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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+TT\s+INRAD\s+Filters\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] TT INRAD Filters (score: 1): Author: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid); Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:58:38 -1000; Ok, I have three INRAD filters in the Omni VI+ now: I hope in the correct spigots! As follows: First IF @ 9MHz; Other first IF filter is the TT #221, 250 Hz, 6 pole. Second IF @ 6.3MHz: Remaining sec; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-06/msg00184.html (9,050 bytes)
2. [TenTec] TT INRAD Filters (score: 1): Author: k7kj@teleport.com (Greg Hodsdon); Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:13:48 -0700; Jim: The Inrad 754 and 756 filters are intended to replace the main filter in the 9 Mhz IF. This is the stock filter ahead of the optional filters. Either can be used in that position....not both. I; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-06/msg00185.html (7,922 bytes)
3. [TenTec] TT INRAD Filters (score: 1): Author: turner@rome.ics.uci.edu (Clark Savage Turner); Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:12:58 -0700; Hi Jim: I have just the same filter complement as you do for the CW filtering of my OMNI VI. I chose to get a pair of 2.8 filters for the main filter in the first IF and the main filter in the second; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-06/msg00186.html (8,742 bytes)
4. [TenTec] TT INRAD Filters (score: 1): Author: gjn@mail.image.dk (gjn); Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:09:04 +0200; Hi Jim, You have obviously substituted the TT filter #282 with an INRAD #751 in your OMNI VI+. What changes in CW reception performance did you notice? Easier tuning? Less ringing? Easier readability; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-06/msg00203.html (7,546 bytes)
5. [TenTec] TT INRAD Filters (score: 1): Author: gjn@mail.image.dk (gjn); Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:09:27 +0200; Hi Jim, You have obviously substituted the TT filter #282 with an INRAD #751 in your OMNI VI+. What changes in CW reception performance did you notice? Easier tuning? Less ringing? Easier readability; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-06/msg00204.html (7,511 bytes)
6. [TenTec] TT INRAD Filters (score: 1): Author: n1eu@yahoo.com (N1EU); Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT); Good questions Gunner. I'm an INRAD fan myself, but I happen to have Ten Tec 500hz and 250hz filters in both if's - rig came with them ;-). I notice no ringing, great tuning, and great readability on; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-06/msg00205.html (8,789 bytes)
7. [TenTec] TT INRAD Filters (score: 1): Author: dacalvin@us.ibm.com (dacalvin@us.ibm.com); Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:20:27 -0500; Nope, my experience is the same. I have the #216 and #217 filters in the 1st IF, and the #282, 285 and 288 filters in the 2nd IF and all work great for me although I don't find the 1.8 kHz filter ter; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-06/msg00209.html (10,010 bytes)
8. [TenTec] TT INRAD Filters (score: 1): Author: turner@rome.ics.uci.edu (Clark Savage Turner); Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:47:20 -0700; Without having the filters side by side it is hard to say how the INRADs compare. The specs show a little better skirt and lower loss. I can attest to the lower loss, not a big deal, but the Ten Tec; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-06/msg00210.html (8,571 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]