[AMPS] Re: Re: Mission Impossible

[Jan.E.Holm@telia.se]

     I used a FT1000D, don´t know what IP it has and in this
     case I wouldn´t say it´s important since there also was
     lot´s of stations on the band both being stronger and
     having a smaller bandwith and also sounding good.
     However I do think that the FT1000D RX is pritty good.

     de Jim SM2EKM
------------------------------------

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från:	bearl@ozemail.com.au [SMTP:bearl@ozemail.com.au]
Skickat:	 den 7 mars 2000 12:39
Till:	amps@contesting.com
Ämne:	VB: Re: [AMPS] Re: Re: Mission Impossible


What receiver were using Jim? I don't think we could really be proud of 
the
equipment we all are using as hams. When the average third order 
intercept
point of the most top line radios hovers around  +10 to +15 dbm judging
signals in Europe under contest conditions is a big ask. Military 
receivers
of the late 1980s had intercept points of around +30dbm, ham 
manufacturers
certainly have a long way to go.  Dr Ulrich Rhode has covered all these
issues in the Ham press back in the days of Ham radio magazine, and also
quite recently in QST, QEX and  Communications quartely.  More pressure 
has
to be applied to ham manufacturers to provide excellent RF reveiver
performance and not concentrate so much on bells and whistles.


Craig
VK3HE


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jan.E.Holm@telia.se>
To: <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 8:17 PM
Subject: [AMPS] Re: Re: Mission Impossible


>
>
>       Well, sorry I have to disagree. At least on 10/15/20 he had
>       quite excessive bandwidth and quite high distortion. Can tell
>       about 40 since I never did get on 40 except to work FO0AAA.
>
>       de Jim SM2EKM
>
>       PS: Please remember this is a high tech station, in view
>       of that why have distortion at all? Why sound almost like
>       a UW3DI tcvr from the former CCCP
>       ----------------------------
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com [SMTP:Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com]
> Skickat: den 7 mars 2000 10:06
> Till: amps@contesting.com; Jan.E.Holm@telia.se
> Ämne: RE: [AMPS] Re: Re: Mission Impossible
>
> Jab says;
>
> >K1AR sounded so bad on all bands'
>
> When I worked K1AR, he was strong and clean. That was both 20 and 40.
> With different operators, and about 24 hours between QSOs.
>
>
> 73
>
> Peter G3RZP
>
>
>  <<Fil: RE_ [AMPS] Re_ Re_ Mission Impossible.TXT>>
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
> Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
> Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
> Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>



--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
 <<Fil: Re_ [AMPS] Re_ Re_ Mission Impossible.TXT>> 


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm