Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Receivers\s+for\s+160M\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Receivers\s+for\s+160M\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Receivers for 160M (score: 1): Author: jerryandgail@earthlink.net (Jerry T Dowell); Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:51:31 -0700; Perhaps the best RX for topband is one-of-a-kind. I had a Squires-Sanders SS-1R that had been owned by Sherwood. He had modified it for 160M by sacrificing one of the general coverage bands. Unfortun; /archives//html/Topband/2000-08/msg00068.html (8,073 bytes)
2. Topband: Receivers for 160M (score: 1): Author: herbs@vitelcom.net (Herbert Schoenbohm); Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:43:19 -0300; Jerry, The reason, I believe that made the 75A4, with 500hz Collins mechanical Filters, such a fine 160 meter receiver in its time was the fact that on that band the design used single conversion rat; /archives//html/Topband/2000-08/msg00071.html (7,563 bytes)
3. Topband: Receivers for 160M (score: 1): Author: kolson@erols.com (Kevin Olson); Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 22:31:50 -0400; I have owned a couple over the years...the cw filter was pretty poor, and sensitivity wise it was very mediocre (not really a problem on low bands but a problem on 15 and 10). It was also prone to I; /archives//html/Topband/2000-08/msg00073.html (7,591 bytes)
4. Topband: Receivers for 160M (score: 1): Author: w8ji@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 11:17:02 -0400; Hi Herb, There is no inherent disadvantage in multiple-conversion schemes if gain distribution is proper, the filters are of good design, and mixers are properly designed. The shortfall with the Dra; /archives//html/Topband/2000-08/msg00074.html (8,233 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]