bames@mecasw.com wrote:
>
> Perhaps some thought needs to be put into the fact that the Scout/Argo uses
> a PTO and not a synthesizer for frequency control. Everything else staying
> the same, I wonder how much worse the RX of the Scout/Argo would be if they
> just replaced the PTO with a synthesizer? The use of the plug in modules,
> while not convenient, made it possible for them to make a rig like the
> Scout/Argo that many hams could afford. I believe I have seen some projects
> (QST) for a digital VFO. Is this a possible way to go?
>
> Bill Ames
> KB1LG
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
> Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
I, for one, would jump on that lil Scout if it had that VFO changed. As
far as I can tell, that is its only weakness. Using fans, slowing down,
etc, takes the fun out of a small, compact, easily portable rig.
Jim, K5ROV
--
James (Jim), Parsons, K5ROV USAF, Ret.
k5rov@worldnet.att.net QCWA, NWQRP, Fists, ARRL
EX: W1RLA, K5FBB, K4FEO, SV0WN (CRETE), SV0WN (RHODES),
DL4NC, DL4JP, KA2FC (JAPAN), KA2JP (JAPAN).
JOHN 3:16
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|