| To: | tentec@contesting.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 |
| From: | K4IA@aol.com |
| Reply-to: | Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> |
| Date: | Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:37:10 EDT |
| List-post: | <mailto:tentec@contesting.com> |
Now that reply confuses me even more. I think the original request was for a level playing field, i.e.. normalize the results for a given MDS sensitivity. I would think the results are worthless (for comparison purposes) if you play with the sensitivity settings. Of course, the more attenuation the better the IMD and BDR numbers will look. It is not an issue of picking one car because of its 0-60 speed vs its top speed. It is an issue of running both cars on the same track! What am I missing? k4ia Craig "Buck" Fredericksburg, Virginia USA |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000, NJ0IP |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000, Curt |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000, Joseph Trombino Jr |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000, Bill Tippett |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |