SV: [AMPS] Re: Re: Mission Impossible

[sm5ki]

Hej! Is it really an advantage having a clean transmitter with little
distorsion products? The guys who have them  splatter machines will come
closer to your frequency - because they are not aware you are there on the
next channel, hi!

73s de Hans SM5KI
----------
>Från: Ian Roberts <itr@nanoteq.co.za>
>Till: amps@contesting.com
>Ämne: Re: [AMPS] Re: Re: Mission Impossible
>Datum: ons 8 mar 2000 06.58
>

>
>Peter, you have received the answer to your posting days ago, the answer
>is "elbow room".
>
>When it is quite acceptable to yell "cq test" on top of someone else,
>you should be grateful and humble that you managed to keep these guys in
>the adjacent channel, and were able to successfully defend your
>frequency (how much power were you running?).
>With the philosophy of "elbow room" in mind, the more aesthetic
>parameters of ham radio get lost in the overall turmoil, in fact become
>irrelevant,
>Ian.
>
>Peter Sundberg wrote:
>> 
>> Here we go again...
>> As soon as we start talking about bad sounding transmitters the discussion
>> drifts away and people start questioning the receivers instead !
>> 
>> What we heard during the contest was genuinely poor signals from a number
>> of stations, not receiver overload !
>> 
>> I used up to 30 db of attenuation while listening and the distorsion and
>> splatter was still there. Some had distorsion to the extent where I could
>> hardly hear what the guy was saying and this had nothing to do with my
>> receiver being overloaded.
>> 
>> Face it, many stations sound bad, and given what they run we know it takes
>> som knowledge on their side to make the equipment sound that bad.... or are
>> they unaware ?? I doubt it !
>> 
>> Peter/SM2CEW
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 14:20 2000-03-07 +0200, you wrote:
>> >
>> >What has not been mentioned in this discussion, is the performance of
>> >noise blankers on amateur receivers, which when "in", contribute more
>> >than their fair share of clicking noises to a strong signal, ala ICOM
>> >IC746.
>> >
>> >Ian ZS6BTE
>> >
>> >
>> >Peter Chadwick wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Craig says:
>> >> Military receivers of the late 1980s had intercept points of
>> >> around +30dbm
>> >>
>> >> Receiver intercept point isn't everything.
>
>--
>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