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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Narrow\s+Band\s+Filters\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:26:37 -0500; I'm thinking about building some narrow band filters (as opposed to a bandpass filter that covers an entire band) for use on Field Day. The object is to minimize crosstalk between CW and sideband sta; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00093.html (7,360 bytes)
2. RE: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 23:05:28 -0500; Our club (NARS) built filters like this several years ago for Field Day. They are all-in-one with a switch to move from 10-15-20-40-80. I think the parts cost about $100 per unit. If you are interest; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00095.html (8,430 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com; Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 11:15:24 -0400; This is a good question for cq-contest. Many guys have 2 radio contest set-ups or multi-op stations and deal with this all the time. Checking the archives at www.contesting.com will turn up lots of d; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00097.html (8,339 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 08:52:22 -0700; I was thinking about the same thing, after trying to get a few PSK31 Qs in Sunday morning on 14070 while Marty N6VI was hammering away on 20m CW in the next tent. Likewise when the GOTA operation hap; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00102.html (10,362 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 22:19:02 -0700; same If For receive only, yes. For transmit, don't count on it being an easy design. Even if you can get the inductor unloaded Q's up above 500, you are still going to have pretty high insertion loss; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00119.html (14,388 bytes)
6. RE: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 22:36:39 -0700; The key problem is dirty transmitters, as opposed to receiver overload. You can afford an extra 6 or 10 dB of receiver front end loss due to filtering to fix receiver overload. On the transmit side,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00120.html (10,777 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 22:46:15 -0700; in in 20 of Exactly what I was thinking of... Maybe lots of sections, each fairly broad, low loss. A very tricky problem overall. Loss and breakdown problems would be a challenge. (Hey, we have troub; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00121.html (13,721 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 23:01:01 -0700; Good point.. Well... FD operations are getting more networked, so it's not inconceivable. But you're not going to see with clunky DOS laptops any time soon. I can see this, though... Say you have som; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00122.html (11,433 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 04:25:41 -0700; available, If you use the MFJ style noise cancellors, you could do it fairly cheap. Standard stubs or lumped element bandpass filters will take care of crossband interference. The noise cancellors wo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00125.html (10,335 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 07:47:29 -0500; Yes, I had thought of that but have not taken action on it yet. We're going to try some more informal tests as well, using some of our rigs running mobile, parked in the driveway of a fellow ham's QT; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00127.html (10,386 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 08:14:27 -0500; I have no experience with the MFJ unit, but my ANC4 is a dog for overload from broadcast signals that aren't even very strong at my QTH (nothing within 7 miles of me). I understand that newer product; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00128.html (10,915 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:07:15 -0400; dynamic range, adjusted. It might be guess is that you phasing unit Field Day usually The MFJ unit has totally inadequate dynamic range for this application, and it is the best of all the units I ha; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00152.html (10,101 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 09:25:21 -0700; from miles of won't solve on severely limit MFJ is better? You may have a point, Jim, but remember the ANC4 and likewise the MFJ unit (I think) have all the active gain in the noise leg. This is the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00154.html (12,457 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:11:22 -0700; You may have a point, Jim, but remember the ANC4 and likewise the MFJ unit (I think) have all the active gain in the noise leg (come to think of it the MFJ may have gain in both legs). This is the co; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00156.html (13,247 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:23:33 -0700; Lets put some numbers to the requirements, just for grins.. Say you want to radiate a kilowatt (+60dBm) and you want to suppress that to no more than 0dBm at the receiver input. I assume that 0dBm's; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00157.html (13,669 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:30:04 -0700; The ANC4 can be effective with If all you're depending on the canceller for is the far out sideband noise, you could notch the Tx fundamental before sampling for the canceller. You'd depend on a notc; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00158.html (10,853 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:04:08 -0400; high level nulling phasing/amplitude network into approach might be pair of goniometer with fairly broad The ONLY choice without good radios and wide spacing of antennas is a nulling device of some; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00160.html (13,278 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 11:33:25 -0700; Which, of course, is exactly what an adaptive canceller is... (you also need adjustable gain in the canceller..) The neat thing about doing the cancellation in DSP (assuming you can knock the Tx car; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00161.html (11,922 bytes)
19. RE: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "N2TK" <tony.kaz@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:22:57 -0400; Years ago some folks bought front end pass band filters for 40M. If I remember correctly they were for notching out the foreign broadcasts on 40M phone. I believe they each covered about 20KHZ of the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00162.html (14,087 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Narrow Band Filters (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:41:12 -0700; Yes, trying to match delay overy frequency would be a nightmare in a field day situation (we are lucky to get all are stations up and running in time for the beginning without the burden of fancy nul; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00164.html (14,521 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]