Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+log\s+periodics\s+susceptible\s+to\s+out\-of\-band\s+interference\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] log periodics susceptible to out-of-band interference (score: 1)
Author: "Al Williams" <alwilliams@olywa.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:21:46 -0800
This is a question i.e. not bad mouthing log periodics! It seems to me that a Steppir kind of antenna rejects out-of-band interference while log periodics enhance out-of-band interference. During con
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-12/msg00126.html (6,893 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] log periodics susceptible to out-of-band interference (score: 1)
Author: "Gene Fuller" <w2lu@rochester.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:11:28 -0500
Hi Al - My experience with my 7-60 Mhz LP has been that with my TS-440, where the receiver path did not run thru the antenna tuner overlaod/cross mod was definitely a problem. With my IC-756 and Pro
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-12/msg00128.html (9,259 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] log periodics susceptible to out-of-band interference (score: 1)
Author: RICHARD SOLOMON <w1ksz@q.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:36:14 +0000
On the positive side ... at least with a Log you don't have the maintenance/failure problems. 73, Dick, W1KSZ _______________________________________________ _________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-12/msg00129.html (8,980 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] log periodics susceptible to out-of-band interference (score: 1)
Author: "W5CPT" <w5cpt@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:36:35 -0600
When receivers had front ends as wide as barn doors the broad banded characteristics of the LP were a consideration. Today with modern receivers it is much less to worry about. If you are getting Bro
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-12/msg00130.html (9,068 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] log periodics susceptible to out-of-band interference (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:41:33 -0800
Perhaps with a lousy RX. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.cont
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-12/msg00131.html (7,862 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] log periodics susceptible to out-of-band interference (score: 1)
Author: Jim Hoge <knowkode@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:05:12 -0800 (PST)
I would clarify your statement to say that LPDAs do not reject non ham band signals while a band specific antenna will supress them. The bandwidth of an antenna serves much the same purpose as a band
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-12/msg00133.html (8,030 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] log periodics susceptible to out-of-band interference (score: 1)
Author: "Al Williams" <alwilliams@olywa.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:57:53 -0800
I think that I wrote the same thing? I would clarify your statement to say that LPDAs do not reject non ham band signals while a band specific antenna will supress them. The bandwidth of an antenna s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-12/msg00136.html (8,528 bytes)

8. [TowerTalk] log periodics susceptible to out-of-band interference (score: 1)
Author: dave arruzza <w1ctn@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:06:26 -0800 (PST)
To all: As one who has a T10 log periodic and has wrung the last amount of performance out of this design I can truthfully say I have never had an out of band interference problem with it. With a goo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-12/msg00141.html (8,326 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu