Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+CW\-N\s+versus\s+CW\-R\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+CW\-N\s+versus\s+CW\-R\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] CW-N versus CW-R (score: 1): Author: Don Rasmussen <wb8yqj@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:21:50 -0700 (PDT); Thanks to those who helped me align my OMNI VI+ BFO trimmers and TCXO. Without a frequency counter I would have been SUNK even though I have been able to perform the operation on other rigs with just; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00485.html (7,467 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] CW-N versus CW-R (score: 1): Author: "Duane Calvin" <ac5aa1@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:34:34 -0500; Assuming your modern rig is properly calibrated, if you match your sidetone to his signal tone, you should be right on top of him regardless of which sideband you're using. My earlier Kenwood rigs us; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00488.html (8,571 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] CW-N versus CW-R (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:48:40 -0500; UCW and LCW may be better labels, inferring the receive offset from zero beat of the carrier. The same thing is happening with CW-N where LSB is used 40 M and down and USB is used 20 M and up. It mat; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00491.html (9,803 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] CW-N versus CW-R (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:29:58 -0500; The UCW and LCW modes for CW have effect on the way a CW signal is tuned. Tentec standardizes on the LSB mode although the Omni VII offers UCW and LCW. For LCW as one tunes down in frequency the CW n; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00492.html (11,583 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] CW-N versus CW-R (score: 1): Author: Kevin Anderson <k9iua@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:14:47 -0700 (PDT); To say that Ten-Tec has standardized may be true for their modern or more complex transceivers, but not a true statement for all Ten-Tec radios. Their simpler rigs (e.g., Scout, Argosy), have LSB for; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-08/msg00010.html (7,569 bytes)
6. [TenTec] CW-N versus CW-R (score: 1): Author: Don Rasmussen <wb8yqj@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT); Thanks to all for the clarification on this subject. I see that it is true that CW-N versus CW-R would be equal if the station is perfectly tuned in, but this rarely happens in practice. My tone reco; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-08/msg00017.html (9,665 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] CW-N versus CW-R (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:21:32 -0500; The tone recognition problem is had by many. To avoid tuning above or below the desired tone, I use an AOR TDM-370 DSP audio filter, in stereo mode, with a CF of 700 Hz and a band width of 100 Hz (20; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-08/msg00021.html (11,787 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] CW-N versus CW-R (score: 1): Author: "Robert Mcgraw" <rmcgraw@blomand.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:29:30 -0500 (CDT); Another approach for the CW tuning challenge, use any of the current software applications that provides a waterfall display. Just match the sidetone frequency to the transmitting station. Most likel; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-08/msg00024.html (13,437 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]