Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+87A\s+vs\.\s+IC\-PW1\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+87A\s+vs\.\s+IC\-PW1\s*$/: 36 ]

Total 36 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Dave Burr" <dtburr@speakeasy.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:19:21 -0600; I know this seems to be a weird question, but I have the subject amps that I can use with my '7800, and I think one of them needs to go because I can really only use one at a time. There are lots of; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00380.html (7,016 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:08:14 -0600; I don't know either of these amps, but I would also look at QSK and how easy they are to control operationally. To me, QSK is an absolute MUST for CW operation. Without it, you're a lid, because you; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00381.html (7,605 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:28:21 EST; To me, QSK is an absolute MUST for CW operation. Without it, you're a lid, because you can't hear what's going on while you're transmitting. Well, I guess I am a lid then, however, if you are tramsmi; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00382.html (7,571 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:33:01 -0500; So does the Alpha 87A when one considers that the Pi-L network essentially performs a similar tuning function on the 3:1 VSWR circle in that the load Z is matched reasonably well to the tube output; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00383.html (7,963 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Van K7VS" <wa7fab@cdsnet.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:51:58 -0800; Gee....guess you can include me in your list of lids, there Jim! Over 50 thousand cw contest q's and never a qsk contact among them. And you probably ought to include another 70 thousand from our gro; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00384.html (8,753 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: jkearman@att.net (Jim Kearman); Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:53:27 +0000; If a DX station is listening on or close to his frequency and has a pileup, which is the usual case in a contest, you have to be able to hear when the DX goes back to someone -- you, for example. If; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00385.html (7,751 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:53:28 EST; Gee....guess you can include me in your list of lids, there Jim! Over 50 thousand cw contest q's and never a qsk contact among them. And you probably ought to include another 70 thousand from our gro; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00386.html (7,143 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: jkearman@att.net (Jim Kearman); Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:04:28 +0000; OTOH, if you've never used QSK, how do you know it wouldn't help? I've never used a parachute, either, but in certain circumstances I hear they're pretty handy. :) 73, Jim, KR1S http://kr1s.kearman.c; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00387.html (8,372 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Larry Emery" <k1uo@uninets.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:17:37 -0500; OTOH, if you tried it and still didn't like it does that mean your still a Lid? Gawd, Ican't believe I've made it this far DXing (have them all) and Contesting (Won my share) and still have not rever; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00388.html (9,231 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Van K7VS" <wa7fab@cdsnet.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:18:08 -0800; _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00389.html (8,681 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Larry Emery" <k1uo@uninets.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:20:07 -0500; BTW: I'd definately choose the 87A OTOH, if you tried it and still didn't like it does that mean your still a Lid? Gawd, Ican't believe I've made it this far DXing (have them all) and Contesting (Won; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00390.html (9,918 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:26:32 +0000; Apart from slightly raised losses in the feeder (minimal in most cases) and ATU, I think all the output power does get radiated. Steve _______________________________________________ Amps mailing lis; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00391.html (8,174 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Dave Burr" <dtburr@speakeasy.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:32:57 -0600; Yeah, I am hoping to have people tell me that because it seems smarter to keep the PW1 and I need to overcome that and keep my real favorite. _______________________________________________ Amps mail; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00392.html (11,067 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:17:51 EST; If a DX station is listening on or close to his frequency and has a pileup, which is the usual case in a contest, you have to be able to hear when the DX goes back to someone -- you, for example. If; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00394.html (8,526 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:33:49 -0600; I am celebrating my 50th year in ham radio, have held an Extra ticket since 1959. I first learned to use QSK in 1956 when I worked lots of traffic nets. And I've been a contester since the late 50's.; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00396.html (9,530 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:56:53 -0600; Well, some rigs just cannot do QSK, and that means you are always going to hear complaints like this. And, yes, these folks without QSK are not LIDs just because of their station equipment limitation; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00400.html (9,347 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Dave Burr" <dtburr@speakeasy.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:06:25 -0600; In any case, FWIW, both these amps have QSK. In addition, it is not what capabilities you have in a piece of equipment, but how you use it, that determines whether you're a LID, so this seems like a; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00401.html (11,079 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:41:27 +0100 (CET); I suspect it will last for the same sort of reasons people take pride in building furniture, musical instruments, doing model engineering and so on - the absolute pleasure of being able to exercise a; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00402.html (8,213 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:38:17 -0500; I guess that then makes all SSB contesters lids? 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00404.html (9,138 bytes)
20. Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1 (score: 1): Author: jkearman@att.net (Jim Kearman); Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:38:18 +0000; You said it Gary, I didn't say it. But do we all need a refresher course in Logic? Someone else opined that those who have "worked them all" must axiomatically not be lids. Now this attempt to bring; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00409.html (8,337 bytes)

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