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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Benefit\s*$/: 29 ]

Total 29 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: KB9RPM@centuryinter.net (John Kjos); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:52:38 -0800; Is there really ant signal benefit between the AL-80B at 1000 watts or the AL-1200 at 1500 watts?I can't make up my mind,am looking for some opinions.Thanks John KB9RPM -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.cont; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00246.html (8,058 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 98 16:12:29 -0600; Well, the actual benefit is not as great as you would think or as to what people might have you believe. S-meters on a radio are calibrated in dB. If at 100 watts your signal is at S9, at 1000 Watts; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00247.html (9,229 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: paulc@mediaone.net (Paul Christensen); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:19:49 -0500; I agree with Jon's comments. I would focus on the features and reliability between the two amplifiers together with the cost of tube replacement and compare this with the purchase price difference. -; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00248.html (11,191 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:47:18 EST; The AL80 at 1000W is the advertising departments dream....your nightmare. The maximum sane power is 700-800W intermittent ...forget RTTY. The AL-1200 will loaf at 1500W in a CW contest and do in the; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00249.html (9,439 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: w4eto@rmii.com (Richard W. Ehrhorn); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:17:01 -0000; Hi Jon... Generally agree with you, but IMHO if (for instance) you're trying to work VK0IR through a 20M pileup the 1.76 dB difference between 1.0 & 1.5 kW may considerably shorten your wait. Also, i; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00254.html (11,129 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 98 17:42:08 -0600; Oh sure. In a big pileup, yep it might. Again, the pileup is now the noise floor! So yes, it could help. As for the beam, I guess I didn't make myself clear. It would be better to buy a better beam; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00256.html (9,471 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner, W7TI); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:11:05 GMT; _______________________________________________________________ As any serious DXer will tell you, that extra 500 watts is sometimes the difference between QSO and no QSO. If you're not serious about; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00258.html (8,094 bytes)
8. Fwd: [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: W2GR@aol.com (W2GR); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:50:37 EST; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_889836637_boundary Content-ID: <0_889836637@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_889836637_boundary Content; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00259.html (9,496 bytes)
9. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:34:04; This is silly. The only rational test is to ask yourself, "What's the most cost-effective way to get the *next* dB?" Maybe it's the bigger amp. Maybe it's something else. We need to know a whole lot; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00260.html (8,920 bytes)
10. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 98 23:14:47 -0600; Think noise floor...What is the noise floor at the station to which you are transmitting? With a big pileup, it might be a S9 +10 dB noise floor. Then yes, the extra 500 watts would help. Yes, it ca; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00261.html (11,862 bytes)
11. Fwd: [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 98 23:19:46 -0600; My man! I've done the same thing you have. All the power in the world will not substitute for good operating skill and timing. It's like fishing. The guy with all the fancy lures might not catch a t; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00262.html (9,688 bytes)
12. Fwd: [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: wc7m@vcn.com (W7CW Jay E Ostrem); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:36:19 +0000; and timing. and propagation. 73 Jay W7CW 1AB Ranch Gillette, Wyoming -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@conte; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00263.html (8,727 bytes)
13. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 05:44:05 -0800; Indeed, as was Mr. Rauch's inflated anode current rating of over 500mA. The Eimac rating for a 3-500z was never higher than 400mA. Operation at higher currents makes SSB doo-doo. However, according; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00267.html (9,162 bytes)
14. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 05:44:07 -0800; It assuredly would on moonbounce, however, a 6db change is considerably more likely to be considerable on HF SSB . Amen, Mr. Ehrhorn. The bottom line is ERP. One can only do so much with the antenna; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00268.html (8,980 bytes)
15. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner, W7TI); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 15:26:34 GMT; _______________________________________________________________ Silly? I don't think so. "Serious" DXers (I'm on the margin) don't just want the "next" dB, they want "all" the dBs - amplifier, antenn; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00270.html (9,433 bytes)
16. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 11:54:57 EST; On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 22:00:28 -0500 Doug Person <dougperson@ibm.net> writes: I assume that is with zero reflected power? Seems a bit hard to believe with only 60W of drive. What is your key down Ep an; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00274.html (9,879 bytes)
17. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 11:54:57 EST; On Fri, 13 Mar 98 23:14:47 -0600 Jon Ogden <jono@webspun.com> SNIP I believe that is erroneous Jon, but I am not sure what you are saying either...so please bear with me. Here are the published flat; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00276.html (13,573 bytes)
18. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 11:54:57 EST; On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:17:01 -0000 "Richard W. Ehrhorn" <w4eto@rmii.com> writes: That is a point sorely missed by the non- DXer or contester Dick. This sort of discussion has raged for years. Even te; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00277.html (9,951 bytes)
19. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 11:54:22 -0600; No, it is not erroneous. This is from an engineering handbook. A 1.5:1 VSWR will reflect 4% of your power. You can calculate that. That 4% of power goes back down your coax where it weakens do to co; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00280.html (12,064 bytes)
20. [AMPS] Benefit (score: 1): Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 19:58:37 +0000; If you only ever make easy QSOs, you'll never miss that extra 1.5dB. But if you try to do more difficult things, like breaking or running pile-ups in QRM, or any kind of weak-signal work, +1.5dB *WIL; /archives//html/Amps/1998-03/msg00282.html (10,003 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]