No subject

Wed Aug 23 09:45:00 EDT 1995

I saw a posting fly by here recently about 'taking LPL's advice
and insulate your yagi elements from the boom'.  Since I'm a recent
subscriber to this reflector it appears I've obviously missed something
very interesting to me!  I'd personally be quite paranoid about having
ungrounded stuff up in the air with the midwest lightning flying around!

Could 'LPL' or someone summarize the insulated element story to bring
me up to date?

Thanks!

Wayne - W9II         wstrahl at nwsca.nw.att.com

>From n1jm at future.dreamscape.com (John Merrill)  Thu Aug 24 12:03:50 1995
From: n1jm at future.dreamscape.com (John Merrill) (John Merrill)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 07:03:50 -0400
Subject: OmniVI
Message-ID: <199508241058.GAA19266 at future.dreamscape.com>

Nice to hear a lot of comment about the OmniVI. My only gripe is the lack of
a monitor function to be able to listen to yourself on ssb or your rtty
signal. Someone griped abouta lack of a auto tuner built in. But if you need
that you need new antennas.
If you have an older one , call TenTec and there are some mods that can be
done to upgrade the radio, particularly new firmware chip.

73, John N1JM

>From Richard Kline <rikik at shani.net>  Thu Aug 24 13:21:51 1995
From: Richard Kline <rikik at shani.net> (Richard Kline)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 15:21:51 +0300 (WET)
Subject: "Dear TenTec..."
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91-heb-2.05.950824145319.44571A-100000 at shani.net>

I couldn't resist commenting on this one after considering the OMNI VI to 
replace the ole TS-430S which is the mainstay HF rig at 4X4NJ (my ole 
Drake Line is still the "anchor" rig here for topband).

The reviews on the Omni VI (and from some of the people I highly respect) 
have been most impressive, especially about the receiver.  At Dayton, this
year, I spoke to the Ten-Tech reps telling them that I would be willing 
to buy the OMNI VI if they could improve its reliability. Being half way 
around the world from their factory is a problem that is not solved
sufficiently by their good service and support.  From the reports I've read, 
there is still a great amount of "infant mortality" for this otherwise fine 
radio.  I mentioned to Ten-Tech that some of us would be willing to pay a 
premium price for a more reliable radio and that the reliability 
engineering discipline has a lot of techniques which could likely be 
applied to improve the radio's reliability. Some of these are: statistical 
analysis to pin-point  recurrring  failures, analysis of these failures 
to determine "root causes", and implementing corrective action.  Some 
typical corrective actions could included:  upgrading reliability levels 
of problematical components, examining production process (possibly to 
evaluate soldering and assembly techniques, and improved burn-in 
procedures.  The Ten-Tech rep said that they burn-in each radio before it 
is shipped to accelerate latent failures, however, in view of the rumored 
poor initial reliability, this process appears to need some improvement.

The missing feature that I would like to see in this transceiver (maybe 
in the Omni VII ??) would be a separate receiver for optimizing operation 
in DX pileup/split mode operation.

Hopefully Ten-Tech is "listening" and will make the necessary
improvements to make a great radio even greater.  If they do this soon enough, 
I'll likely purchase one.

73,
Riki, 4X4NJ

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
On   Wed, 23 Aug 1995 PaulKB8N at aol.com  wrote:

> >From much of the E-Mail lately, it seems that the OMNI VI may be the
> performance/value leader in the transceiver market.  In a market so dominated
> by the Japanese over the last decade, I wonder if TenTec is willing to really
> listen to the customer and make those changes to the Omni VI that would make
> it the clear winner?  It seems obvious to me that any changes that make a
> contester happy will benefit the HF community as a whole.
> 
> What changes are needed in the OMNI VI to correct the major irritants?  What
> do we want to see from the OMNI VII?
> 
> Hey TenTec, anybody listening?
> 

>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com  Thu Aug 24 13:24:00 1995
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 07:24 EST
Subject: TenTec
Message-ID: <32950824122423/0006489207PK4EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

I'm not sure this has A LOT to do with contesting, but continuing on
the existing thread....

I understand that TT uses cyrstal LADDER filters.  About 10-15 years
ago I had a chat with DJ2LR, Ulrich Rohde, and he was aghast that any-
one would use THAT!  I can't recall exactly, but one of the "problems"
was the lack of symmetry.  I really don't remember the other things he
disliked about them.  What is the current status of LADDER filters?  Any
good?  I think all the other stuff might be minor compared to this (?)....

de Doug  KR2Q at mcimail.com

>From sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu  Thu Aug 24 13:38:01 1995
From: sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu (sellington)
Date: 24 Aug 1995 07:38:01 -0500
Subject: FT-1000/OMNI VI
Message-ID: <n1402872594.33222 at mail.ssec.wisc.edu>

>Wouldn't it be great if all developers of CONTEST software provided a PTT 
>output on CW so we aren't forced to fiddle with CW VOX adjustments which 
>inevitably truncate the first character, and cause us the miss the 
>beginning of reply transmissions due the VOX hang time...
>73!
>Frank
>W3LPL
>donovanf at sgate.com

With a 50 ms delay (PTT comes on before key closure) to eliminate all
that crunching when the slow amplifier relays close!  (A constant delay
added to the key output, not just truncation of the first character.)

The PTT output would also be useful when using QSK.  For example, one
could mute the sidetone when calling CQ, or whenever the computer is
sending for that matter.  Beside cutting down on fatigue, it could be
very useful to the two-radio folks.

73,

Scott  K9MA
sellington at ssec.wisc.edu 

>From sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu  Thu Aug 24 13:44:11 1995
From: sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu (sellington)
Date: 24 Aug 1995 07:44:11 -0500
Subject: FT-1000/OMNI VI
Message-ID: <n1402872173.55347 at mail.ssec.wisc.edu>

KL7HF writes:

> Assuming
>your not using open frame old slow relays (can't believe you would
>in todays world),

Has anyone else noticed all those little "crunches" at the beginning of
the first character?  (On received signals.)  There are obviously plenty
of stations out there with transceivers in cw-vox mode with slow 
relays.

Scott  K9MA
sellington at ssec.wisc.edu

>From n4zr at ix.netcom.com (Pete Smith)  Thu Aug 24 13:57:53 1995
From: n4zr at ix.netcom.com (Pete Smith) (Pete Smith)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 05:57:53 -0700
Subject: Contest software/VOX
Message-ID: <199508241257.FAA05239 at ix4.ix.netcom.com>

Ken, K0PP wrote:

>Amen to W3LPL's wish for contest software that would provide
>a way to get around the -terrible- problem of missed dits (and
>sometimes even dahs!) because rigs are slow to pick up in the
>TX mode.  W's become M's, A's become T's, N's become I's, etc.
>(Wonder if it would work to put a couple of spaces before each
>canned message ... i.e. __599 MT TU?
>
>Next time you have your rig running with software CW, take a
>listen to it (NOT via the sidetone) ...  you might be surprised
>at what you're really sending .... 
>
>73! de Ken Kopp/K0PP
>k0pp at mcimail.com
>
Hmmm... I'm beginning to sense a trend here.  Am I the only contester here
who routinely uses full break-in CW?  Or is that something you can only get
away with using negative-gain antennas?

73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr at ix.netcom.com  *** note new e-mail address ***

No, no, no, that's 59 WEST Virginia.

>From Steve Runyon WQ5G  512-838-7008 <steve at austin.ibm.com>  Thu Aug 24 15:42:57 1995
From: Steve Runyon WQ5G  512-838-7008 <steve at austin.ibm.com> (Steve Runyon WQ5G 512-838-7008)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 08:42:57 -0600
Subject: Re; Suggestions to Ten Tec on Omni VI
Message-ID: <9508241342.AA27800 at runyon.austin.ibm.com>

While we're turning in suggestions to TT, my pet peeve with the Omni V
is that I cannot listen to two freqs simultaneously. My trusty old
Omni D with the external VFO allows this, and I use it from time 
to time and really like it. 

When trying to break thru the DX pileup it's nice to know if I'm 
still in a relatively clear spot, plus it makes it MUCH easier for 
me to spot the station the DX is currently working and to figure out
if he is moving up or down (bouncing back and forth using the REVERSE
button doesn't work nearly as well for me). Also, a couple of times I've
been in a rag chew with another US station plus someone outside zone 2
and with the D model, I just dial up and listen to both freqs - no
bouncing back and forth (it sure is embarrassing to screw up and 
transmit SSB on 7.085!) Finally, I would think it would help in 
looking for other mults on the band when CONTESTING (there, got it in)
with only one rig.

I assume it is still the same on the Omni VI? (Haven't had the chance
to use one yet, hint, hint...) 

>From Cain, Jim,  K1TN" <jcain at arrl.org  Thu Aug 24 14:04:00 1995
From: Cain, Jim,  K1TN" <jcain at arrl.org (Cain, Jim,  K1TN)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 09:04:00 EDT
Subject: contest writeup; no play rule
Message-ID: <303C82BB at arrl.org>

Didn't this so-called "thread" start
as a joke? It was, of course, Seems
some of you don't get it. Please
end this.

Jim Cain, K1TN
Contester/editor
(Views expressed entirely personal,
no organizational connection meant
or implied)

>From R. Torsten Clay" <torsten at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu  Thu Aug 24 14:49:49 1995
From: R. Torsten Clay" <torsten at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu (R. Torsten Clay)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 8:49:49 CDT
Subject: FT-1000/OMNI VI
Message-ID: <199508241349.AA15859 at mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu>

> 
> Another peeve--the computer interface does not seem to work when the 
> radio is in xmt.  This is annoying if you are using CT (and perhaps other 
> programs?) when it's interfaced to the radio during runs.  I normally use 
> the "+" key to simultaneously log a contact and play the TU/QRZ msg, but 
> in this case, when CT requests the frequency information from the radio, 
> the Omni-VI won't respond until after transmitting, and it really screws 
> up my timing.  The result is that you have to either log the QSO first, 
> THEN send the TU/QRZ msg, or just send the TU/QRZ msg and hit the Enter 
> button to log the QSO while you're copying the next guy that is calling 
> you.
>  

I think this was fixed in the later firmware...at least I don't notice it
in my Omni.  It's been a while since I used it with CT, but I know there
aren't any problems with TR when transmitting with the radio interfaced.

Tor
n4ogw at uiuc.edu