Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:w5yr@att.net: 317 ]

Total 317 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TenTec] v1369 ?? (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:58:11 -0600
Carl, out of curiosity, why doesn't TT just disable the Sweep function, remove it from the list of features and specs and avoid all the grief it seems to cause. Is it really good enough to be worth t
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-02/msg00531.html (10,882 bytes)

2. Re: [TenTec] v1369 ?? (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:10:50 -0600
Sorry, folks, the REPLY ALL "feature" caught me again . . . obviously, my questions for Carl were intended to be private. 73, George W5YR w5yr@att.net you don't Initial the like
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-02/msg00534.html (12,180 bytes)

3. Re: [TenTec] SSB Bandwidth, readability, power, etc. (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 07:23:08 -0600
In addition to the question of how one would measure this operation, it is also true that the signal power is not uniformly distributed within whichever bandwidth is chosen. The lower frequencies req
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-11/msg00109.html (9,751 bytes)

4. Re: [TenTec] audio (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:07:26 -0600
One would expect that, as a software-defined radio, the functions of the ORION ACCY pins would be determined by the control program. In that way, given the proper menu provisions, the operator could
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-11/msg00180.html (11,005 bytes)

5. Re: [TenTec] audio (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:16:33 -0600
Grant, as usual, we largely agree on this. My notion is that the ORION should not be promoted as a software-defined radio with all that implies without providing some indication of its software-defin
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-11/msg00183.html (14,014 bytes)

6. Re: [TenTec] Orion / Mikes / W4NJF (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:15:01 -0600
Perhaps a more appropriate question is how many of the major contesters and big multi-multi stations use Ten Tec equipment? John, ON4UN, uses an ORION as we know, but what others? I don't know and am
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-11/msg00363.html (8,555 bytes)

7. Re: [TenTec] Orion in contests (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:04:24 -0600
Rob, I and many others like me have been reading the reflector and observing the ORION scene for well over a year now. We have yet to find the type and level of information that you and your friend s
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-11/msg00453.html (15,725 bytes)

8. Re: [TenTec] Simple Answer - Why and how is Orion better? (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:25:28 -0600
Sure was, Bill, and I appreciate it! George response advance to course,
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-11/msg00462.html (11,075 bytes)

9. Re: [TenTec] FW: [Icom] RE: Icom Japan IC-7800 announcement (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:57:35 -0600
The following has been cross-posted to this reflector by "RM" (kamar@inr.net) without my permission. These remarks were intended for the Icom reflector only. They represent my opinion which I was not
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-11/msg00587.html (13,846 bytes)

10. Re: [TenTec] FW: [Icom] RE: Icom Japan IC-7800 announcement (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:15:38 -0600
Yeah, Gary - my Momma used to say "never say anything you wouldn't want repeated in church!" Still, it is a pretty sneaky trick to play, Mr. "RM". Since my name is already mud on this reflector, I gu
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-11/msg00590.html (10,223 bytes)

11. Re: [TenTec] QTH.net Ten-Tec group (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:38:06 -0500
John, in all fairness, the "working over" that appeared on the reflector was offset by a factor of about 10 to 1 in the number of private emails I got thanking me for my unintentional but frank posti
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00160.html (8,328 bytes)

12. Re: [TenTec] Orion SSB Challenge: why no Orions heard? (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:06:49 -0500
Exactly - just like the owners of all other brands. It is human nature to defend one's actions, especially when it involves spending a lot of money. Applies to cars, radios, houses, etc.
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00419.html (9,831 bytes)

13. Re: [TenTec] Orion SSB Challenge: why no Orions heard? (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:22:45 -0500
"rig". Not at all, Bill, although I don't know what rig you bought. I think that the major reason people end up with the "wrong" rig on their desk is simply that they lack correct and appropriate inf
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00427.html (11,633 bytes)

14. Re: [TenTec] bigger problem with update (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:00:59 -0500
Jack, what has the factory advised you to do? Surely they have a solution to this sort of problem . . . 73/72, George Amateur Radio W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00431.html (10,599 bytes)

15. Re: [TenTec] Sale (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:22:47 -0500
Perhaps it will help if we all keep in mind that in setting the 30-day return policy, Ten Tec management anticipated a certain percentage of returns and adjusted the sale price to accommodate that ex
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00511.html (9,280 bytes)

16. Re: [TenTec] Re: Rudimentary SWR question... (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:48:18 -0500
Interesting . . . I use my 88 ft 20-meter EDZ on 75 SSB and most stations say it is equal to or exceeds the signal from my resonant 80-meter full-wave horizontal loop. The first time I used it on 75
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00609.html (16,486 bytes)

17. Re: [TenTec] Re: Rudimentary SWR question... (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:36:22 -0500
We're reading more and more of this sort of thing these days, Stuart. Like you, I just can't sit and let such misinformation stand. Two many newbies look to postings on these reflectors for their inf
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00612.html (11,557 bytes)

18. Re: [TenTec] Re: Rudimentary SWR question... (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:44:39 -0500
Thank you, Billy, but I already have several ARRL Antenna Books plus a fairly extensive library in this area, including all the texts from undergrad and grad school. And I have read them. And underst
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00639.html (12,712 bytes)

19. Re: [TenTec] Re: Rudimentary SWR question... (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:02:52 -0500
Billy, anyone not looking for a trolling contest would implicitly understand that the stated comparison between the two antenna lengths obviously applies only to both antennas being located in the sa
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00653.html (8,950 bytes)

20. Re: [TenTec] Re: Rudimentary SWR question... (score: 1)
Author: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:08:50 -0500
<skip> Not a thing, Bill, other than the fact that some folks confuse the physical size and length of a wire antenna with its capture area, which relates to gain and not to size.. Using that erroneou
/archives//html/TenTec/2003-10/msg00654.html (9,651 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu