Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+RX\-400\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+RX\-400\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Rx-400 (score: 1): Author: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com>; Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:42:48 +0200 (IST); I've looked at the Rx-400 specs and I like them, I wish I could afford one. :-) What I did not like is the control interfaces. It seems to me that you have a choice of an Rs-232 port or a POTS (regul; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-12/msg01157.html (7,277 bytes)
2. [TenTec] Rx-400 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:52:37 -0500; http://www.monteriallc.com/downloads/RX-400.pdf I don't...horrible dynamic range...like most mil-spec receivers. I wonder if this is what's delaying Orion shipments? 73, Bill W4ZV ___________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-12/msg01161.html (7,034 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] Rx-400 (score: 1): Author: Duane - N9DG <n9dg@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:16:41 -0800 (PST); Yepp, it definitely doesn't meet the more demanding ham radio requirements for great RX performance while working signals at or bellow the noise floor using narrow band modes like SSB/CW. It doesn't; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-12/msg01163.html (8,216 bytes)
4. [TenTec] RX-400 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:09:51 -0400; Ten-Tec has been working on this for years and continues to push out the availability date...now 2007. Specs don't look great for ham use but the TOI of 0 dBm @ 3 GHz is in the same ballpark as what; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-06/msg00329.html (6,908 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]