Phil, it doesn't help much to refer someone to the site with the reviews.
If you're not a member, you can't log in.
I don't know if you are allowed to make a copy (download) and then
pass it on.
Probably NOT.
However I'm sure if someone copies a sentence or two out of it and
passes that on, nobody would object.
Unfortunately I don't have the original O2 test either.
Maybe someone here does and will comment on whether it was noise
limited or not.
Surely it was.
I'll check later and see if that test is online.
It has been 5 years now, so maybe it is online already.
73
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Phil Sussman
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment; jrhallas@optonline.net
Cc: tentec@contesting.com; hans@pa1hr.nl
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews
How do you read the articles if you're not an ARRL member?
Don't intend on joining, certainly not to browse them.
My point: Are you allowed to copy or even refer them to non-ARRL members?
Just a thought,
73 de Phil - N8PS
---
Quoting jrhallas@optonline.net:
Folks,
To get the definitive information on this topic, please go to
www.arrl.org/forum. Look for the “Technology”
category and then scroll down to “Equipment Testing.” Look for the three
postings from ARRL Lab Manager Ed Hare.
Regards, Joel
Joel R. Hallas, W1ZRTechnical Editor, QST
ARRL,
the national association for Amateur Radio™
----- Original Message -----From: Bill Tippett Date: Thursday,
September 1, 2011 8:37 amSubject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL ReviewsTo:
tentec@contesting.comCc: hans@pa1hr.nl> W3ULS wrote:> > >With the
changes ARRL has made in reporting IMD3 for > receivers, all you
have> to do is subtract 8-10 dB to get very close to Rob Sherwood's
> findings. No> biggie.> > The actual IMD difference is ~12
dB which is the > difference > in noise bandwidth between 3 Hz
(spectrum analyzer) and 50 Hz > (approximate BW of the human ear)
using [10 log(BW1/BW2)] or > 12.2 > dB. I'm afraid it IS a biggie
if someone looks at PA1HR's > unfootnoted listing and concludes the
FT-5000 is head and > shoulders > above other rigs. It is not, as
can be seen in Sherwood's > table. It > simply has the benefit of
being tested using *new* methodology > versus > other rigs using the
*old* methodology, and there is not even > any > indication of when
the measurement methodology was changed!> > One of the major
benefits of any published test data is > comparability, and ARRL's
older data (I'm not sure of the exact > date > of the methodology
change) is definitely not directly comparable > to > current data.
Unfortunately I believe Peter Hart of RSGB's > RadComm > is now
using the same IMD measurement methodology so his data is > also >
not comparable over time.> > >IMHO, Sherwood and his work are
admirable, even irreplaceable. > Yet I think> he is overly critical
of the ARRL and its lab procedures, given > the fact of> the ARRL's
large overhead that must be paid for and the good > work they do>
overall. They beat the FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the >
District of> Columbia, for example, which is no small
accomplishment. So I > can live with> a little less rigor in the
testing area as long as Rob Sherwood > (and Peter> Hart) are around
to offer their opinions.> > I'm certainly not critical of
everything ARRL does for > us. However when published comparisons
are made of their data > without so much as a footnote detailing the
differences in > measurement methodologies, then criticism may be
justified. The > average person reading these comparison listings
may be > seriously > misled if they simply take them at face value.
I'm copying this > to > PA1HR so hopefully Hans will consider
footnoting the differences > in > measurement methodologies, and
perhaps Joel W1ZR will tell us > exactly > when ARRL's methodology
changed.> > 73, Bill W4ZV
> > _______________________________________________> 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
_______________________________________________
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