Mail Archive Search: <+from:btippett@alum.mit.edu>

Results:

References: [ +from:btippett@alum.mit.edu: 660 ]

Total 660 documents matching your query.

101. [TenTec] Re: Orion IP2 numbers (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:47:59 -0500; WA6HHQ wrote: After reading your postings to the Ten Tec reflector I became concerned that we had an incorrect ARRL test number for the Orion's IP2 in our table. In general we use the main review num; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00442.html (9,152 bytes)
102. [TenTec] K2 beats Orion (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:40:25 -0500; WB8YQJ wrote: Am I reading this right, K2 may actually have better BDR than Orion? Probably not. If my reading of the K2 graph was wrong, the same issue applies to Orion. Here are the BDR numbers for; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00445.html (7,662 bytes)
103. [TenTec] Paragon Spurs (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:00:03 -0500; Is it normal for a Paragon to have spurs exactly 10 kHz away from the fundamental? I have a neighbor who seems to have this problem and wonder if it is normal or something is out of adjustment. This; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00534.html (6,628 bytes)
104. [TenTec] Orion--K2--706 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:38:56 -0500; Not exactly...I saw the following in his report: 6/ BW The measured bandwidth and resulting shape factor are: Nominal BW (Hz) -6dB BW (Hz) -60dB BW (Hz) Shape factor 100 150 440 2.9:1 TT has informed; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00547.html (11,214 bytes)
105. [TenTec] Paragon Spurs (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:25:15 -0500; Hi Mike, Thanks for the checks. If it is easy to do, check again with a fundamental of 1813 and see if the spurs are 10 kHz at that frequency setting. If they change as a function of the synthesizer; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00559.html (7,140 bytes)
106. [TenTec] E-HAM Reviews (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:07:30 -0500; If you are interested in performance, I would look at contest results more than eHam reviews for the reasons you stated. Although there is much more to winning a contest than the transceiver used (e.; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00615.html (8,085 bytes)
107. [TenTec] Re: E-HAM Reviews (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:54:10 -0500; Hi Mario, S56A wrote: W4ZV, with all due respect, I wouldn't take K1UO result on CQ WW CW on 160 m as a high praise to undisputed Orion RX capabilities! This is such a small single sample: 160: 172 1; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00619.html (9,070 bytes)
108. [TenTec] Re: E-HAM Reviews (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:35:41 -0500; Hi Mario, Closest sea is approximately 30 km toward SSE direction but about 500 km toward NE direction (Europe). http://mapsonus.switchboard.com/bin/maps-maponly/usr=~3fdf8ce3.5b0fe.27e5.6/c=9/formNa; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00628.html (9,244 bytes)
109. [TenTec] Newest CQ Magazine has Orion Review (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:35:13 -0500; Ed, this is essentially the same review ON4UN wrote on Oct 1. For any on the list who may not be CQ subscribers, read it here: http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/topband/2003-October/017574.html 73, B; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00769.html (7,269 bytes)
110. [TenTec] Re: Orion Expanded Report (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:19:53 -0500; as long as I have been doing the testing (since May 1997). A couple of the very earliest tests used slightly different frequencies - the innermost points on the `MP were somewhat oddball - the BDR wa; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00787.html (9,870 bytes)
111. [TenTec] 1 kHz IMD with Preamp ON/OFF (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:20:43 -0500; Hi Michael, I have a few questions which others may be interested in as well. In studying Orion's ETR, I noticed that the IMD performance is actually better with the preamp ON rather than OFF. This s; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00793.html (9,165 bytes)
112. [TenTec] Repost for Bill about Orion and listing of competitive rigs. (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:51:05 -0500; Paul, excuse me but please read what KC1SX just posted, after all, he's the guy who did the actual ARRL tests: http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/tentec/2003-December/040429.html KC1SX: The innermost; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00796.html (8,133 bytes)
113. [TenTec] 1 kHz IMD with Preamp ON/OFF (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:45:22 -0500; suspect accidental transposition of data as the cause. That's my guess also but QST's summary is consistent with the ETR graph, so it is not an obvious transposition as the IP2 results were. Will be; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00807.html (8,653 bytes)
114. [TenTec] 1.367 Update available (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:55:30 -0500; 12/19/03 Version 1.367 - Added ASCII CW Send to CW Interface - Adjusted Serial Buffers to improve command response. - Changed Sidetone lower limit to 100 Hz. - Modified DSP Gain correction for filter; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00832.html (7,567 bytes)
115. [TenTec] Re: 1 kHz IMD with Preamp ON/OFF (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:41:02 -0500; MHz. Really? It must be much easier for other bandwidths... ;-) 73, Bill W4ZV http://www.qth.com/inrad/tentec_menu.htm Filter 6 db BW Shape Factor Inrad 760 315 2.2:1 Inrad 759 455 2.1:1 Inrad 761 19; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00861.html (7,815 bytes)
116. [TenTec] RE: Orion Expanded Report (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:27:25 -0500; KC1SX wrote: While I don't have time this week to check the whole list that Bill posted, I looked at the 1 kHz data for the K2 and the Orion. The figures for the K2 should be 67 and 116 dB (both prea; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00879.html (10,230 bytes)
117. [TenTec] RE: Orion Expanded Report (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:43:38 -0500; fall in among these radios ? Jupiter is not included in the Expanded Test Reports so I cannot read the 1 kHz data. There are some graphs for Pegasus included but I do not see swept BDR and IMD graphs; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00907.html (8,958 bytes)
118. [TenTec] Orion tuning rates (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:24:48 -0500; Bob, you may not have discovered the 10X tuning rate change that is toggled by depressing Main RX or Sub RX. When toggled, you will see "xm" appear by Step along with the new rate at 10X normal. My d; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00915.html (8,091 bytes)
119. [TenTec] Jupiter Extended Report - Up Conversion (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:38:12 -0500; Excellent summary Duane! If anyone missed it, Duane's post explains very clearly and concisely the advantages of Orion's Main RX design. http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/tentec/2003-December/040588.; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00949.html (7,639 bytes)
120. [TenTec] K2/100, Orion review (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:33:52 -0500; Barry, here are my comments on Orion's keying: 1. The internal keyer sounds too light to my ears, even with Weighting at the max 150%. It doesn't bother me since I prefer my external Logikey anyway.; /archives//html/TenTec/2003-12/msg00976.html (10,257 bytes)

Current List: 101 - 120
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]