Do you mean to say you really might not be able to notice that all the RF is
just circulating in the tuner with a T match instead of going out to the
antenna if you get the "false" match? There would be no indication of this
except nobody would answer you because your signal would be so weak? Does
that really happen to people???
----- Original Message -----
From: <tentec-request@contesting.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 2:32 PM
Subject: TenTec Digest, Vol 27, Issue 53
> Send TenTec mailing list submissions to
> tentec@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> tentec-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> tentec-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TenTec digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Orion Dust Cover ***SOLD*** (Jeff Griffin)
> 2. Re: Orion Dust Cover ***SOLD*** (Scott / W4PJ)
> 3. Orion "work in progress" (Ron Spencer)
> 4. tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ? (Jeff Frank)
> 5. Re: tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ? (Stuart Rohre)
> 6. Re: tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ? (Thomas Jednacz)
> 7. Re: tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ? (K4IA@aol.com)
> 8. Re: tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ? (Jim Davis)
> 9. Re: T/R Relay on Paragon (Stuart Rohre)
> 10. Re: Orion "work in progress" (Tommy)
> 11. Re: tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ? (K. Indart)
> 12. Re: Orion "work in progress" (Bob Henderson)
> 13. Re: Orion "work in progress" (Martin Ewing)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:39:35 -0500
> From: "Jeff Griffin" <kb2m@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion Dust Cover ***SOLD***
> To: <rr1632@dragonbbs.com>, "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
> <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000a01c52e3c$f38ebaa0$6601a8c0@SERVER>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> The check for $15 is in the mail....
>
> 73 Jeff kb2m
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rr1632" <rr1632@dragonbbs.com>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:15 AM
> Subject: [TenTec] Orion Dust Cover ***SOLD***
>
>
> > header sez it all....many tnx Jeff...Mark...K8ML
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:56:51 -0500
> From: "Scott / W4PJ" <w4pj@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion Dust Cover ***SOLD***
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <025b01c52e47$be5abae0$64f93cd0@scott>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> That's Great.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Griffin" <kb2m@comcast.net>
> To: <rr1632@dragonbbs.com>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
> <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 12:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion Dust Cover ***SOLD***
>
>
> > The check for $15 is in the mail....
> >
> > 73 Jeff kb2m
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "rr1632" <rr1632@dragonbbs.com>
> > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:15 AM
> > Subject: [TenTec] Orion Dust Cover ***SOLD***
> >
> >
> > > header sez it all....many tnx Jeff...Mark...K8ML
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:47:30 -0500
> From: "Ron Spencer" <ronspencer@nc.rr.com>
> Subject: [TenTec] Orion "work in progress"
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> <200503211947.j2LJlNkc024563@ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"
>
> Tommy, W4BQF said:
> "Very simply solve the two year problem of random loss of RF output power
in
> full QSK CW operation, when using a Ten Tec amplifier in the keying loop
and
> solve the random loss of receiver audio. Plus the ability of having
firmware
> that literally can fix bugs that pop up. Solve the random loss of the
> spectrum sweep and either make the sweep presentation become a realistic
> presentation of real time band conditions or just remove it all together."
>
> Except for the amplifier problem (I don't have a TT amp) I would have to
> agree that these are problems I would hope the next firmware update
> fixes....without causing other new problems.
>
> I would not call the Orion a work in progress but rather a first class
radio
> that indeed has some bugs. But, I'd rather have that (again, not talking
> about the amp problem as that would be unacceptable) then a radio that is
> obsolete in a year or two.
>
> Ron
> N4XD
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:18:39 -0800
> From: "Jeff Frank" <jafrank@nyc.rr.com>
> Subject: [TenTec] tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ?
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <001501c52e6c$511b0c80$4855c118@jeffjrgt3pzn8u>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I'm trying to decide which of the above two high power ant tuners (new) is
the best one to get. I have a TT Omni 6 (opt 1) and an Ameritron 572 amp
with internal QSK. My understanding is the TT amp is a bit more rugged but
has the problem of a reflected power meter that doesn't show swr and output
at a glance. Also, have read about a possible problem with the TT roller
inductor wearing out and a possible problem with capacitor C11 blowing up on
10 meters. The Palstar is about $100 cheaper. The L-network of the tentec is
supposed to be the most efficient type of matching network but how much does
that matter as a practical concern? Important to me is the ability to switch
from one antenna to another as quickly as possible as I have different wire
antennas for the same band that favor different directions. Wish the TT amp
was still made with a grey cabinet so it would match my Omni 6 but at least
it should match it in shape. Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts or
experienc
> e that might help me make this decision.
> TT 238B vs. Palstar 1500CV. Thanks.
>
> Jeff KX2P
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:22:39 -0600
> From: "Stuart Rohre" <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ?
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <017c01c52e53$ba3de930$4e100a0a@rohredt2000>
>
> The L network is more efficient by having losses in only two components,
an
> L and C vs. 3 components in the conventional Tee tuner.
