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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Blocking\s+Dynamic\s+Range\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Blocking Dynamic Range (score: 1): Author: malexander@lg.com (Alexander, Mitch (LG-AT)); Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:24:28 -0400; Gentlemen: There is currently a lively discussion going on the 'topband' reflector regarding the best receivers for 160m. A particular exerpt piqued my interest: limited dynamic range. I heard from o; /archives//html/TenTec/2000-08/msg00197.html (7,670 bytes)
2. [TenTec] Blocking Dynamic Range (score: 1): Author: n1eu@hotmail.com (Barry N1EU); Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:35:03 EDT; ARRL tested the Omni V's BDR as 12dB better than the Omni VI+ (135dB versus 123dB at 20kHz spacing) 73, Barry N1EU To: <tentec@contesting.com> ________________________________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2000-08/msg00198.html (8,615 bytes)
3. [TenTec] Blocking Dynamic Range (score: 1): Author: geraldj@ames.net (Dr. Gerald N. Johnson, electrical engineer); Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:22:53 -0500; Any receiver with a wide roofing filter will have poorer blocking range close in. Though the ARRL tests at 20 KHz to be outside that wide roofing filter for most radios. A narrow roofing filter preve; /archives//html/TenTec/2000-08/msg00201.html (7,874 bytes)
4. [TenTec] Blocking Dynamic Range (score: 1): Author: RMcGraw@InfoAve.Net (Bob & Linda McGraw K4TAX); Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:28:52 -0700; Gentlemen: I run a Omni VI+ on 160M using a 1/2 wave center fed dipole. While I do engage the 20 dB attenuator on the input, I haven't observed any problem with overload. Even with my neighbor at abo; /archives//html/TenTec/2000-08/msg00202.html (8,406 bytes)
5. [TenTec] Blocking Dynamic Range (score: 1): Author: des@iolky.com (David E. Shelton); Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:29:15 -0400; All concerned, The Omni V and VI/VI+ have essentially the same receiver and the specifications quoted by the ARRL lab for the Omni V were not specified via 500Hz IF filter as were the specs for the O; /archives//html/TenTec/2000-08/msg00214.html (7,246 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]