[CQ-Contest] Second radio tri-band antenna options?

[Brian Short]

This has been addressed before by W2UP, see:
   http://www.qex.net/k7on/contest/ant2.htm

--
Brian Short, K7ON 1994 E Laguna Dr  Tempe, Az 85282 
bshort at speedchoice.com >or< http://www.qex.net/k7on/
--
"I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I 
got a full  house and four people died." - Steven Wright
--


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From Jim Pratt <n6ig at netcom.com>  Thu Apr  8 00:20:19 1999
From: Jim Pratt <n6ig at netcom.com> (Jim Pratt)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Second radio tri-band antenna options?
In-Reply-To: <a7af3375.243ce68d at aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9904071327.A10674-0100000 at netcom18>


I concur that any sort of multiple radio arrangements will result in 
excessive RF coming into the second receiver and causing receiving 
problems and/or receiver burnout.  However, I don't agree with the 
concept of switched filters.

At W6GO, we have one set of ICE filters - one filter for each contest 
band.  And we have a policy that one will not transmit on any radio 
unless all radios (which are connected to antennas) also have a bandpass 
filter in line.  Thus it really isn't possible to blow up one radio with 
another when you accidentally put both stations on 20 meters in the 
middle of the night.  With automatic switched filters, it becomes much 
more likely to have a catastrophe.

My hat's off to those who avoid blowing things up with automatic systems, 
I will stick to the manual method with quick-disconnect connectors for 
quick band changes.

73, Jim  N6IG






--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com