Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+TT\s+and\s+the\s+rest\s+of\s+us\.\.\.\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: "M. Todd Miskel" <foamhand@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 11:31:01 -0600
in regard to Billy's rsponse... I wonder why TT has had their SW engineer spot open for so long... Could it be they aren't willing to furnish a salary adequate to a quality SW engineer's standards? L
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00187.html (7,979 bytes)

2. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: "Dave Edwards" <kd2e@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:36:50 -0400
Ummm....but doesn't someone first have to purchase said $800 antenna tuner for a profit to be realized?? ....Dave -- Original Message -- From: "M. Todd Miskel" <foamhand@hotmail.com> To: "Ten Tec" <t
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00195.html (8,618 bytes)

3. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 21:36:10 -0400
Yep -- which brings me to MY question thereon... Is there any advantage to selling my Palstar AT2K tuner to acquire the new TenTec updated tuner? Would it be worthwhile trading up? I have contemplate
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00225.html (7,866 bytes)

4. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: d.e.warnick@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:02:51 +0000 (UTC)
Palstar builds great tuners. I love my AT5K. However, I also have an original TT 238. The difference is a Pi (In the Palstar) vs an L (in the TenTec) configuration. The problem with the Pi is that it
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00229.html (9,293 bytes)

5. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 23:22:38 -0400
That is my understanding, as well. I believe the better setting on the Pi network, i.e., Palstar, tuner is to pick the one with the highest Output capacitor setting, and lowest Input capacitor settin
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00235.html (8,411 bytes)

6. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:51:05 -0600
Not really. That condition is the one with the highest impedance transformation which is not necessarily the condition for a match. The impedance ratio is proportional to the ratio of the capacitor v
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00243.html (9,701 bytes)

7. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:22:26 -0400
Well... shoot, Jerry. Now I AM confused. I spoke with Paul Hrivnak and company at Dayton last Friday and that is what they told me to do... but now you are giving me somewhat different instructions.
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00247.html (9,178 bytes)

8. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:15:26 -0600
Well, I suppose one could run the input capacitor to minimum and adjust only the output capacitor and the coil to get a match, nearly an L match, But that's only for the case when the load Z is highe
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00253.html (11,325 bytes)

9. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 01:19:46 -0400
Thank you for the further gloss on tuner performance... I must read it a dozen more times before I will get half of it. I am afraid that you have now jumped way over my level of comprehension. I have
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00257.html (14,433 bytes)

10. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Charles Harpole <k4vud@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:03:09 +0000
James, what is your intended power output? If less than 500 watts, go for an automatic antenna tuner and forget all this other stuff. 73, de Dr. Charly Charles Harpole k4vud@hotmail.com _____________
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00259.html (16,196 bytes)

11. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 11:54:48 +0100
Can I correct one common misunderstanding about low-pass L-network tuners. The two network configurations (shunt C at the output, or shunt C at the input) do not correspond to Hi-Z and Lo-Z loads, de
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00263.html (8,838 bytes)

12. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:06:24 -0400
On dipoles I usually use under 500 watts. On the big stick vertical, I usually use about 400-500 watts. I have strongly considered a tuner at the base of the stick as you suggest which would take the
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00269.html (9,779 bytes)

13. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:45:48 -0600
The capacitors being more sensitive is a hint at higher Q and so higher loss. There are frequencies where the un-un would work better turned to raise the impedance. That 4:1 impedance also means the
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00270.html (12,848 bytes)

14. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: "N4PY2" <n4py2@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 13:27:02 -0400
The tentec 538 tuner is a reversible L. That means it has 2 configurations for the L. One for high impedance and one for low impedance. Carl Moreschi N4PY 121 Little Bell Drive Bell Mountain Hays, NC
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00273.html (14,007 bytes)

15. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:11:29 +0100
I'll say it again folks: these are misleading labels! A load of 2+j10 needs the **same** configuration as a load of 1000+j1000: shunt C across the load. A load of 2+j9 needs the **same** configuratio
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00275.html (9,270 bytes)

16. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: "Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman@spacetech.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:08:44 -0400
Its because if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail !!!! LOL Seriously, labels are a bummer, and this is but one example of the point. 73 _________________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00287.html (10,317 bytes)

17. Re: [TenTec] TT and the rest of us... (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:11:28 +0100
Gary, The Hi-Z, Lo-Z labels are bad enough, but Palstar really screwed up on their BT1500A tuner - they labelled the configuration switch "High-Pass" "Low-Pass" !!!! Interesting that they reverted to
/archives//html/TenTec/2009-05/msg00290.html (9,114 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 17
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu