Mail Archive Search: <+from:steve@karinya.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:steve@karinya.net: 479 ]

Total 479 documents matching your query.

101. Re: [TenTec] OmniVI+ 30M L.O. instability (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:32:04 +0100; Jack, That's interesting. My 160m problem only showed up when the ambient temperature in the shack was high! Whilst fault-finding I used "freeze it" spray, and a hair-drier, to try to invoke the symp; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00019.html (9,656 bytes)
102. [TenTec] Omni VI frequency error (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:54:50 +0100; I can't remember if I've raised this problem before; if I have, I apologise! My OmniVI frequency readout is consistently 130Hz high on all bands and all modes; in other words if I accurately tune in; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00030.html (8,140 bytes)
103. Re: [TenTec] Omni VI frequency error - problem solved (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:58:48 +0100; Thanks Lee and Rick for your suggestions. I solved the problem this morning - I hardly dare admit that it was mostly "technician error"! I decided to check the obvious, and measured the final 20m LO; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00046.html (8,701 bytes)
104. Re: [TenTec] Omni VI frequency error - problem solved (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:03:38 +0100; Marinus, Thanks for the suggestion, but unfortunately that method wont guarantee the separate accuracies of the Local oscillator and the BFO. For example, if the LO was out by 100Hz and the BFO was a; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00049.html (8,499 bytes)
105. Re: [TenTec] Omni VI frequency error - problem solved (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:06:54 +0100; By the way, whilst I was looking at the frequency error problem and the Omni VI was opened up, I took the opportunity to check the Xtal Oscillator adjustments using the PLL pulse width method posted; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00050.html (8,183 bytes)
106. Re: [TenTec] Omni VI frequency error - problem solved (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:52:31 +0100; Jerry, Thanks for the info. I made final adjustments this afternoon by fishing out an old GC receiver and using it to receive WWV on 10MHz. I held a piece of wire onto the Omni TCXO divide-by-two chi; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00055.html (12,099 bytes)
107. [TenTec] Omni VI Xtal Oscillator PLL observation (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:58:40 +0100; I set up my Omni VI Xtal Oscillator frequencies yesterday using a TT Service recommended method posted on the list a few months ago. It involves monitoring the LD (Lock Detect) pin on the MC145107 PL; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00067.html (7,894 bytes)
108. Re: [TenTec] Omni VI Xtal Oscillator PLL observation (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:52:45 +0100; I think I just answered my own question. All the Xtal Oscillator frequencies are multiples of 50KHz, apart from on 30m where it is about 24,501.8KHz. I guess TT introduced the 1.8KHz offset so that t; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00068.html (8,519 bytes)
109. Re: [TenTec] Omni VI Xtal Oscillator PLL observation (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:46:15 +0100; Dan, I don't know the Omni V's mixing arrangement, but I'd be surprised if it was much different from Omni VI. By the way, I worked out that on 30m the 10MHz reference is divided by 291 in the PLL ch; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00070.html (8,472 bytes)
110. [TenTec] PTO adjustment (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:50:31 +0100; Over the past 12 months I've completed 3 PTO rebuilds on my Corsairs and remote VFO. In all cases I ended up putting 3 washers under the lugs of the rear plastic retaining cap to get the sort of "fee; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00159.html (7,449 bytes)
111. Re: [TenTec] PTO adjustment (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:31:28 +0100; Stuart & Aaron, Thanks for your suggestions. I certainly didn't check the 'pistol' for straightness while the PTO was disassembled, but there is no eccentricity evident when the tuning knob is rotate; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-09/msg00166.html (8,014 bytes)
112. Re: [TenTec] Omni V problem, need help (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:51:05 +0000; Gil, Have you checked the setting of the PassBand Tuning - that would be an obvious reason for USB and LSB to sound different. I find on my Omni VI the correct tuning doesn't quite correspond to the; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-11/msg00092.html (7,319 bytes)
113. Re: [TenTec] (no subject) (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:19:08 +0000; The matching model 9420 PSU, but I guess that doesn't help you much ! Steve G3TXQ _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-11/msg00103.html (7,263 bytes)
114. Re: [TenTec] (no subject) (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:06:51 +0000; Jim, How did you finally configure the two PSUs - each one driving half the Hercules, or simply parallelled up ? Steve G3TXQ _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-11/msg00109.html (7,886 bytes)
115. Re: [TenTec] (no subject) (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:28:36 +0000; Thanks Jim. Useful information in case my 9420 ever fails and I have to revert to something else :) 73, Steve G3TXQ _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesti; /archives//html/TenTec/2008-11/msg00111.html (8,009 bytes)
116. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:17:33 +0000; Stuart - I thought 15m was one of the better bands for impedance on the G5RV. On my modelling it produces a VSWR of <3:1 on 15m - that's low by G5RV standards! 73, Steve G3TXQ _______________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00476.html (7,707 bytes)
117. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:57:12 +0000; Interestingly, it isn't always true that running the ladder line all the way is lower loss than using coax for part of the run. Take the G5RV on 80m. At the end of the usual 30 odd feet of ladder lin; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00004.html (7,874 bytes)
118. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:50:19 +0000; Jerry, Yes, I'm sure. According to the VK1OD on-line calculator, at 3.8 MHz 100m of RG213 with 14-j1 as a load has a loss of 1.9dB; 100m of Wireman 551 with 14-j1 as the load has a loss of 3.1dB. I'm; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00019.html (9,117 bytes)
119. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:38:17 +0000; Frank, The length is irrelevant - 100 ft or 100 metres, with that load impedance the Wireman 551 ladderline is lossier than the RG213 - that was my point. Steve ______________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00024.html (8,625 bytes)
120. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:03:59 +0000; Jerry, Then if those formulas fall down with the particular values I gave, they are approximations. Look at it this way: at HF the losses in feedlines are predominantly I^2R losses - the higher the c; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00029.html (10,385 bytes)

Current List: 101 - 120
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]