Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+6N2\s+Observations\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+6N2\s+Observations\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: "Paul DeWitte K9OT" <k9ot@mhtc.net>; Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:13:50 -0500; For 6M here we have been using an Alinco DX70TH. In a recent 6M opening I switched to Peg's 6N2. I found two interesting things. The 6N2 is much quieter on receive (less noise), and less QRM from clo; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00144.html (7,193 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: Chas Nagel <cnagel@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:16:40 -0700 (PDT); I almost sold mine once but glad it didn't happen. I agree, it could use an amplifier and the audio is nice to listen to. Charles, K0CW I found two interesting things. The 6N2 is much quieter on rece; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00147.html (8,219 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: Chas Nagel <cnagel@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:16:47 -0700 (PDT); I almost sold mine once but glad it didn't happen. I agree, it could use an amplifier and the audio is nice to listen to. Charles, K0CW I found two interesting things. The 6N2 is much quieter on rece; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00148.html (8,220 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: "Scott Harwood" <scotth@hsc.edu>; Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:00 -0400; I recently acquired a 6N2 and agree with your observations, but I also noted that the receiver sensitivity on two meters was low compared to my other ricebox receivers. I sent it back to Ten-Tec for; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00164.html (9,388 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>; Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:59:15 -0500; The 6N2 should have a quiet receiver. Its MDS specification is 10 dB poorer than a rice box on 2m and 2m rice boxes are at least 10 dB poorer than 2m atmospheric noise in mid USA and more than 10 dB; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00167.html (8,287 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: "Scott Harwood" <scotth@hsc.edu>; Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 08:19:38 -0400; Agreed, but I live in a fringe area (50-60 mi. from repeaters), so rather than invest in beam/rotator, I opted for the preamp/amp solution. Of course one could use one's ricebox, but I prefer the Ten; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00176.html (9,244 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: Shawn Upton <kb1ckt@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:19:35 -0700 (PDT); Besides, wouldn't a preamp be best anyhow on 2m and up, to help with NF and coax loss? It's another part, yes; but since no coax is lossless and that also impacts noise figure, a preamp might as well; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00197.html (9,697 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>; Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:47:10 -0500; A preamp at the antenna is ideal, however the performance of the 6N2 is so far from the state of the art that it may take two preamps. The problem with a preamp at the antenna is it often has insuffi; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00198.html (9,006 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: Duane A Calvin <ac5aa@juno.com>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:59:02 -0500; That's true, Shawn, but the best place for a preamp in VHF usage is at the antenna - before you lose the signal in the coax! 73, Duane (once upon a time, a VHF contester!) On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:19:35; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00200.html (11,047 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: Duane - N9DG <n9dg@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:11:17 -0700 (PDT); Not sure where the notion that a 2 dB NF is sufficient for 2M SSB/CW work comes from. I suspect though that it is a figure that has persisted for years in ARRL Handbooks. I would argue that a NF in t; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00202.html (9,184 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 observations (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>; Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:43:58 -0500; 2 dB is a great deal better than 12 dB the 6N2 seems to provide. MDS 10 dB poorer than the anemic Ft-736. To get to 0.5 dB NF from 2 dB isn't too hard, but from 12 dB its a real pain, with way too mu; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00209.html (10,976 bytes)
12. [TenTec] 6N2 Observations (score: 1): Author: Jliving39@aol.com; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:19:16 EDT; Folks, I bought a used 6N2 from TT about one year ago and use it when hearing a band opening or during a contest like the one yesterday and today. Use the rig mainly on Six Meter cw, but have had goo; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00503.html (8,467 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] 6N2 Observations (score: 1): Author: "D. Kemp" <nn8b@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:13:21 -0700 (PDT); Although I have not had much 6 meter activity to test my 6n2 thouroughly, I have heard adjacent cw signals. It seems more prevelant when the noise blanker is being used. I have power line noise here; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-07/msg00508.html (8,389 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]