Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Paragon\s+II\s+Failure\s+to\s+Transmit\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: <rrbunn@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:56:02 -0500
Folks, My beloved Paragon II (I've had it for 15 years) locked up after i got back from 3 weeks vacation. Power supply was on but the radio was off and antenna grounded. When I first powered it up th
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00104.html (8,012 bytes)

2. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:25:44 -0600
Rick, As a former Paragon owner (with a similar experience as yours about twelve years ago), I believe the OMNI-VII (my current primary radio) with at least the 500 Hz mechanical filter will satisfy
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00111.html (9,781 bytes)

3. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: <rrbunn@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:35:19 -0500
_______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00117.html (10,628 bytes)

4. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:48:34 +0000
Rick, you didn't say whether the contesting would be cw or ssb. If it's cw contesting, I'd go with Eagle or Orion. If it's ssb, any of the radios would be fine. 73, Barry N1EU _______________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00118.html (8,088 bytes)

5. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:36:21 -0500
I won't start an argument, Barry... just ask a question: Why not recommend the Omni VII as a CW contest rig? -- K8JHR -- Rick, you didn't say whether the contesting would be cw or ssb. If it's cw con
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00127.html (8,427 bytes)

6. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:39:06 +0000
It's not a question of arguing. The O7 rx has an up-converting first i.f. that lacks a narrow filter. As a result, it is only capable of 80dB narrow spaced dynamic range, compared with 90-95dB for th
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00131.html (9,609 bytes)

7. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:49:26 -0600
Not trying to argue Barry, see and hear Rob Sherwood's explanation at the Boulder Amateur Radio Club. Play the audio while viewing the slides. The OMNI-VII gets to play in the CW contests IF it has a
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00135.html (10,754 bytes)

8. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: Peter Bertini <radioconnection@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:37:37 -0500
I may be missing something, but I don't see how the 455kHz mechanical filters can do much to improve the 2nd mixer in band IMD performance for the Omni VII. The limiting factor is the 70 MHz 1st IF f
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00142.html (8,192 bytes)

9. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:00:16 -0600
Rob Sherwood explains in http://www.sherweng.com/audio/Sherwood_CU_2008_final_b.wmv What dynamic range is possible and needed for CW? 80 dB or better @ 2 kHz including the 2007 Ten-Tec Omni-VII: 80 d
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00144.html (9,795 bytes)

10. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:31:35 +0100
Pete, The Omni VII is a different design than the Paragon. Ten-Tec put a bit more intelligence into the front end of the OM7. What they did was pay careful attention to the amount of stage gain in th
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00148.html (10,212 bytes)

11. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: Peter Bertini <radioconnection@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:28:50 -0500
Gary, I am not sure what you are seeing in that presentation, but the first few slides clearly show that the roofing filter selectivity is what determines the receiver's close in dynamic range. A 20
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00149.html (8,747 bytes)

12. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:37:18 -0600
While in full and total agreement, I do admire and highly respect and more so do appreciate the efforts of Rob Sherwood. His data on receivers is basically "unchallenged" in today's receiver performa
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00151.html (12,255 bytes)

13. Re: [TenTec] Paragon II Failure to Transmit (score: 1)
Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:20:15 +0100
Pete, The Sherwood presentations were addressing radios in General and are completely accurate. Your statement about the 20 kHz roofing filter compromising close in performance is in general a true s
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00160.html (10,793 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu