Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Triplexer\/combiners\s+20\-15\-10\s+meters\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Triplexer\/combiners\s+20\-15\-10\s+meters\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Triplexer/combiners 20-15-10 meters (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 23:24:27 -0700; Does anyone have any comparative knowledge on Dunestar/Inrad/VE6AM triplexers? The Dunestar is considerably cheaper than the others. I have very good band pass filters from Array Solutions so I just; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-01/msg00022.html (6,837 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Triplexer/combiners 20-15-10 meters (score: 1): Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 08:13:55 -0500; I own VA6AM's high power triplexers and 10-20 bandpass filters. Couldn't be happier in a HP M/S setting. Ordered high power BPFs for 160-40. Rudy N2WQ Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevit; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-01/msg00024.html (8,536 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Triplexer/combiners 20-15-10 meters (score: 1): Author: Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 11:34:52 -0500; I chose the inrad version based on the better isolation figures in the QST review. Also the Inrad uses toroidal rather than the dunestar's air wound coils which I liked better. (I had tried a home br; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-01/msg00026.html (8,583 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Triplexer/combiners 20-15-10 meters (score: 1): Author: "Dave Hachadorian" <k6ll.dave@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:51:05 -0700; I used the Dunestar unit for a year or so. It worked perfectly with a pair of K3 Transceivers and the Dunestar 600 Filter Box. Now I am using the 4O3A high power triplexer system, and it is working f; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-01/msg00029.html (8,672 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]