaves to coax and have multitude of dipoles up to cover HF. Or, they try cage dipoles to cover 80 m. The lengths the plastic radio/auto tuner crow; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00060.html (10,084 bytes)
12. [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:10:25 -0700; This idea that everyone needs to have a tuner inline is rediculous it is NOT needed, as a matter of fact the insertion loss of any tuner is in the order of at least a couple db anyway. The homebrew g; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00066.html (10,466 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:47:17 -0500; the insertion loss of any tuner is in the order of at least a couple db anyway. That's not a tuner.... that's a load. Don W4DNR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00068.html (8,341 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] rich Richard - tiny antenna (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:11:28 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: As someone who has done both homebrew and owning a 9500, I can assure you that in terms of time and money spent, the 9500 is a far better investment. You; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00070.html (8,929 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]