Mail Archive Search: <+from:w8ji@contesting.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:w8ji@contesting.com: 59 ]

Total 59 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [TenTec] Carl, Pmni, 756 etc (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:02:50 -0500; Except we probably need at least 12 bits of digitized information and a very good low-noise fast A-D convertor to have dynamic range that equals that of a conventional crystal filter. Right now that; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00605.html (9,501 bytes)
42. Re: [TenTec] Lightning protection (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:02:50 -0500; Hi Ron and all, I have a slightly different perspective on this. While I agree the best practice is to disconnect antennas, the real secret is in cable routing and grounding, not in lighting suppres; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00606.html (10,508 bytes)
43. Re: [TenTec] KB7OEX: a big plus favoring ORION (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:02:50 -0500; By the way, I don't want selectivity ahead of a mixer...I just don't want it back after passing through 10 stages with semiconductors. Quite often one or more of those additional stages will not be d; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00607.html (11,704 bytes)
44. Re: [TenTec] Carl, Pmni, 756 etc (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 06:22:17 -0500; I haven't seen an S-meter yet that tracks below S-8 or conforms to any standard, although many or most are OK above S-9. I have heard some new software based S-meters are OK. I would never depend on; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00643.html (11,323 bytes)
45. Re: [TenTec] Lightning protection (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:06:11 -0500; My point wasn't to encourage or discourage using an arrestor, but rather that the effects of protection by adding such devices are largely exaggerated. There also can be damaging effects, if we run; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00672.html (7,852 bytes)
46. Re: [TenTec] Carl, Pmni, 756 etc (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:06:11 -0500; Hi Carl, That actually is one of the least challenging applications, and has little to do with how the receiver works with close signal spacing. Only the stages in front of the roofing filter are inv; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00673.html (11,257 bytes)
47. Re: [TenTec] Q re lightning protection (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:41:47 -0500; I have a wide 3" copper flashing with the shortest path possible between my telco and power line ground and my station ground. That's mainly to provide a bypass around the house wiring for a direct; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00675.html (8,280 bytes)
48. [TenTec] IM figures (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:09:07 -0500; This goes back to the same problems receivers in general have. We often look at data taken for two pure tones, and assume the dynamic range for two tones is the dynamic range for multiple tones. The; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00736.html (10,389 bytes)
49. Re: [TenTec] RE: PBT, extra power (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:05:25 -0500; Many amplifiers and radios get dirtier (when expressed as a ratio of desired signal output to distortion product output) when power is reduced. Reducing power does not always mean you improved the r; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00737.html (7,727 bytes)
50. Re: [TenTec] Orion power output (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:05:25 -0500; Good luck on driving the old L7, which was designed to be a 600 watt output CW (1KW CW input power), 1200 watt output SSB amplifier (two KW PEP input), with 200 watts! 73, Tom W8JI W8JI@contesting.c; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00738.html (8,483 bytes)
51. RE: [TenTec] Orion power output (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:05:25 -0500; One S unit is typically about 1 dB or so at the low end of most S meter scales. Most S meters are "calibrated" at less than 5dB per S unit, a few are calibrated at 6dB, but that generally only works; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00739.html (8,766 bytes)
52. Re: [TenTec] Carl, Pmni, 756 etc (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:05:25 -0500; What does that have to do with anything? I can work "weak signal DX" on 160 and 80 using a S-38 Hallicrafters. As a matter of fact, the S-38 makes all the DX "weak signal DX". Even the strong ones.; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00740.html (9,421 bytes)
53. Re: [TenTec] Orion power output (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:05:25 -0500; One dB (not 3dB) is the smallest level increase recognized by the human ear, whatever that means. This applies to only a single tone with no noise or interference. The one dB rule does NOT apply to s; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00741.html (9,912 bytes)
54. Re: [TenTec] Carl, Pmni, 756 etc (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:08:01 -0500; But Carl, my point is really this.... The only way to compare receivers is to compare them under some sort of standardized tests, even if those tests are less than perfect. I won't debate or disagre; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00761.html (9,475 bytes)
55. Re: [TenTec] Orion power output (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:08:01 -0500; I might not be following what you are trying to say...but..... The AGC might stop or reduce a volume change, but that is all. If I change the input power of the types of receivers we are talking abo; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00762.html (8,547 bytes)
56. Re: [TenTec] Carl, Pmni, 756 etc (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:08:01 -0500; I have a S38 and a SX99 here, and they are both helped immensely by an audio DSP filter...if you can keep the stations tuned in...; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00763.html (8,894 bytes)
57. Re: [TenTec] Carl, Pmni, 756 etc (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:17:47 -0500; I haven't seen anyone slam technology when it is *properly* applied. Factually, almost anyone on 160 or 80 meters would notice close spaced IM DR in the 70dB or less range if they work weak CW signa; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00769.html (9,394 bytes)
58. [TenTec] 4CX1600B's (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:03:41 -0500; I just looked, and I have several new-in-box 4CX1600B tubes as well as some sockets and chimneys. I **won't** sell them, so please don't ask. I will trade one or two new-in-box 4CX1600 tubes for an o; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-03/msg00916.html (7,771 bytes)
59. Re: [TenTec] Re: FYI - key click thread on Ten-Tec reflector (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:38:05 -0500; There was a long discussion about this on a newsgroup. If you read Kevin's web page, you'll see he says his detailed analysis supports my practical experience and measurements in my lab. I'm less ma; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00000.html (9,510 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 59
Page: [1] [2] [3]