Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+5\.2\s+mhz\s+amateur\s+band\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+5\.2\s+mhz\s+amateur\s+band\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] 5.2 mhz amateur band (score: 1): Author: radiobridge@InfoAve.Net (Sam Bridges); Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:50:40 -0400; Has anyone noticed that the FCC is accepting comments on ARRL's petition seeking allocation of 5.2 to 5.4 mhz to the amateur service? My question: Is the Omni VI+ modifiable to this new band? If not; /archives//html/TenTec/2001-08/msg00078.html (7,228 bytes)
2. [TenTec] 5.2 mhz amateur band (score: 1): Author: jimr.reid@verizon.net (Jim Reid); Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:49:30 -1000; Per ARRL web site, it would be "several years" before such a band would become available to us. First, the present users of those frequencies evidently get to have a chop at the idea! Also, amateur; /archives//html/TenTec/2001-08/msg00082.html (7,450 bytes)
3. [TenTec] 5.2 mhz amateur band (score: 1): Author: N4NT@chartertn.net (Mike Hyder -N4NT-); Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:53:24 -0400; Am I to understand that you think it would be a bad idea for hamdom to be allocated 5.2 to 5.4 MHz if your rig cannot be modified to cover that frequency range? 73 and Good Luck de Mike N4NT@chartert; /archives//html/TenTec/2001-08/msg00083.html (8,025 bytes)
4. [TenTec] 5.2 mhz amateur band (score: 1): Author: k9pf@worldnet.att.net (Patrick Freet); Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:24:32 -0500; I have not met a rig yet that I could not modify for use elsewhere in the HF band. It is a very rare opportunity to gain some fine DX capable frequencies in this domain. It would be a shame for any l; /archives//html/TenTec/2001-08/msg00084.html (8,254 bytes)
5. [TenTec] 5.2 mhz amateur band (score: 1): Author: prvalko@oakland.edu (Paul R. Valko); Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 01:21:32 -0400 (EDT); With all due respect Sam... Am I to understand that you would oppose a new ham allocation because your radio may not be able to operate on it? We should be thankful that few amateurs shared that opin; /archives//html/TenTec/2001-08/msg00087.html (8,424 bytes)
6. [TenTec] 5.2 mhz amateur band (score: 1): Author: SEWATKINS@dgs.state.va.us (Sherrill WATKINS); Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:06:47 -0400; Dear Mr. Valko: I want to thank you for posting such a polite responce to Mr. Bridges rather odd statement. Thank's again for demonstrating such good judgement and providing such an excellent answer.; /archives//html/TenTec/2001-08/msg00100.html (8,845 bytes)
7. [TenTec] 5.2 mhz amateur band (score: 1): Author: wk4rc@arrl.net (WK4RC); Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:38:47 -0500; i second the accolade. this could have turned into flame bait but was handled magnificently! thanks! Bob/WK4RC Fan of Ten-Tec gear. Licensed since 1989 QRP ARCI # 7564 Flying Pig QRP# 216 Adventure R; /archives//html/TenTec/2001-08/msg00105.html (7,659 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]