Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Omni\s+VII\s+performance\s+on\s+160m\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Omni\s+VII\s+performance\s+on\s+160m\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m (score: 1): Author: "Petr Ourednik" <indians@xsmail.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:22:48 +0200; Hi all, as many of You also I am interested in new Omni VII tcvr to see if that radio can be right solution for 160m DX-ing or not. I was very surprised with the ARRL Lab tests which showing the clos; /archives//html/Topband/2007-06/msg00056.html (8,008 bytes)
2. Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m (score: 1): Author: Svein Nordhuus Moe <sveinmoe@online.no>; Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:01:57 +0200; Hello Petr. I tend to agree with you. The proposed concept of "Distributed Roofing Filter Architecture" seems rather strange. To me this seems to be an oridinary general coverage radio design with 20; /archives//html/Topband/2007-06/msg00060.html (8,432 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:29:12 -0700; -- Original Message -- From: "Petr Ourednik" <indians@xsmail.com> I was very surprised with the ARRL Lab tests which showing the close-in Ip3 (5kHz) +10/+6.5dBm (preamp off/on) only. Well somebody (l; /archives//html/Topband/2007-07/msg00000.html (10,543 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:53:28 -0400; I agree with Mike on this. IP3 for a number of reasons is useless for determining anything useful. Ignore it. I'd look only at the IMD dynamic range. The Omni 7 doesn't look too bad. While it is not; /archives//html/Topband/2007-07/msg00001.html (7,395 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m (score: 1): Author: Robert McGwier <rwmcgwier@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:56:38 -0400; Tom Rauch wrote: I agree with Mike on this. IP3 for a number of reasons is useless for determining anything useful. Ignore it. I'd look only at the IMD dynamic range. The Omni 7 doesn't look too bad.; /archives//html/Topband/2007-07/msg00002.html (8,293 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:51:19 -0700; The concept of IP3 is that you can describe nonlinearity in a single number. This presupposes that IP3 is independent of excitation level below some threshold, which is typically something like 10 dB; /archives//html/Topband/2007-07/msg00005.html (7,426 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 07:25:06 -0700; -- Original Message -- From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com> To: <Topband@contesting.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:51 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m; /archives//html/Topband/2007-07/msg00006.html (9,208 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]