>
> I think the Ten Tec components are usually pretty rugged. Any roller
tuner
> should be mechanically checked from time to time and any looseness
> corrected.
>
> If the paint match is not possible, then any tuner might do.
> 73,
> Stuart
> K5KVH
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:34:59 -0500
> From: "Thomas Jednacz" <tjednacz@ieee.org>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ?
> To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20050321203503.MPOC2051.imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net@tom>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Another reason is an L tuner only has one match point. A T tuner can have
an
> apparent match and a real match. In the apparent match condition all the
> energy is going into the tuner and circulating with nothing going out the
> feed line. A switchable L tuner (L or C input) can have a wider match
> impedance range.
>
> Tom, W7QF
> >
> > The L network is more efficient by having losses in only two
> > components, an L and C vs. 3 components in the conventional Tee tuner.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:07:37 EST
> From: K4IA@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ?
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <9a.22d5f5cb.2f709199@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Jeff
>
> I have had both and the Ameritron ATR30. I would rate them in this
order:
> TT, Ameritron then Palstar.
>
> The Palstar is a very nicely made unit with better construction than the
> ATR30. However, if you check the specs, it does not have as large a
capacitor
> as the ATR30 and the PalStar gave me fits trying to tune on 80 and 160
mtrs
> (arcing and spitting). The ATR30 worked fine tuning the same ladder line
fed
> doublet running my AL572.
>
> The TT tuner is much better in my application than either of them. It
tunes
> everything. It is very broadbanded so you don't have to touch it up
every
> time you move around the band. Yes, you have to retune from CW to SSB
but at
> least it stays on if you keep within the mode sub-band.
>
> The TT is very repeatable. The settings are easier to calibrate and the
> same settings always give the same results. It was by guess and by golly
with
> the other 2.
>
> The TT has a choice of 4 antennas - all 4 can be coax or 3 coax and one
> ladder line or long wire. The other have fewer choices.
>
> I have seen the insides of all three and I do not see anything that would
> indicate the TT roller is less robust than the others. The roller
squeaked a
> bit when I first got it but I put a little of that Noalox grease you use
on
> antennas on the rod the roller contact slides on (not the coil but the
rod) and
> that made it turn smooth as silk.
>
> You are correct TT does not use a dual needle meter so reading the exact
SWR
> is a pain. It would be nice if TT would offer a retrofit kit to put in a
> dual needle meter. Maybe some enterprising ham will come up with a
design. I
> am sure it would not be that difficult. But do you really care? If the
> reflected power is zero, you are 1:1. I find I just tune for minimum SWR
and that
> always ends up to be no deflection on the meter.
>
> Get the TT, you will not be disappointed.
>
> Radio k4ia
> "Buck"
> Fredericksburg, VA USA
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:20:06 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jim Davis <nn6ee@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ?
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20050321212006.40197.qmail@web50408.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Jeff,
>
> I've had the 238B tuner for a couple of years now and
> the only thing I've got negative to say about it is
> the cheapy METER!!! It was NEVER ACCURATE to begin
> with and now it does'nt ever work. I prefer tuning
> using the matcher in conjunction with my "BIRD-43"
> wattmeter anyway!!!
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim/nn6ee
> ***********************************************
> --- Jeff Frank <jafrank@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > I'm trying to decide which of the above two high
> > power ant tuners (new) is the best one to get. I
> > have a TT Omni 6 (opt 1) and an Ameritron 572 amp
> > with internal QSK. My understanding is the TT amp
> > is a bit more rugged but has the problem of a
> > reflected power meter that doesn't show swr and
> > output at a glance. Also, have read about a possible
> > problem with the TT roller inductor wearing out and
> > a possible problem with capacitor C11 blowing up on
> > 10 meters. The Palstar is about $100 cheaper. The
> > L-network of the tentec is supposed to be the most
> > efficient type of matching network but how much does
> > that matter as a practical concern? Important to me
> > is the ability to switch from one antenna to another
> > as quickly as possible as I have different wire
> > antennas for the same band that favor different
> > directions. Wish the TT amp was still made with a
> > grey cabinet so it would match my Omni 6 but at
> > least it should match it in shape. Anyway, does
> > anyone have any thoughts or experienc
> > e that might help me make this decision.
> > TT 238B vs. Palstar 1500CV. Thanks.
> >
> > Jeff KX2P
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:41:16 -0600
> From: "Stuart Rohre" <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] T/R Relay on Paragon
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <051201c52e5e$b5e7ad70$4e100a0a@rohredt2000>
>
> If this is an open relay, unhooking the spring should do the trick. For
> sealed relays, you might try changing that timing as you suggest. Other
> means are to mount a relay in foam rubber to soak up vibrations
transferred
> to chassis and case.
>
> GL, Stuart
> K5KVH
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:49:18 -0500
> From: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion "work in progress"
> To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000701c52e5f$d76357f0$6401a8c0@w4bqf3>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Good point's and everyone has their own opinion.
>
> One of the things I enjoy doing in this hobby is contesting. I am
fortunate
> enough (I called 'worked hard') to have decent enough antennas that at
times
> I can sit on a frequency and run QSO's, sometimes at rates up to 200 QSO's
> per minute.
>
> I have an IC-781 (25 year old design), an Omni 6 (12+ year old design),
and
> the Omni 6 Plus (? Year old design). If you were to be into contesting as
> one part of this hobby, would you then prefer the 'obsolete' radios that
> will work flawless during 48 hours of contesting, or would you prefer the
> 'new' design that at any moment, will quit on you?
>
> It somewhat depends on your perspective and what works for you?
>
> The nice thing is the company who produced the 'new' design is working
hard
> to try and solve these problem...when that happens, it only takes a few
> minutes to remove the 'obsolete' radio and try the 'new' one.
>
> Tommy
>
> W4BQF
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
> On Behalf Of Ron Spencer
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 2:48 PM
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Subject: [TenTec] Orion "work in progress"
>
> Tommy, W4BQF said:
> "Very simply solve the two year problem of random loss of RF output power
in
> full QSK CW operation, when using a Ten Tec amplifier in the keying loop
and
> solve the random loss of receiver audio. Plus the ability of having
firmware
> that literally can fix bugs that pop up. Solve the random loss of the
> spectrum sweep and either make the sweep presentation become a realistic
> presentation of real time band conditions or just remove it all together."
>
> Except for the amplifier problem (I don't have a TT amp) I would have to
> agree that these are problems I would hope the next firmware update
> fixes....without causing other new problems.
>
> I would not call the Orion a work in progress but rather a first class
radio
> that indeed has some bugs. But, I'd rather have that (again, not talking
> about the amp problem as that would be unacceptable) then a radio that is
> obsolete in a year or two.
>
> Ron
> N4XD
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:59:04 -0500
> From: "K. Indart" <kitdart@ntelos.net>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ?
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <KEEMIMDAJPJIHNNJELMAGEPHEIAA.kitdart@ntelos.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Not familiar with Palstar, but have had a TT 238 for about 3 years
> without any problem, running max power at times. My antenna is a 135 foot
> dipole at 55 feet, center fed with home made open line, about 50 feet to
a
> "remote balun" on the outside of the house, then a about 30 feet of low
loss
> 50 ohm coax to the tuner. I can tune all normal bands from 75 to 10 m.
> including the \WARC bands with no difficulty. Been an active ham for over
> 50 years and this tuner has been the best for all around band hopping.
>
> Ken, WA4RPH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]On
> Behalf Of Jeff Frank
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 6:19 PM
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Subject: [TenTec] tentec 238B or palstar 1500cv ?
>
> I'm trying to decide which of the above two high power ant tuners (new) is
> the best one to get. I have a TT Omni 6 (opt 1) and an Ameritron 572 amp
> with internal QSK. My understanding is the TT amp is a bit more rugged
but
> has the problem of a reflected power meter that doesn't show swr and
output
> at a glance. Also, have read about a possible problem with the TT roller
> inductor wearing out and a possible problem with capacitor C11 blowing up
on
> 10 meters. The Palstar is about $100 cheaper. The L-network of the tentec
is
> supposed to be the most efficient type of matching network but how much
does
> that matter as a practical concern? Important to me is the ability to
switch
> from one antenna to another as quickly as possible as I have different
wire
> antennas for the same band that favor different directions. Wish the TT
amp
> was still made with a grey cabinet so it would match my Omni 6 but at
least
> it should match it in shape. Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts or
> experienc
> e that might help me make this decision.
> TT 238B vs. Palstar 1500CV. Thanks.
>
> Jeff KX2P
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:28:12 -0000
> From: "Bob Henderson" <bob@cytanet.com.cy>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion "work in progress"
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <004401c52e65$44ab78b0$0100a8c0@SHACK3>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Tommy, W4BQF wrote:
>
> > I can sit on a frequency and run QSO's, sometimes at rates up to 200
QSO's
> > per minute.
>
> Hey Tommy, you really are good. I can only just beat that in an hour ;-))
>
> Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:32:00 -0500
> From: Martin Ewing <martin.ewing@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion "work in progress"
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <6a2b366e0503211432ca4e9c0@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Three per second. Not much time to chew the rag!
>
> Martin AA6E
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:28:12 -0000, Bob Henderson <bob@cytanet.com.cy>
wrote:
> > Tommy, W4BQF wrote:
> >
> > > I can sit on a frequency and run QSO's, sometimes at rates up to 200
QSO's
> > > per minute.
> >
> > Hey Tommy, you really are good. I can only just beat that in an hour
;-))
> >
> > Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
>
>
> --
> martin.ewing@gmail.com
> http://blog.aa6e.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> End of TenTec Digest, Vol 27, Issue 53
> **************************************
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|