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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Omni\s+VII\s+filters\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Omni VII filters (score: 1): Author: "Carter, K8VT" <k8vt@ameritech.net>; Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 07:12:16 -0400; So, the Omni VII preliminary specs say "Collins mechanical filters"... Now, back in the day, I was a Drake man, not too much into Collins. However, I vaguely remember reading something about mechanic; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-08/msg00164.html (6,834 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII filters (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>; Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:29:02 -0500; S-line vintage Collins filters were bad about ringing. The IF output connector showed a continuous envelope from line noise. They turn static clicks to lengthy crashes. The rounded shoulders inherent; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-08/msg00171.html (7,905 bytes)
3. [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: "Paul DeWitte" <k9ot@yousq.net>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 06:50:52 -0500; I recently bought a used Omni VII from TT.I got both the 500 and 300hz filters. I had an Omni VI+ for several years, and then an Orion for about 6 months. The Orion had the best receiver, but I did n; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00173.html (7,701 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:58:58 +0200; These are very nice, realistic observations, Paul. Nobody will ever lose a contest or even lose a few points in the standings buy running an Omni VII instead of an Orion.* The OM7 is as good or bette; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00176.html (9,624 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: d.e.warnick@comcast.net; Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:54:24 +0000 (UTC); I agree, Rick. I have both the Orion II & the Omni VII. The Omni is a very intuitive rig to operate. Plug it in & use it. The Orion II is a wonderful rig. I use it daily, and the Omni gets very littl; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00177.html (12,032 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:08:47 +0200; Dave, you brought up a real interesting point. Previously I thought the exact same thing. Had the Orion on a shelf and the remote VFO knob next to the keyboard. I wasn't sure how it would be with a r; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00178.html (8,189 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:14:37 -0400; I disagree based on experience. We run 2 Omni VIIs, an Orion II, an Omni VI, all in the same room, and it is someone using a K3s that complain ! For some contests, the phone guys are in one place, an; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00181.html (11,107 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:13:42 -0500; The OMNI-VII disadvantage MAY have a lot to do with the RF gain setting of the OMNI-VII and the PAs and transmitted signals of TX A, B, C, .... Our local club has for years had many and often heated; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00182.html (12,413 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:18:56 -0500; If I did the math correct, Gary's reference to dBm would be, for -30 dBm is about S-9 +43 dB, and for -10 dBM would be S-9 +60 dB or so. Nice strong signals I'd say. 73 Bob, K4TAX ___________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00183.html (14,198 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:17:59 -0500; Bob, You probably have the correct S-meter reading calculations..... I used to work with the commercial radio technicians and engineers (I was neither) who did all their signal level (power) calculat; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00184.html (15,338 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 05:51:15 +0200; All good points which I won't dispute. There are some rare exceptions. A couple of comments: - The Eagle would be a perfect rig for old codgers like your buddy (and me), if only they had made the sca; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00194.html (14,872 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 06:39:54 -0500; Rick: It is proven over and over that S meters are not important.........everyone gets a 5x9 report! "Uh, please repeat your call and grid" 73 Bob, K4TAX _____________________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00197.html (16,949 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:05:46 +0000; Yes, if the mode is CW. Not if the mode is SSB because SSB signals (ESPECIALLY during contests) are wide. If you're competing in a SSB contest, it doesn't much matter what you use for a receiver as l; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00201.html (8,904 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:13:04 +0200; Barry, I agree on the SSB point, but this thread was about James wanting to start working CW contests. As I keep bringing up, the problem with SSB is no longer our receivers, it's our transmitters. (; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00204.html (9,646 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]