| To: | "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [TenTec] Any reason not to use 960p/s with Omni V? (no message) |
| From: | "Ron Zond" <k3miy@csonline.net> |
| Reply-to: | Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> |
| Date: | Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:40:00 -0500 |
| List-post: | <mailto:tentec@contesting.com> |
960 exceeds V by CMLV. Quintius Flavius Minimus told me I was his star pupil in math (Roman) back in 150 AD. Oh, for the good old days. Ron K3MIY -----Original Message----- From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Mike Hyder -N4NT- Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:30 AM To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment Subject: Re: [TenTec] Any reason not to use 960p/s with Omni V? (no message) 960 exceeds V by CML. This will create an inverted nomenclature designation. _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [TenTec] FS: Omni VI Opt 3 and Accessories, John Rippey |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [TenTec] (no subject), We5f |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] Any reason not to use 960p/s with Omni V? (no message), Mike Hyder -N4NT- |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] Any reason not to use 960p/s with Omni V? (no message), Philip Leonard WVØT |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |