Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:rsoifer@aol.com: 310 ]

Total 310 documents matching your query.

161. Re: [TenTec] Orion II sweep display? (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:23:29 -0500 (EST)
Lee, Sounds good to me. Bring it back, along with the waterfall! 73 Ray In a message dated 2/26/2011 4:17:46 P.M. GMT Standard Time, kc9cdt@aol.com writes: Ray, He is talking about the nice feature (
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-02/msg00561.html (10,130 bytes)

162. Re: [TenTec] OII V2.044A (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:57:35 -0500 (EST)
Lee, I hardly ever use the AN (rather useless on CW) but I find the NR MUCH better than 2.041XT. Not much difference from 2.039d, though. 73 Ray W2RS In a message dated 2/26/2011 4:44:48 P.M. GMT Sta
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-02/msg00568.html (11,352 bytes)

163. Re: [TenTec] OII V2.044A (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:45:33 -0500 (EST)
Lee, Interesting. The only Hallicrafters receivers I have here are an S-38 and an S-38C. The 566 beats them :-) It also beats my KWM-2 (on reception that is -- Collins transmit audio is still Collins
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-02/msg00575.html (13,863 bytes)

164. Re: [TenTec] OII V2.044A (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:52:43 -0500 (EST)
Jerry, Lee, and others, It may be useful to draw a distinction between digging weak signals out of the noise and improving the SNR on stronger signals so they sound better. As we know, most of the in
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-02/msg00582.html (11,609 bytes)

165. Re: [TenTec] OII V2.044A (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:44:08 -0500 (EST)
Jerry, Sounds reasonable to me. I have no data on the effect of fatigue. I do know that in the good old days (1980s-1990s), when men were men and EME was on CW, some of the best EME operators, like V
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-02/msg00591.html (14,251 bytes)

166. Re: [TenTec] O II v2.044A (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 06:35:20 -0500 (EST)
Jerry, Yes, operators do vary. Here's a paper I wrote on the subject in 2002. 73 Ray W2RS _Click here: N1BUG Web: The Weak-Signal Capability of the Human Ear_ (http://www.g1ogy.com/www.n1bug.net/tech
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-02/msg00603.html (6,627 bytes)

167. [TenTec] Link (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 06:40:45 -0500 (EST)
If the link in my previous email didn't work, here it is again: _N1BUG Web: The Weak-Signal Capability of the Human Ear_ (http://www.g1ogy.com/www.n1bug.net/tech/w2rs/humanear.html) 73 Ray
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-02/msg00604.html (6,580 bytes)

168. [TenTec] Test, please disregard (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:29:03 -0500 (EST)
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-02/msg00609.html (6,179 bytes)

169. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 17:14:50 -0500 (EST)
Hi all, The technology has been around at least since WW2, but the question is: who first used the term NVIS to describe it, and when. Other than the fact that QEX began publishing in 1981 (I was a s
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00060.html (9,908 bytes)

170. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:55:58 -0500 (EST)
Ken, I guess it's a matter of semantics. If something "just happens," it's a phenomenon. If you design the system to produce that effect, it's a technology -- to me, anyway. By this definition, the p
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00077.html (11,507 bytes)

171. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 13:22:55 -0500 (EST)
I, too, have always had good results with vertical dipoles. Pat Hawker wrote one of mine up in 1970 or 1971. It consisted of a 12AVQ trap vertical for the top half, and quarter-wavelength counterpois
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00102.html (15,622 bytes)

172. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:20:19 -0500 (EST)
Nate, My experiences lead me to go even farther. I have an elevated (10 feet above ground) Hy--Gain AV-640, which is a 3/8-wave multi-band vertical with top hats and four 6-foot counterpoise rods. My
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00156.html (15,003 bytes)

173. Re: [TenTec] Vertical Dipole for 80/160m (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:32:39 -0500 (EST)
You can. One version of that is called an inverted-L, or "Marconi," and has been around for quite a while. I've got one. 73 Ray W2RS In a message dated 1/7/2011 8:21:33 P.M. GMT Standard Time, barret
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00169.html (8,074 bytes)

174. Re: [TenTec] NEC, ground, grounds, and radials. (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 18:53:19 -0500 (EST)
When I was an undergraduate at MIT, there was a requirement for a Bachelor's degree thesis. Mine was about bouncing 2m signals off Echo II (see my QST articles about that in 1962). Anyway, they invit
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00181.html (12,362 bytes)

175. Re: [TenTec] NEC, ground, grounds, and radials. (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 10:16:59 -0500 (EST)
Jerry, That's a point that never came up in their discussion! 73 Ray In a message dated 1/8/2011 12:31:29 A.M. GMT Standard Time, geraldj@weather.net writes: II (see my quickly got dB One of those tr
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00198.html (10,602 bytes)

176. Re: [TenTec] NEC, ground, grounds, and radials. (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 10:25:24 -0500 (EST)
Steve, Quite right! I was laughing under my breath, but did my best not to let it show. 73 Ray In a message dated 1/8/2011 12:50:36 P.M. GMT Standard Time, steve@karinya.net writes: Ray, If that had
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00199.html (9,295 bytes)

177. Re: [TenTec] Suggestions please (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 12:36:34 -0500 (EST)
Tom, In a pinch, I have used Radio Shack's "heavy duty" 300-ohm twin-lead with power levels up to 500 watts. No problems. 73 Ray W2RS In a message dated 1/9/2011 5:07:40 P.M. GMT Standard Time, xring
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00236.html (9,797 bytes)

178. Re: [TenTec] Suggestions please (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 13:34:36 -0500 (EST)
Jerry, Iowa may be a worse environment for ice than New Jersey where I was at the time, but I had no problems with mechanical strength. Of course, my feedline run was only 50 feet, pretty much straig
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00241.html (11,166 bytes)

179. Re: [TenTec] Any Orion II diversity users out there? (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:19:24 -0500 (EST)
Hi Barry, I'm not a frequent user, but I do use it on our weekly 20m club net (also my only regular venture onto SSB). The two antennas I use are a vertical and a 130-foot long wire. Sometimes it hel
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00378.html (7,271 bytes)

180. Re: [TenTec] OT: Indoor Antenna (score: 1)
Author: Rsoifer@aol.com
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:56:27 -0500 (EST)
I don't need permission to play, only to erect a basketball backstop. My next door neighbor came over one evening and after a little chit-chat, asked me to sign a document. I asked what it was. He sa
/archives//html/TenTec/2010-12/msg00022.html (19,687 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu