[TenTec] ARRL Reviews

[Rsoifer at aol.com]

Yes, it was noise limited.
 
73 Ray W2RS
 
 
In a message dated 9/2/2011 1:46:45 P.M. GMT Standard Time, Rick at DJ0IP.de  
writes:

Phil, it  doesn't help much to refer someone to the site with the reviews.
If you're  not a member, you can't log in.

I don't know if you are allowed to make  a copy (download) and then pass it 
on.
Probably NOT.

However I'm  sure if someone copies a sentence or two out of it and passes 
that on, nobody  would object.

Unfortunately I don't have the original O2 test  either.
Maybe someone here does and will comment on whether it was noise  limited 
or not.
Surely it was.

I'll check later and see if that test  is online.
It has been 5 years now, so maybe it is online  already.

73
Rick


-----Original Message-----
From:  tentec-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com] 
On Behalf  Of Phil Sussman
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:25 PM
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