[TenTec] TT (Orion) Future improvements!!!

Mon Feb 14 09:09:08 EST 2005

Ron, we do this all the time with 6 rigs on the air simultaneously, each
running 1500w out (but on different bands), and we don't bother each other.
Use good rigs, monoband antennas, and bandpass filters, and it works.
However if one of them is an old dog like the TS-430, it still interferes
with all the others.

73
Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Ron Notarius
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:57 PM
To: tentec at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] TT (Orion) Future improvements!!!

Speaking of throwing more petroleum on the inferno, here's another one to
consider:

Last October, I joined K3VX, W3WH and W3RJM in operating two portable
stations during the Pa QSO Party, N3SH & W3WH/QRP.  The two stations were in
adjacent cabins in a state park.  Due to circumstance to lengthy to go into,
some of the wire antennas overlapped each other, and they were all in pretty
close proximity.

Larry, Bob & I took turns at N3SH, running an IC-706 at 100 W.  Bill ran
W3WH/QRP SO using a Ten Tec Argonaut V (516) cranked down around 5 W or so.
I don't think we were ever on the same band at the same time, but often
adjacent bands (20 & 40, 40 & 80, or 80 & 160 during my few hours)

Now:  every time I sat at the rig, if Bill transmitted, I knew it.
Sometimes it was near impossible copy, but mostly I could work around it...
too many Field Days under my belt, so I was used to it.

Almost every time I transmitted, Bill was unaware of it.  Never heard me.
No clicks, no front end overload, no de-sense.

Now... of the two, which rig do you think I want to get my hands on?  (OK,
trick question, I'd take the first one offered to me, but which do you think
I'd PREFER to get my hands on?)

73

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Duane A Calvin" <ac5aa at juno.com>
To: <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] TT (Orion) Future improvements!!!

> Speaking of the color screen (a non problem in my opinion), the following
> new rig from ICOM might throw more gasoline on this fire . . .
>
>         http://www.qsl.net/ab4oj/icom/ic7000.html
>
> 73,  Duane
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:19:08 +0200 "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
> <gsm at mendelson.com> writes:
> > On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 08:45:45PM -0500, Ron Notarius wrote:
> > > For example:  Remember the Argosy.  Back in the day, I could put
> > an Argosy
> > > and a TS-430S side by side.  I'd estimate that about 90% of the
> > time, if you
> > > gave it an honest evaluation on receive, it was at worst a wash,
> > but usually
> > > the Argosy could hear things better with less noise.  And if you
> > put both
> > > rigs on the same station & antenna & switched back and forth, I
> > can not ever
> > > recall a single time that the guy on the other end said the 430
> > sounded
> > > better than the 525; either there was no difference or the other
> > way around.
> > > So why did we sell about ten or more 430's to every 525?  Power
> > output.  100
> > > W out vs. 50.  And don't bother telling me that it's only a 3dB
> > difference,
> > > and that you probably wouldn't notice that on the air -- because
> > it's true.
> > > But people who were willing to accept the lack of bells &
> > whistles, or of a
> > > digital readout (until the 525D came out), or of 12 & 17 meter
> > coverage kept
> > > stopping dead at the power output.  Maybe it was a convenient
> > excuse for
> > > some, but the bottom line is that I kept hearing "if only the
> > Argosy put out
> > > a 100 Watts!"
> >
> > Ron, I disagree completely. The 430 was an entirely different rig.
> > The
> > Argosy was an old timer by that time. It was a PTO tuned, analog
> > rig
> > while the 430 was a digital, PLL synthesized rig, with many more
> > features.
> >
> > The 430 had a general coverage receiver, the Argosy did not. The
> > 430
> > had two "VFOs" built in and could work split the Argosy could not.
> > The 430 received and transmitted in AM and FM the Argosy could not.
> > The 430 had 8 memories the Argosy had none.
> >
> > Quite simply the 430 was the future of ham radio at the time and
> > the
> > Argosy was its past.
> >
> > I'm not saying the Argosy was a bad rig, I'm just saying that
> > comparing
> > it to a 430 was not fair. The 430 had in one box features that an
> > Argosy
> > user could only dream of.
> >
> > It's a matter of company focus. Kenwood went with the do everything
> > you can and do some of them well concept, TenTec went with the do
> > few things, but be the best.
> >
> > Geoff.
> >
> > -- 
> > Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm at mendelson.com
> > N3OWJ/4X1GM
> > IL Voice: 972-544-608-069  IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice:
> > 1-215-821-1838
> > VoIP (Email to schedule) Free World Dialup: 523178  Skype:
> > gsmendelson
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Duane Calvin, AC5AA
> Austin, Texas
>
> http://home.austin.rr.com/ac5aa
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec