- 1. TopBand: Re: [RFI] TVI Help (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (mystc@ix.netcom.com)
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:50:42 -0500
- you didn't say if your neighbor was on cable. If they are...most TVI is a result of common mode ingress ferrite chokes work, but I have found the best wat is to isolate the shield at the set 75 unbal
- /archives//html/Topband/1998-02/msg00014.html (9,879 bytes)
- 2. TopBand: ANC-4 vs MFJ Noise Canceller (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (mystc@ix.netcom.com)
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 14:28:46 -0800
- Maybe the most important advantage of the MFJ at my station is the ability to vary the main antenna gain. When the signal on the noise port is too low on the ANC 4 , it cannot be nulled, whereas on t
- /archives//html/Topband/1997-12/msg00090.html (7,443 bytes)
- 3. TopBand: TopBand Pimping (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (mystc@ix.netcom.com)
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:05:44 -0700
- you guys are kinda serious aren't you.."flashing little kids" ? One wonders about balance when something in amateur radio becomes as important as real life perversions. DE n4mxz - -- FAQ on WWW: htt
- /archives//html/Topband/1997-09/msg00283.html (7,080 bytes)
- 4. TopBand: ANC-4 (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (mystc@ix.netcom.com)
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:04:00 -0700
- I have had extremely good performance from the mfj unit (1025, 1026), like the anc4. The mfj has 2 advantages: 1.t/r adjustable delay 2.main antenna gain....when noise is too low to phase out with un
- /archives//html/Topband/1997-09/msg00356.html (6,964 bytes)
- 5. TopBand: Silent Key (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (mystc@ix.netcom.com)
- Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 15:03:17 -0700
- The top band mourns the loss of one of its own, Ed Loyot, WA1YKR. Ed was an accomplished DXer as well as an avid rag-chewer. He was best known for his clever wit, and was one of the first to bring "s
- /archives//html/Topband/1997-05/msg00014.html (6,918 bytes)
- 6. TopBand: subbands on 160 (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (mystc@ix.netcom.com)
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 03:21:49 -0700
- Dennis...my primary opposition to the sub-bands is twofold. 1. I usually oppose anything that ADDS regulations and regimentation. 2. On a more specific note, a comment awhile back stated that new all
- /archives//html/Topband/1997-05/msg00081.html (6,970 bytes)
- 7. TopBand: subbands on 160, and KH0AA (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (mystc@ix.netcom.com)
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 07:36:28 -0700
- The problem here is that many of these freqs (up to, and above 1900) are already occupied. In all fairness..the ssb contests are just as intrusive. It seems to me that contests on 160 (and other band
- /archives//html/Topband/1997-05/msg00084.html (7,348 bytes)
- 8. TopBand: local yackers (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (Jim Dugger)
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:57:54 -0800
- During CQWW, I heard MXZ and others running up and down the band, picking on contesters, making fun of their signals, intentionally interfering, making calls with fake callsigns, etc... and then repo
- /archives//html/Topband/1996-11/msg00246.html (8,236 bytes)
- 9. TopBand: local yackers (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (Jim Dugger)
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:43:25 -0800
- Jim, I know what I heard. You and others were laughing and making remarks about another guys voice, station, etc. I'm not making up anything, what's gained by doing so? When I recognised your voice,
- /archives//html/Topband/1996-11/msg00251.html (8,612 bytes)
- 10. TopBand: Who's Running how much power; who's doing this and who's doing (score: 1)
- Author: mystc@ix.netcom.com (Jim Dugger)
- Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 11:11:07 -0800
- agreed, Dennis -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html Submissions: topband@contesting.com Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
- /archives//html/Topband/1996-11/msg00466.html (6,897 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu