Stuart,
I'm not really trying to understand why the repair cost was what it was
but only to better understand it technically. The Ten-Tec service tech
I spoke to was not very helpful with explaining how they came to the
conclusion that the finals were bad. Prior to sending the rig in for
service it was operational on 40m and above. In fact I made several
contacts with it the night before I boxed it up for shipment. The
problem of low output was manifesting itself on 160 and 80m only. The
other bands out put was consistently in the 80-100 watt range. This was
verified using a known good dummy load for an antenna load so I do not
believe the problem was related to SWR. Regardless I should have the
rig back in a day or two and looking forward to putting some time on the
air with it.
Very 73,
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
tentec-request@contesting.com
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 11:00 AM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: TenTec Digest, Vol 64, Issue 26
Send TenTec mailing list submissions to
tentec@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
tentec-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
tentec-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TenTec digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey (Martin Ewing AA6E)
2. Re: Ten-Tec Survey, open source (Rick Denney)
3. Re: cheap CW rig (RaySoifer@cs.com)
4. Re: Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey (Rick Denney)
5. Re: cheap CW rig (Bob McGraw - K4TAX)
6. Re: survey (Bob McGraw - K4TAX)
7. Re: survey (Frank Holladay)
8. Re: survey (Rick Prather)
9. Re: Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey (James Duffey)
10. Re: Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey (Dr. Gerald N. Johnson)
11. Re: Omni 6 Plus Repairs (Stuart Rohre)
12. Re: Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey (Stuart Rohre)
13. Ten Tec Transceiver Survey (wo8l@aol.com)
14. Re: Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey (Bob McGraw - K4TAX)
15. Re: Ten Tec Transceiver Survey (Rick Denney)
16. Re: cheap CW rig (GARY HUBER)
17. Re: survey (STEVEN KLINE)
18. Re: Ten Tec Transceiver Survey (Dr. Gerald N. Johnson)
19. Ten Tec Omni-D Series B SWR Problem (Mike)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:21:50 -0400
From: Martin Ewing AA6E <aa6e@ewing.homedns.org>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey
To: tentec-list <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <4807BF6E.4050100@ewing.homedns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Greetings,
>
> I agree. Get it thought our before you begin to write code. Most of
the
> time and work will be in the thinking stage.
>
> Perry W1COW
>
>
> What I would like to see is an open process for writing a detailed
> description of all the various ways a radio might be used as the basis
> for a concept of operation ("operation" in terms of the user, not the
> system), and then a set of explicitly traceable functional
> requirements for software. This is where openly involving volunteers
> is most helpful and positive. Then, if one of those desired activities
> cannot be accommodated in the design, at least we know it's a real
> limitation and not an accident. It would also help Ten Tec avoid
> spending too much accommodating activities around which the user
> community has no concensus.
>
> Rick, KR9D
Perry & Rick,
I suppose "requirements -- specifications -- coding -- testing --
release" would be a good model for software. This methodology works
nicely with simpler non-SDR rigs. The firmware of my IC-R8500 (for
example) just works.
SDR is different because many if not most of the capabilities of the rig
are determined by software, and users' requirements (interests) change
over time. New features and modes pop up all the time. They're limited
mainly by your imagination and your programming budget.
If you take the attitude that there is an Orion Specification and the
programming job is finished once that spec is met, you will be missing a
lot of the potential of SDR.
All that to one side, I'm not sure there ever was an Orion
Specification, at least not a public one. Where does it say what the
NR, Notch, NB buttons are specified to do? (A technical specification,
not just "reduce noise".) What is the spec on SSB audio response,
distortion, etc.? These features were probably engineered just to the
point of being "good enough" for the market. (And they are mostly good
enough for me!)
If you have doubts about Open Source programming, you can compare
Firefox, Apache, and Linux to Internet Explorer, IIS, and Windows
(Vista?). Politics aside, which products show the best design
methodology?
73 Martin AA6E
--
Martin Ewing, AA6E
aa6e@ewing.homedns.org
+1-203-315-5160
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:39:10 -0400
From: Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Survey, open source
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <1063631461.20080417173910@iteris.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
ron writes...
> I think we are missing the boat.
> There are those who want to write the code and share with anyone who
> also wants to improve it, and there are those (like Perry maybe) who
> only needs to download the open source application and use it. There
are
> versions fully tested and there are versions in beta (testing).
> Look at N1MM application for example.
There will always be those with the skills, time, and desire to
develop code for their purposes, and some of those will do it well
enough that others will want their products. That doesn't mean it's
the appropriate solution for those who want a radio to operate. The
question I was addressing is: How do you obtain highly valuable input
from those not interested in or capable of doing the programming? The
answer is to capture their operating activities and needs, and the
resulting requirements. I would hate for the software to be limited to
the operational vision of only those who have that level of
programming skill. They may be broadly representative of potential
users but I rather doubt it.
I manage large systems implementation projects for a living, and the
tension between programmers and users (or domain experts and systems
engineers, if you prefer) must be balanced for the system to fulfill
its mission. In amateur radio I have not seen much implementation of
systems engineering approaches that are the stuff of daily existence
in many development industries, and maybe that's why we have so many
people thinking the firmware in the Orion and Orion II is not
fulfilling its potential. But they have to define what that potential
is, and the best way to do that is in terms of how they will use the
radio.
For example, I use DXlabs software, but I really have no interest in
helping to program it--that's too much like work. It is not my perfect
solution, and some of its features are more in my way than helpful. I
don't want to be the sort who posts a list of complaints on an email
reflector without being willing to pitch in. So, I work around its few
faults and deal with it. I suspect that describes many Orion, Omni
VII, and even K3 users.
No expert me on programming a software-based radio. But I think I can
describe what I want to do with a radio, and I think that's true even
for those highly experienced operators who have no interest in
computers whatsoever. I would hate for them to be left out of the
process because they want to talk about AGC and S-meters instead of
algorithms and code. For incorporating expert users into a development
process, these systems engineering approaches have proven themselves.
And if the development process is also open, it's a lot easier to
marshall resources in support of a widely supported set of functional
requirements, rather than have designers arguing not over designs but
over the *purpose* of their designs. I have seen too many development
resources wasted on those sorts of discussions. The purpose of the
design should be known before the design is undertaken. I'm not
arguing against open development by any means, but I do not think
that's the solution to software products that don't fulfill their
mission fully.
Rick, KR9D
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:58:15 EDT
From: RaySoifer@cs.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] cheap CW rig
To: gsm@mendelson.com
Cc: tentec@contesting.com, geraldj@storm.weather.net
Message-ID: <c2e.2d8f0487.353921f7@cs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 4/17/2008 8:33:39 PM GMT Standard Time,
gsm@mendelson.com
writes:
> assume that in the U.S. where there are a lot more hams, it would mean
> that early mornings and late afternoons would be good for cross
continental
> communication and at other times for local. Unlike here, there is a
> large enough ham population to keep it busy.
>
> 5 watts SSB for a true QRP rig, or 25 watts if you wanted to use the
> same finals as in a 5 watt AM CB, would do. You won't set any records,
> but communication would be possible and if you spent enough time to
> learn some operating skills, and some patience you could work all
> 48 continental states and possibly get all 50.
>
That's just the problem, Geoff. There are so many hams on 20 SSB in the
US
that someone with 5 watts would be lucky to work anyone unless he had a
good
antenna. In a few years, when 10 meters opens up, that will change.
73 Ray W2RS
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:13:40 -0400
From: Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <9230765.20080417181340@iteris.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Martin Ewing AA6E writes...
> SDR is different because many if not most of the capabilities of the
rig
> are determined by software, and users' requirements (interests) change
> over time. New features and modes pop up all the time. They're
limited
> mainly by your imagination and your programming budget.
There is nothing about a properly constructed systems engineering
process that prevents iteration. But also recognize that those who
want a true SDR in the sense of a computer that happens to do radio
are probably sending their money to Flex, while the Orion is
configured more as a standalone radio (yes, even though one of the
FlexRadio 5000's has the PC built into it).
But the iterations will be focused on breakthroughs in RF processing
(i.e., new requirements), rather than on fixing bugs (unmet old
requirements). I think that's a very big difference.
(By the way, the process I am describing is how systems engineers
finally learned to manage software development efforts FAR more
complex than an amateur radio. In fact, this process is an IEEE
standard.)
> All that to one side, I'm not sure there ever was an Orion
> Specification, at least not a public one.
That's what I meant when I hinted that the Ten Tec programmers might
also be so wrapped up in design that they forget to model the
activities of the users in non-design terms first. That's why I don't
even want to use the word "specification" until have worn out "needs"
and "requirements".
> Where does it say what the
> NR, Notch, NB buttons are specified to do?
Exactly my point. These are associated with what operators do with
radios, not with the design of the radio. I want the offending carrier
tone to disappear without causing any harm to the signal I want to
hear instead. I don't care how it's done. How to do it is the design
problem, not what it means.
> (A technical specification,
> not just "reduce noise".) What is the spec on SSB audio response,
> distortion, etc.? These features were probably engineered just to the
> point of being "good enough" for the market. (And they are mostly
good
> enough for me!)
Giving them even more credit, I would suspect they are engineered to
be the best they can possibly be on a radio like an Orion, and the
best they can be at a price point for lesser radios. And in some cases
they may well attain those goals. Even that sort of a goal can be a
requirement. But we can also be specific--and even the most ardent
computer hater probably has a good understanding of what they want in
terms of dynamic range, selectivity, notch-band suppression, and so
on.
> If you have doubts about Open Source programming, you can compare
> Firefox, Apache, and Linux to Internet Explorer, IIS, and Windows
> (Vista?). Politics aside, which products show the best design
methodology?
All of them cost much more to develop than they needed to, and
iterated too many times before reaching a stable product (of course,
Vista is going backwards in that department, but that's another
debate). That's true even if many of the developers donated (their
employer's) time. They measure progress in terms of "long-term-stable
version" rather than in terms of "fulfill all requirements in
Requirements Document v.2.04". As I said in a message you haven't seen
yet, the open development is a method for designing code, while I'm
advocating an open process for developing needs and requirements to
serve as the basis for that design. I like open software, but open or
closed, it will hit the target more accurately and with fewer bugs if
we get the requirements nailed down first.
Okay, I get preachy on this topic because my own industry is replete
with massive failed software development projects that screwed up this
aspect of development. I'm rather evangelical on the topic and that
has led me to be a little persistent. But I think I've repeated my
points the required dozen or so times to scratch the persistence itch,
and I'll back away now unless there's something specific. Thanks for
your indulgence.
Rick, KR9D
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:29:32 -0500
From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] cheap CW rig
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <008f01c8a0da$8328e830$c1b34ace@FAMILY>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Folks, my comments and suggestions apply specifically to a company that
designs and builds new equipment. I know one can buy all sort of older
radios from good deals to junk at the various on-line auction sites,
flea
markets, ham fest and such for bargain prices. And in some cases
actually
get good radios at a good price. For the newcomer in today's market, we
must presume the newcomer would prefer to buy new and thus the need for
an
entry level radio at an entry price. To that end, a company that
designs
and builds new equipment likely has little interest in the value of used
equipment.
73
Bob, K4TAX
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:33:01 -0500
From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] survey
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <00a001c8a0da$ff2f6530$c1b34ace@FAMILY>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I still say that there needs to be an "EXTRA ADVANCED COMPLAINER" class
of
license.
73
Bob, K4TAX
>> I looked at the survey and gave up. the only people they will hear
>> from
>> are hams who are retired as those are the only ones with enough free
time
>> to
>> fill it out.
>>
>>
>
> wine wine, do you want cheese with that??
>
> 73 Ron
>
> "the 516 is a keeper and it's also cute"
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:46:39 -0500
From: "Frank Holladay" <holladayfd@multipro.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] survey
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <024501c8a0dc$e7fd8520$41c9a6a5@your27e1513d96>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Scott or anyone else at Ten Tec, PLEASE do not run any more
surveys---the
paint is getting worn off my delete key removing the whiners!
73,
Frank, K4VMO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] survey
>I still say that there needs to be an "EXTRA ADVANCED COMPLAINER" class
of
> license.
>
> 73
> Bob, K4TAX
>
>
>
>
>>> I looked at the survey and gave up. the only people they will
hear
>>> from
>>> are hams who are retired as those are the only ones with enough free
>>> time
>>> to
>>> fill it out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> wine wine, do you want cheese with that??
>>
>> 73 Ron
>>
>> "the 516 is a keeper and it's also cute"
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:16:23 -0700
From: Rick Prather <rprather@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] survey
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <055F29B9-D0DC-4BE5-9D72-090290DFDF3B@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
The lesson to be learned here, again, is never ask a bunch hams for
their opinions unless you want a hundred different viewpoints from 99
different hams! (Hopefully at least two guys agree...)
Rick
K6LE
On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Frank Holladay wrote:
> Scott or anyone else at Ten Tec, PLEASE do not run any more
> surveys---the
> paint is getting worn off my delete key removing the whiners!
> 73,
> Frank, K4VMO
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] survey
>
>
>> I still say that there needs to be an "EXTRA ADVANCED COMPLAINER"
>> class of
>> license.
>>
>> 73
>> Bob, K4TAX
>>
>>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:09:05 -0600
From: James Duffey <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey
To: tentec@contesting.com
Cc: James Duffey <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <05739846-57E9-4318-81FB-199D39686DF4@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I, and I suspect many VHF/UHF enthusiasts, would like to see a 222MHz
(1.25m) rig, or a VHF/UHF rig that incorporates this band. As 222 MHz
is only available in region 1, it is pretty much up to the US ham
radio manufacturers to come up with one.
I suspect that a 2m/1.25m/70cm rig would sell well. It would
compliment the many HF rigs, including the Omni VII, that have 6M
facilities. The old Ten Tec 6N2 is still very much in demand in the
used market, and I suspect that if 1.25 were added to this platform it
would sell well. A VHF/UHF platform based on the Omni VII would
probably sell well.
This is one area in which Ten-Tec could take a leadership role without
worry of competition from the Japanese vendors, and without too much
worry from Elecraft or Flex Radio.
Just identifying a niche that needs to be filled. - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:26:15 -0600
From: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey
To: tentec@contesting.com
Message-ID: <1208481975.6520.14.camel@host.domain.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:09 -0600, James Duffey wrote:
> I, and I suspect many VHF/UHF enthusiasts, would like to see a 222MHz
> (1.25m) rig, or a VHF/UHF rig that incorporates this band. As 222 MHz
> is only available in region 1, it is pretty much up to the US ham
> radio manufacturers to come up with one.
>
> I suspect that a 2m/1.25m/70cm rig would sell well. It would
> compliment the many HF rigs, including the Omni VII, that have 6M
> facilities. The old Ten Tec 6N2 is still very much in demand in the
> used market, and I suspect that if 1.25 were added to this platform it
> would sell well. A VHF/UHF platform based on the Omni VII would
> probably sell well.
>
> This is one area in which Ten-Tec could take a leadership role without
> worry of competition from the Japanese vendors, and without too much
> worry from Elecraft or Flex Radio.
>
> Just identifying a niche that needs to be filled. - Duffey
> --
> KK6MC
> James Duffey
> Cedar Crest NM
>
But it needs a state of the art receiver. A VHF receiver with a 10 dB NF
was state of the art at the beginning of UHF TV, not today.
73, Jerry, K0CQ
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:28:54 -0500
From: "Stuart Rohre" <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Omni 6 Plus Repairs
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <013801c8a0f3$90eeb800$16100b0a@arlut.utexas.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
The finals and drive might have been open circuit. If the finals were
left
connected to an antenna and nearby lightning got into the rig, anything
could have happened. It is prudent if the Finals went open circuit to
replace the driver as well.
My experience with Ten Tec is that they repair at the lowest cost to the
ham
consistent with bringing the rig to its full spec.
-Stuart
K5KVH
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:36:10 -0500
From: "Stuart Rohre" <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <01aa01c8a0f4$94bd2fb0$16100b0a@arlut.utexas.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Paul,
I have actually had my hands on a beautiful Blue Anodized Hilberling
transceiver.
Stuart
K5KVH
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:34:41 -0400
From: wo8l@aol.com
Subject: [TenTec] Ten Tec Transceiver Survey
To: TenTec@contesting.com
Message-ID: <8CA6EA6ECB8099E-13D0-35D4@webmail-md12.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I've already communicated extensively with Ten Tec via Scott about my
deep concern for a feature on a new rig.? (O.K.? So it was only two
e-mails.)
In a nutshell, I am sick and tired of needing to run upstairs from the
shack?to get a cup of coffee or a beer.? Ten Tec knows very well that
they should do something with the temperatures which come off the heat
sinks of their rigs.? Why not a coffee maker?
Alternatively, how about an ammonia based device like a refrigerator in
an RV used in conjunction with the heat sink to cool a keg of beer?
Must I forever buy after market items such as coffee makers and beer keg
coolers from companies like MFJ?
It's the environmentally responsible thing to do.? Use that heat for
something.
In the meantime, I am enjoying hams on the reflector do what they do
best...nitpick. Oops, I mean offer valuable, practical solutions to
enhance the development of technologies which add to our operating
efficiency even though we already have rigs which do unbelievable things
compared to 40 years ago.
Anybody want to sell their OMNI VII?? I've got $500 in cash hidden from
the XYL and I could probably send some of her cats along in the
bargain.? She'd never miss them.? I'm gonna find the homeless shelter
lonely, though.
--Rick
? WO8L
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:23:20 -0500
From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <015101c8a0fb$2c22c210$c1b34ace@FAMILY>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
For VHF and UHF I am a fan of transverters and high performance HF
transceivers. Noise figures of less then 0.5 dB are the order of the
day
for 144 MHz and 432 MHz. I use DownEast transverters ahead of the Omni
VII
on 10 meters with great success. I know it is more pieces of equipment,
more cables, and more $$ but I view it as "performance $$". Although
some
of the new off shore boxes do well, all band configurations to 1.2 GHz
just
won't get the performance I expect for the bucks.
As to offshore rigs and the ability for the 144, 432 and 1296 bands,
several
have special packages that do quite well. That area of the market,
however,
is small in numbers and likely not profitable at all compared to the
general
demand for HF transceivers.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey
> On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:09 -0600, James Duffey wrote:
>> I, and I suspect many VHF/UHF enthusiasts, would like to see a 222MHz
>> (1.25m) rig, or a VHF/UHF rig that incorporates this band. As 222 MHz
>> is only available in region 1, it is pretty much up to the US ham
>> radio manufacturers to come up with one.
>>
>> I suspect that a 2m/1.25m/70cm rig would sell well. It would
>> compliment the many HF rigs, including the Omni VII, that have 6M
>> facilities. The old Ten Tec 6N2 is still very much in demand in the
>> used market, and I suspect that if 1.25 were added to this platform
it
>> would sell well. A VHF/UHF platform based on the Omni VII would
>> probably sell well.
>>
>> This is one area in which Ten-Tec could take a leadership role
without
>> worry of competition from the Japanese vendors, and without too much
>> worry from Elecraft or Flex Radio.
>>
>> Just identifying a niche that needs to be filled. - Duffey
>> --
>> KK6MC
>> James Duffey
>> Cedar Crest NM
>>
> But it needs a state of the art receiver. A VHF receiver with a 10 dB
NF
> was state of the art at the beginning of UHF TV, not today.
>
> 73, Jerry, K0CQ
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:30:17 -0400
From: Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten Tec Transceiver Survey
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <397122243.20080417223017@iteris.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
wo8l@aol.com writes...
> In a nutshell, I am sick and tired of needing to run upstairs from
> the shack?to get a cup of coffee or a beer.? Ten Tec knows very well
> that they should do something with the temperatures which come off
> the heat sinks of their rigs.? Why not a coffee maker?
It's worse that that for me. My basement ham shack doesn't have a loo.
When I'm down there soldering stuff in the deeps of night and natures
calls, I'm almost guaranteed to wake up the XYL, which provides
another opportunity to highlight just how deep the deeps of night have
become.
I'm not sure it's a problem Ten Tec can solve, however.
Rick, KR9D
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:27:44 -0500
From: "GARY HUBER" <glhuber@msn.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] cheap CW rig
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <BLU142-DAV3051FE2220D73BDB5FDDCA6E40@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Couldn't agree with you more Lyle... Most old Corsairs or predecessor
Omni
series can be purchased for a reasonable price and are still fairly
competitive with a good RX and great QSK if one doesn't want to go all
the
way back to building a rig from parts. If you have time for a hobby, you
most likely can find a legitimate way to acquire a $500 radio!
73,
Gary - AB9M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle Dunlap" <qskqrq@grics.net>
To: <w6fg@pacbell.net>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
<tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] cheap CW rig
> Right on Ross
>
> Starting out I used an "A" battery for filaments and a "B" battery for
> plate
> voltage. Still use a cw tube rig I built not too long ago, once in
while.
> New generation of hams are like the new married couples. They want to
> start
> out with everything, complete with white picket fence and new car in
the
> garage.
>
> Lyle W9FCX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:25:08 -0500
From: "STEVEN KLINE" <skline4@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] survey
To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <00c701c8a168$62998c80$0201a8c0@SRK001OFFICE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Really Rob, you have to be kidding right? It might have taken 15
minutes tops. Your statement is very inaccurate. I'm not retired and
found it quick and easy to complete, even without the lines to line up
the response spaces.
Steve - W5JK
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob Atkinson
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:42 PM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] survey
I looked at the survey and gave up. the only people they will hear
from
are hams who are retired as those are the only ones with enough free
time to
fill it out.
73
rob / k5uj
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:35:29 -0600
From: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten Tec Transceiver Survey
To: tentec@contesting.com
Message-ID: <1208532930.3622.3.camel@host.domain.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 22:30 -0400, Rick Denney wrote:
> wo8l@aol.com writes...
>
> > In a nutshell, I am sick and tired of needing to run upstairs from
> > the shack?to get a cup of coffee or a beer.? Ten Tec knows very well
> > that they should do something with the temperatures which come off
> > the heat sinks of their rigs.? Why not a coffee maker?
>
> It's worse that that for me. My basement ham shack doesn't have a loo.
> When I'm down there soldering stuff in the deeps of night and natures
> calls, I'm almost guaranteed to wake up the XYL, which provides
> another opportunity to highlight just how deep the deeps of night have
> become.
>
> I'm not sure it's a problem Ten Tec can solve, however.
>
> Rick, KR9D
>
>
A chamber pot worked for gramma. it can work in the hamshack. A 5 gallon
bucket is too big but handy for sitting on when needed. Big sporting
goods stores carry a seat to fit the top of the 5 gallon bucket for
those occasions. Put the lid back on after use to hold in the smell and
dump the contents when the XYL is awake. Rinse and store for the next
use. For purely liquid applications, a gallon milk jug with the top cut
out works for me while dry camping.
73, Jerry, K0CQ
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:58:02 -0400
From: Mike <ka2v@roadrunner.com>
Subject: [TenTec] Ten Tec Omni-D Series B SWR Problem
To: TenTec@contesting.com
Message-ID: <4808C50A.2060404@roadrunner.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Guys
I Have a Omni-D Series B Transceiver,When I use the radio on 40 and 75
meters SSB.I tune antenna to Flat match,And when I talk the Swr Jumps up
to 1.3 and 1.5 reflected,On dead key carrier I can get get my antenna to
go flat match.It only does this when I talk.I've already changed all the
1N-4048 diodes on the swr board and fixed a low receive problem, and I'm
running the drive at 2 to 2 1/2.Any Ideas on how to tame this problem???
Tnx Mike
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
End of TenTec Digest, Vol 64, Issue 26
**************************************
----------Legal Disclaimer----------
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential,
and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. No other person is
authorized to access, copy or re-use this message (or any information contained
herein). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately
by replying to this message and delete it from your computer.
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|