Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:w8ji@contesting.com: 87 ]

Total 87 documents matching your query.

81. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Technical Question - Round II (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:16:53 -0500
Radios are already, only with a very few exceptions, very good for harmonics on the output. I wouldn't waste a filter there. Typically I find them 60 dB down or more. The real problems on TX are the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00354.html (9,301 bytes)

82. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Technical Question - Round II (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:12:40 -0500
I went through this here getting ready to duplex on 160. In nearly all radios I've looked at the noise doesn't come from the synthesizers. It comes from the early IF stages in the transmitter just a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00369.html (9,070 bytes)

83. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Technical Question - Round III - Antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:05:01 -0500
Lee, While it is more difficult I don't thing it is impossible. We have no problems at all without using any filters even using antennas on the same tower: http://www.w8ji.com/rotating_tower_w8ji.ht
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00384.html (11,250 bytes)

84. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting,arranged QSO's and the CQ 160 contest (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:47:34 -0500
I'm not being critical of you Steve because arranging QSO's is outside the rules, but once something like that is posted it is a matter of a few mouse clicks to see the entire conversation including
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00440.html (13,161 bytes)

85. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting,arranged QSO's and the CQ 160 contest (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:15:01 -0500
What I've been told is arranging QSO's during a contest is wrong and should never be done. To me it seems the same as getting on the phone and actually making the QSO. You find a clear spot, you kno
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00449.html (9,842 bytes)

86. Re: [CQ-Contest] 4 Square/ Raised Radial Questions (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:23:16 -0500
It makes very little difference. What I did when I made elevated radial measurements is I tuned the radials to resonance by connecting them as dipoles. Then after they were tuned, I connected themm
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00450.html (9,348 bytes)

87. Re: [CQ-Contest] 4 Square/ Raised Radial Questions (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:43:33 -0500
Not true. With a small elevated ground system any path to earth reduces field strength. That's etched in stone, it isn't a guess. While the amount of loss varies can vary it always adds some loss. T
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00462.html (8,990 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu