Yes, it was noise limited.
73 Ray W2RS
In a message dated 9/2/2011 1:46:45 P.M. GMT Standard Time, Rick@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@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Phil Sussman
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment; jrhallas@optonline.net
Cc: tentec@contesting.com; hans@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@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@contesting.comCc: hans@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@contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|