[TenTec] ARRL Reviews

[Rodney]

why all the  fuss on the way radios are tested most hams buy radios that 
look good they do not care about spec. w3krq

-----Original Message----- 
From: Duane Calvin
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 9:55 AM
To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment' ; jrhallas at optonline.net
Cc: hans at pa1hr.nl
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews

Just another reason to become a member.  I would think that, like QST, the
articles are copyrighted.

73, Duane


Duane Calvin, AC5AA
Austin, Texas
www.ac5aa.com



-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Phil Sussman
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:25 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment; jrhallas at optonline.net
Cc: tentec at contesting.com; hans at pa1hr.nl
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews

How do you read the articles if you're not an ARRL member?

Don't intend on joining, certainly not to browse them.

My point: Are you allowed to copy or even refer them to non-ARRL members?

Just a thought,

73 de Phil - N8PS

---

Quoting jrhallas at optonline.net:

>
>
> Folks,
>
> To get the definitive  information on this topic, please go to
>  www.arrl.org/forum. Look for the “Technology”
> category and then scroll down to “Equipment Testing.” Look for the three
> postings from ARRL Lab Manager Ed Hare.
>
>  Regards, Joel
>
>  Joel R. Hallas, W1ZRTechnical Editor, QST
>
> ARRL,
> the national association for Amateur Radio™
>
> ----- Original Message -----From: Bill Tippett Date: Thursday,
> September 1, 2011 8:37 amSubject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL ReviewsTo:
> tentec at contesting.comCc: hans at pa1hr.nl> W3ULS wrote:> > >With the
> changes ARRL has made in reporting IMD3 for > receivers, all you
> have> to do is subtract 8-10 dB to get very close to Rob Sherwood's
> > findings. No> biggie.> >         The actual IMD difference is ~12
> dB which is the > difference > in noise bandwidth between 3 Hz
> (spectrum analyzer) and 50 Hz > (approximate BW of the human ear)
> using [10 log(BW1/BW2)] or > 12.2 > dB.  I'm afraid it IS a biggie
> if someone looks at PA1HR's > unfootnoted listing and concludes the
> FT-5000 is head and > shoulders > above other rigs.  It is not, as
> can be seen in Sherwood's > table.  It > simply has the benefit of
> being tested using *new* methodology > versus > other rigs using the
> *old* methodology, and there is not even > any > indication of when
> the measurement methodology was changed!> >         One of the major
> benefits of any published test data is > comparability, and ARRL's
> older data (I'm not sure of the exact > date > of the methodology
> change) is definitely not directly comparable > to > current data.
> Unfortunately I believe Peter Hart of RSGB's > RadComm > is now
> using the same IMD measurement methodology so his data is > also >
> not comparable over time.> > >IMHO, Sherwood and his work are
> admirable, even irreplaceable. > Yet I think> he is overly critical
> of the ARRL and its lab procedures, given > the fact of> the ARRL's
> large overhead that must be paid for and the good > work they do>
> overall. They beat the FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the >
> District of> Columbia, for example, which is no small
> accomplishment. So I > can live with> a little less rigor in the
> testing area as long as Rob Sherwood > (and Peter> Hart) are around
> to offer their opinions.> >         I'm certainly not critical of
> everything ARRL does for > us.  However when published comparisons
> are made of their data > without so much as a footnote detailing the
> differences in > measurement methodologies, then criticism may be
> justified.  The > average person reading these comparison listings
> may be > seriously > misled if they simply take them at face value.
> I'm copying this > to > PA1HR so hopefully Hans will consider
> footnoting the differences > in > measurement methodologies, and
> perhaps Joel W1ZR will tell us > exactly > when ARRL's methodology
> changed.> >                                         73,  Bill  W4ZV
> > > _______________________________________________> 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
>

_______________________________________________
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