Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Clean\s+\-vs\-\s+Unclean\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: HAROLD B MANDEL <ka1xo@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:26:56 -0500
This question concerns signal cleanliness. A recent thread talks about unclean signals from poor amplifier construction. As an aside, talking with one of the commercial manufacturers earlier, I was t
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00264.html (6,704 bytes)

2. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:18:05 -0500
Seems kind of curious that the difference he talks about is 6db. Maybe he is using PEP as a reference and the others are using one tone of a two tone test? 73 Gary K4FMX _____________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00269.html (8,295 bytes)

3. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:23:53 +0000
Be wary of manufacturer's comparisons. They're often not entirely like for like. Depends on the amplifier type and design, but the most significant factor is usually the rf device and how hard it's r
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00270.html (7,941 bytes)

4. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: Gudguyham@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:23:29 EST
Depends on the amplifier type and design, but the most significant factor is usually the rf device and how hard it's run. On tube amplifiers, operator adjustment is likely to dominate over everything
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00272.html (7,146 bytes)

5. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:32:25 -0800
When compared with the average radio, even a 3-500Z has about a tenth the total IMD. Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org _______________________________________________ Amps mailin
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00281.html (8,270 bytes)

6. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:34:46 -0800
Also, corporate ethics permit virtually unlimited prevarication. Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesti
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00282.html (9,194 bytes)

7. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: "Carcia, Francis A HS" <francis.carcia@hs.utc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:39:55 -0500
That's why we have the ARRL to sort this out for the masses. --Original Message-- From: amps-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of R.Measures Sent: Monday, January
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00283.html (9,034 bytes)

8. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: w6ah@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:43:56 +0000
There are number of factors Harold including the circuit design of how the SSB Signal is generated. After that the number of amplifier stages and how clean they are determine what type of signal is g
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00285.html (10,458 bytes)

9. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Cathey" <K1JJ@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:11:48 -0500
-- Some very good points in that last post and truth about the real world radios out there! What stands out to me is the Class A mode of the FT-1000MP and later rigs, etc. Their 200W amplifier can b
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00287.html (9,258 bytes)

10. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Cathey" <K1JJ@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:22:18 -0500
Here's a coincidence! I just received an email from a buddy who is considering buying an FT-1000MP. They are being closed out and discontinued according to a salesman. Here's the salesman's comments
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00289.html (8,672 bytes)

11. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:47:56 -0500
I was going to mention that a few weeks ago Tom! A dirty transmitter station receives much better than a clean one!! 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Am
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00292.html (9,612 bytes)

12. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:55:19 +0000
I'd often wondered about modifying our contest exciter to provide an additional path round the narrow filter after the rf processing - putting the cliped signal through a 15kHz filter and injecting s
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00293.html (9,402 bytes)

13. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: W0UN -- John Brosnahan <shr@swtexas.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:57:20 -0600
\Nus"tle|, v. t. [Cf. Nuzzle.] To fondle; to cherish. [Obs.] Brings a whole new meaning to crowded band conditions. "Lots of QRM, I'm going to QSY before I get fondled!" ____________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00294.html (9,162 bytes)

14. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: Vic K2VCO <vic@rakefet.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:03:23 -0800
Yeah, and a car salesman once told me not to buy a particular model because it would generate too much interest on the part of attractive young ladies. Believe me, if it's being discontinued it's for
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00295.html (8,882 bytes)

15. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Cathey" <K1JJ@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:30:10 -0500
-- Vely, bery interesting, Peter! I passed that info along to my friend who is considering the MP. With what particular rig was this a problem? I am also thinking of selling my highly modified FT-10
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00297.html (9,127 bytes)

16. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Clements" <philc@texascellnet.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:51:17 -0600
Not a problem with this radio on CW....the key clicks keep everyone 2-3 khz away. (((73))) Phil Clements, k5PC _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com h
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00298.html (8,619 bytes)

17. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: "peter.voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:59:51 +0100
Hi Tom, those two were 1000MP Mark V used on different locations. It happened almost incidently to both rigs during a hot summer period. Both rigs were installed in a typical shelf put on a desk with
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00300.html (11,028 bytes)

18. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:13:06 -0800
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Keep looking. Bought mine at HRO for $1700 something several months ago. Bill, W6WRT ______________________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00303.html (8,304 bytes)

19. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:48:33 -0600
If class A op is not desired, why did they put it in my new FTdx9000D? 73, Keith NM5G Here's a coincidence! I just received an email from a buddy who is considering buying an FT-1000MP. They are bein
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00304.html (9,267 bytes)

20. Re: [Amps] Clean -vs- Unclean (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Hearn" <dhearn@wwnw.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:07:32 -0800
Not the same radios. One is the 200w job and the other is the 100w job. One has internal PS and other has external PS. 73, Dan, N5AR ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/archives//html/Amps/2006-01/msg00307.html (9,233 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]
This search system is powered by Namazu