[RFI] I. C. E. products question

[Juan EA5RS]

Dunestar 200w (as stated in Power Ratings chapter in manual)
W3NQN 200w (not 100% sure)

But those figures might not be very significant, Under a severe load
mismatch, their worst case condition as far as reliability is concerned,
they might behave differently. The W3NQN seems to be the most rugged unit.

73


-----Mensaje original-----
De: kd4e [mailto:doc at kd4e.com] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 02 de enero de 2008 1:54
Para: Juan EA5RS
CC: rfi at contesting.com
Asunto: Re: [RFI] I. C. E. products question

Just curious ...

Are the Dunestar and W3NQN filters also 150W max.,
same as the ICE models?

> I have recently measured a couple of ICEs419 (6 band switched BPF) and a
> Dunestar600 (similar to the 419) with an accurrate Vector Network
Analyzer.
> 
> While frequency response is similar between both models on the lower
bands,
> the Dunestar is significantly sharper and has a higher ultimate rejection
> (although not spectacular) on 20, 15 and 10m, at the expense of roughly
0,1
> to 0,2 dB additional insertion loss vs the 419. 
> 
> I chose the Dunestar for my application (SO2R-M/S).
> 
> I also have a single-band 160m W3NQN BPF which outperforms both the ICE
and
> the Dunestar in terms of insertion loss and selectivity
> 
> I have the data if someone is interested.
> 
> 73 Juan EA5RS



-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
Sent Using: ChurchPup-Linux
http://www.churchpup.com/
Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
             |_|___|_|
             | | & | |
                {|
        /\      {|
       /  \     {|
      /    \    {|
     /   @  \   {|
     |   |~_|~~~~|
     |   -| |    |
============\ # KD4E

__________ Información de NOD32, revisión 2759 (20080101) __________

Este mensaje ha sido analizado con  NOD32 antivirus system
http://www.nod32.com