| To: | Martin Sole <msole@loxinfo.co.th>, amps@contesting.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Amps] Technical specification question, possibly OT ! |
| From: | Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk> |
| Reply-to: | g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk |
| Date: | Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:21:32 +0200 (CEST) |
| List-post: | <mailto:amps@contesting.com> |
Martin said: >I'm interested to hear what 'competent' professionals and others might have to say about this.< Tests born of total ignorance from an establishment after making money. The terms 'occupied bandwidth' and 'necessary bandwidth' are somewhat artificial anyway. I claim authority as having chaired the group that last revised ITU-R Rec SM.328. A ruder term for it is 'B******t' 73 Peter G3RZP _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Amps] 572B bias FL2100, Tom W8JI |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Amps] Parasitic Suppressors for GI-7B., robert briggs |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Amps] Technical specification question, possibly OT !, Karl-Arne Markström |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Amps] Technical specification question, possibly OT !, Peter Chadwick |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |