Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Omni\s+V\s+S\-meter\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Omni\s+V\s+S\-meter\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Omni V S-meter? (score: 1): Author: "Rick Williams" <rick.williams@telus.net>; Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:24:06 -0700; Today I was playing with the Omni V, RX-320 and Argo V and noticed that the RX-320 and Argo S-meters agreed on virtually all bands. The Omni was similar on 80 and 40 metres but it read significantly; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-04/msg00104.html (7,488 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Omni V S-meter? (score: 1): Author: Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX <RMcGraw@Blomand.Net>; Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:53:33 -0500; To my knowledge the standard accepted S meter calibration is 50 uV for S-9. Historically, S meters have been all over the place with regard to readings. I have recently checked my Omni VI+ and my Par; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-04/msg00105.html (8,869 bytes)
3. RE: [TenTec] Omni V S-meter? (score: 1): Author: "Rick Williams" <rick.williams@telus.net>; Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:51:23 -0700; Well I think the consensus is don't sweat the small stuff. The Omni V.9 is definitely working well otherwise and, as expected, it is certainly far superior to the RX-320 and marginally better on weak; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-04/msg00118.html (7,434 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]