Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+OMNI\s+VI\s+Transmit\s+IMD\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+OMNI\s+VI\s+Transmit\s+IMD\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: w3uls@3n.net (John Rippey); Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:35:23 -0400; Something made me look up the January 1993 QST review of the OMNI VI and check its transmit IMD stats. The reviewer, Rus Healy, says (p. 67), "As Fig 1 shows, the transmitter's third-order IMD produc; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00407.html (8,949 bytes)
2. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: hondo@kscable.com (Steve M); Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:04:05 -0500; The 6+ in qst expanded review does 3rd order 25db down on 160m 5th 46db and a best of: 3rd 30db down on 30m 5th 46db Nothing to brag about here. Steve wd0ct clean down final; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00408.html (10,263 bytes)
3. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: w3uls@3n.net (John Rippey); Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:24:57 -0400; Steve et al: This is known as avoidance--I'm way behind in sending out QSL's, so I'm sitting in front of the computer posting to the Ten-Tec reflector instead . . . It's peculiar that what must be es; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00411.html (8,124 bytes)
4. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen); Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:46:36 -0400; That is why I take the tested and published IMD figures with a grain of salt. The Omni Six displayed spectacular IMD figures at 14 MHz and the Omni Six Plus displayed IM distortion some 20 dB worse.; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00413.html (8,610 bytes)
5. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:37:00 -0400; The final amplifier is a very small part of the system. In my IC- 751A's, most of the distortion comes from the driver transistors. In my FT1000D, most of the transmitter composite noise and a notic; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00440.html (12,161 bytes)
6. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: al_lorona@agilent.com (al_lorona@agilent.com); Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:32:40 -0600; Right, Paul. This is another way of approaching the question I posted last week (about which no one has really had anything to say). If the same final amplifier design can vary by that much... it thr; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00507.html (10,382 bytes)
7. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: rohre@arlut.utexas.edu (Stuart Rohre); Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:53:34 -0500; Al raises a valid question, but I think the answer is obvious. Specs are MORE UNIFORM rig to rig, with modern printed circuit robotic assembly than in the days of hand wired tube final rigs. There is; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00509.html (8,880 bytes)
8. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: RMcGraw@Blomand.Net (Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX); Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:00:29 -0500; I have a background of 2 disciplines. One is professional electronic products, design, support and making customers satisfied after the Sales Department promised them bla bla bla about the product. T; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00527.html (12,579 bytes)
9. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:04:40 -0400; Geesh, it sounds like we are tying to get -80dB IM3 performance. That simply isn't the case! A zero-bias class-C amplifier can do almost as well as some modern radios for IM3 performance. Is it real; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00545.html (10,007 bytes)
10. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: dufferjames@hotmail.com (James Duffer); Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:28:53 -0500; snip snip Is zero-bias synonymous with Class C ???? I was under impression that operation of Class C required the amplifying device to be biased beyond cutoff allowing conduction for a portion less t; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00547.html (8,702 bytes)
11. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:04:19 -0400; My main point is that very sloppy amplifier designs can make IM3 specs close to what some modern radio's produce. Surely designers can do better than they are! -35dB referenced to a single tone would; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00561.html (9,424 bytes)
12. [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD (score: 1): Author: hondo@kscable.com (Steve M); Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:50:14 -0500; You bet they could do better! Many hams have no idea what these figures mean or that poor performance here results in more splatter. When told about it they blithely say "QST liked it" or "it is FCC; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00564.html (10,651 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]