Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:johnclif@ix.netcom.com: 127 ]

Total 127 documents matching your query.

81. RE: [TenTec] Flamed by the Factory? (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:21:32 -0800
We have a First Amendment... and it covers both parties here. However, although free speech is a protected right, libel isn't. In my opinion, the person who trashed the Argonaut V without ANY persona
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-12/msg00141.html (12,309 bytes)

82. RE: [TenTec] Zero Beat an Omni VI (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:23:36 -0800
As another poster mentioned, pressing and holding in the CW button will provide the sidetone to the speaker... just zero-beat the received signal to it. Another (more precise) method is to run your f
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-12/msg00161.html (7,963 bytes)

83. RE: [TenTec] Signal reports on PSK (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:32:05 -0800
There was a letter awhile ago in QST describing a good method for signal reports for PSK, and I use it. The author recommended having the first number the percentage of copy as reflected in 20 percen
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-12/msg00162.html (8,170 bytes)

84. [TenTec] RE: Ten-Tec 301 Remote tuning knob (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:46:52 -0800
Isn't this just a standard Omni V/VI optical encoder in a box? How hard would it be to adapt a 302 to this (obviously the 302's keypad would be unused)? Or, hmmm... a solution that would allow a 302
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00127.html (7,394 bytes)

85. [TenTec] Omni VI alignment... (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 04:33:12 -0800
Greetings, I recently performed the following mods on my Omni VI/Option 1: - replaced the original crystal oven on the Logic Board with a Ten-Tec supplied TXCO - replaced the BFO crystals on the TX A
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00221.html (8,378 bytes)

86. [TenTec] Omni VI BFO crystal replacement and alignment ?s... (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:09:54 -0800
Greetings, I have an Omni VI/Option 1, #11A10614 that I am trying to align after replacing the crystal oven with a Ten-Tec-supplied TXCO and ICM-supplied 5 ppm thermally-stable BFO crystals (Y1 and Y
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00223.html (11,124 bytes)

87. [TenTec] More Omni VI alignment/functioning questions... (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:59:30 -0800
Thanks to those who contacted me off-list... the information was very helpful. I have learned (from Ten-Tec) that the 9.0033 Mhz crystal and padding capacitor WAS factory installed and was a factory
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00255.html (11,698 bytes)

88. RE: [TenTec] More Omni VI alignment/functioning questions... (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:51:55 -0800
Yes, but you must use the correct trimmer caps. The proper Omni VI BFO alignment (TX Audio Board #81597 Rev. F and earlier) is as follows: - You will need an ACCURATE high-resolution frequency counte
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00257.html (11,213 bytes)

89. RE: [TenTec] More Omni VI alignment/functioning questions... (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:09:00 -0800
Well, I've gotten LSB and USB aligned. CW is proving to be a bear. The original padding cap had a value of 56pF. That allowed me to get the freq down to 9.001900 Hz (needs to be 9.000400 Hz). I added
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00258.html (9,165 bytes)

90. RE: [TenTec] More Omni VI alignment/functioning questions... (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:56:10 -0800
I found the problem. Turns out that there is a capacitance spec to the BFO crystals. The original order that Dave Hammond placed was for 32pF crystals, however ICM suggested that perhaps these have a
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00293.html (8,643 bytes)

91. RE: [TenTec] WOW SERVICE on ARGO V! (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 01:06:51 -0800
My limited experience with Ten-Tec has shown them to be very good at product (and customer) service. However, the quality of technical information is dependent upon the person you reach (as it is wit
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00473.html (9,463 bytes)

92. RE: [TenTec] cascaded filters was Omni V audio (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:11:24 -0800
Re wider filters and SSB quality... I have listened to SSB on my Drake R8A with 4 kHz and 6 kHz filters. Sure, SSB sounds 'nicer' with a wider filter but this affects aesthetics more than readability
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00528.html (11,103 bytes)

93. [TenTec] Omni VI Plus alignment without a freq ctr? (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:15:31 -0800
...names have been deleted to protect the embarrassed... if someone else has a better procedure please post it. - jgc Hello Jxxxx, Flying by the seat of my pants here... it's going to REALLY be hard
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00561.html (10,059 bytes)

94. RE: [TenTec] cascaded filters was Omni V audio (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:29:29 -0800
First, note that these opinions are mine, and based upon my experiences and research. I will always defer to someone who is more knowledgeable. Re cascading identical bandwidth filters without using
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00562.html (9,348 bytes)

95. RE: [TenTec] Omni VI Plus alignment without a freq ctr? (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:03:53 -0800
I agree that using WWV to align the TXCO/crystal oven (VI+/VI) is faster and better than using a frequency counter, but.... The original post I replied to was from a ham who had dinked with his BFO t
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00583.html (9,476 bytes)

96. [TenTec] RE: Omni VI Plus freq. readout and killing the messenger (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:47:07 -0700
I for one would like to thank Dave Hammond for his posts. The symptoms he describes are exactly what I have encountered, and his conclusions to its causes are logical. I have gone back thru the archi
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-10/msg00109.html (9,213 bytes)

97. RE: [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... ) (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:24:09 -0700
Whether or not I own a Jupiter, or whether or not I own a Ten-Tec radio at all, is totally irrelevant to this discussion. I, as an owner of Ten-Tec equipment and a potential owner of new equipment, r
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-09/msg00023.html (11,723 bytes)

98. [TenTec] Paying for updates... YES! (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:11:28 -0700
I guess I started the 'pay for updates' idea on this list... and I still stand by it. I can understand why Ten-Tec gives away updates... it is a selling/marketing feature. Buy a radio and know that i
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-09/msg00161.html (10,311 bytes)

99. [TenTec] RE: This is getting boring... (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 23:41:35 -0700
I think this is a great reflector. I mostly lurk (except when I feel I can contribute something), and I like reading about antennas, Ten-Tec history, other peoples' operating experiences, technical q
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-09/msg00167.html (7,582 bytes)

100. [TenTec] Differences between VI upgrade(s) and VI+... (score: 1)
Author: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:05:45 -0700
I thought that an Omni VI Opt 3 was a VI with a new 9Mhz board (VI+), new parts (buttons, black button bezel from the VI+) to support the extra 9Mhz slot, and the VI+ DSP. The Opt1 was just the VI+ D
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-09/msg00315.html (7,529 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu