Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+W3NQN\s+Bandpass\s+Filters\s+$Was\:\s+Re\:\s+419\s+bandpass\s+filters\.\.\.\.\.$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+W3NQN\s+Bandpass\s+Filters\s+$Was\:\s+Re\:\s+419\s+bandpass\s+filters\.\.\.\.\.$\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] W3NQN Bandpass Filters (Was: Re: 419 bandpass filters.....) (score: 1): Author: Zoli Pitman HA1AG <ha1ag@hg6n.hu>; Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:59:04 +0200; Is there a marketing campaign going on or what ? I did measure ICE, Dunestar and W3NQN filter sets on proper (=calibrated) test equipment and found that the claimed superiority of W3NQN filters is a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00626.html (7,838 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] W3NQN Bandpass Filters (Was: Re: 419 bandpass filters.....) (score: 1): Author: Tim Duffy K3LR <k3lr@k3lr.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:09:10 -0500; Hello Zoli! I must respectively disagree with your statement concerning marketing hype in this case. I and others have made extensive lab and real world measurements between many filters and all have; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00649.html (8,926 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] W3NQN Bandpass Filters (Was: Re: 419 bandpass filters.....) (score: 1): Author: Michael Dinkelman <mwdink@eskimo.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:32:51 -0800; Well, I can't tell you which are better (because, with my limited test equipment, a TenTec Vector Network Analyzer, they look similar). I'll leave that for those more knowledgeable than me to argue a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00664.html (10,458 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]