TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

[TenTec] 221 CW filter insertion loss

To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: [TenTec] 221 CW filter insertion loss
From: "Chuck Guenther" <ni0c@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: tentec@contesting.com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:30:29 -0600
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
I recently acquired the coveted 221 filter from a nice ham who had one unused 
still in the box from Ten Tec.  I installed it in my Omni VI, Opt. 1 with CW 
roofing filter mod from INRAD.  

It was a big disappointment.  The insertion loss made it unusable on most 
bands.  I promptly reinstalled my INRAD 753 in the 9 MHz position.  According 
to the specs, the difference should not have been as great as I observed.  The 
INRAD 753 has a nominal insertion loss of about 9 dB, while the 221 is 
specified at 14.0 dB.  I estimated a theoretical loss of an additional 2-3 dB 
due to the mismatch in center frequencies of the 221 and the roofing filter.  
So, there's a difference of 7-8 dB.  Yet, the 221 was unusable on 160m, 30m and 
40m-- signals were down at least 3 s-units. The receiver seemed starved for 
gain.  Only on 80m was it useable.  
In fact, the difference was so great that I went outside and worked on my 
antenna for several hours before concluding it was my filter.  

I suppose this particular unit has excessive loss.  I'm planning to try it out 
again when I receive the new roofing filter from INRAD (the special order one 
with 500 Hz offset to match the 221).  I expect, though, that the INRAD 753 
(400 Hz BW CW filter with 600 Hz offset) will prevail.

This is the second 250 Hz filter I've tried in the 9 MHz position.  I should 
have listened to Stan at Ten Tec Sales, who (at the time I ordered the Omni VI) 
told me I wouldn't like a 250 Hz filter up front.  

73 de Chuck  NI0C
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>