In article ,
(Kenneth) wrote:

Telamon wrote in message

What quotes this quotes from passport to world band radio?:
The Ten Tec RX340 [$3,999]test findings:The sync selectable
sideband lose look relatively easily,Passport recomend an
external Sherwood SE-3 [500.00],poor dynamic range,static crashes
sound harsher than on analog receivers.Spurious signal noted
around 6MHZ segment,notch filter does not work in AM,Sync
selectable sideband or ISB modes,Noise blanker not effective
ect, ect, ect,


You play fast and loose with the facts, misstating or exaggerating
them. I used to think that you were just confused but you continue
although corrected so I can only conclude that your thoughts are
completely prejudicial whatever your motivation. You have no
credibility.
What the problem? Do you don't like this passport RX 340 flaws
report? This is NOT MY OPPINION but the "con" part of the passport to
world band radio magazine review.Do you think they are "prejudiced
whatever their motivations"?.Then why you not call them and protest?
You are making a ridiculous ninny paper prattling "You have no
credibility" "you have not credibility" but this is only your
nonsense oppinion because you want to deflect the attention and hide
the passport report about your expensive receiver.Why don't accept it
or complain with the right people [passport reviewers staff]about the
review and stop this nonsense? This sample of the report [the flaws
part] is an accurate quote of what the passport reviewer wrote and
NOT MY OPPINION.I don't add anything or exaggerate anything.You are
the only one confused and with credibility deficiency here. Ken

You have no credibility. You may have copied what is written in
Passport and twisted it for your own evil ends but that does not
constitute a quote.

Here is the way to do it.

In the 2004 Passport RX340 review I read "Noise blanker not effective
at some locations; for example, other receivers (but not the POS
IC-R75) work better in reducing noise from electric fences." This means
it is effective against some noise types but not all. This entire quote
about the noise blanker reads differently from your writing (sic)
"Noise blanker not effective ect, ect, ect," as an example of your
bias.

I think Passport had their hands on a bum unit. I have not had the
problems they describe in my RX340 with one exception and that is it
does lose sync lock on rapid and deep fading signals. The signal can be
very weak or deeply fading and it is not a problem unless the fade is
rapid. The fading can be rapid without a locking problem as long as it
is not deep. The radio will lose lock if both conditions exist at the
same time to a great enough extent. It is one area of the radios
performance I whish was better.

The other cons as I've told you several times are not evident in my
unit and I would expect other people that own this radio to come back
and post that their unit does have the other problems but you don't see
those posts do you? What you do see is Kenneth flapping in the breeze
trying to justify his decisions by knocking other people.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

Quite true, but that's not what you said -- you said it was
"resonant." A nit-pick, perhaps,

at 3/4 wavelenghts resonance is at 736-kHz. as a 2 wavelengths beverage:
1.9-MHz. your antenna is quite capable on MW.

but you misrepresented several things I had said and done
in that message, and I do not take kindly to that.

i appologize. do a search for "if you can't afford a real radio".

As for the "flamethrower" at the end of the wire, they are in
violation of 47 CFR 22.369, which explicitly lays out the field
strength limits on Table Mountain. They may get grandfathered in, but
now that the feds are reopening Table Mountain for NIST projects, the
local HDTV wannabes are chafing at the restrictions -- even though
their antennas would be about 40 miles away.

what frequency are they on?

But at very different signal strenghts and with very different
characteristics: The R8B overloaded abruptly -- switching in a 1 dB
step was enough to have it operating normally or overloaded. The R75,
by contrast, had this "mushy" signal strength area.

neither radio is an IP3 god. a portable with LW loop will outperform a
radio hooked to a wire requiring 40+ dB attenuation.

Yes, but mostly I'm interested in the results of the design. Not that
I'm not interested in the design, but the implementation is what made
the '8500 immune to such things.

radios are black boxes: feed them signals within specs and they perform
predictably. ICOM probably left off the LW BPF to save $1. companies are
cheap.

Well, if I rejoin the group that works out there and set up a loop,
I'll see if I can pick up the DFW OMs as cleanly as I could with the
wire.

Then I'll use my homebrew phaser with a loop and the wire. Probably
Pete's loop.

I still think you think you got more than you really did. Just out of
curiosity, is that $1050 the original price of the R75? It was pretty
high when it came out.

WRTH 2000 states $1040. i know what the R75 is and is not. i am lucky to
have Pete as a mentor. if you gain access to that antenna try your RX340
and bring along a 7030 owner.

I do as well and will probably get one as soon as they're available.

Pete's radio is going to be sweet!

regards,
phil

In article , "phil "
wrote:

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

You can mark the group unread or un-subscribe and re-subscribe to the
group to get all messages on the news server.

snip

But at very different signal strenghts and with very different
characteristics: The R8B overloaded abruptly -- switching in a 1 dB
step was enough to have it operating normally or overloaded. The R75,
by contrast, had this "mushy" signal strength area.

neither radio is an IP3 god. a portable with LW loop will outperform a
radio hooked to a wire requiring 40+ dB attenuation.

Blindly reading specifications can lead you astray on how the radio will
perform. Some measurements require the radio be in a non-optimum
reception state.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask the question "why do some
radios work much better than the IP3 @ 5KHz measurement would indicate?"

Anybody feel free answer the question.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"phil " wrote:

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

Quite true, but that's not what you said -- you said it was
"resonant." A nit-pick, perhaps,

at 3/4 wavelenghts resonance is at 736-kHz. as a 2 wavelengths beverage:
1.9-MHz. your antenna is quite capable on MW.

Oh, I don't argue *that*, I just argue that it wasn't resonant.

Not that it matters, really, my WR-G303i reports its signal strength
as 30 mV 120 miles away on a 400 foot wire broadside to the antenna.
Flamethrower, indeed.

As for the "flamethrower" at the end of the wire, they are in
violation of 47 CFR 22.369, which explicitly lays out the field
strength limits on Table Mountain. They may get grandfathered in, but
now that the feds are reopening Table Mountain for NIST projects, the
local HDTV wannabes are chafing at the restrictions -- even though
their antennas would be about 40 miles away.

what frequency are they on?


Dunno. I don't keep up with the local doings of the broadcasters
much. I assume they are in the old standard TV UHF band; 47 CFR 369
says that from 470 to 890 MHz, field strength on Table Mountain must
be less than 30 mV/m.

radios are black boxes: feed them signals within specs and they perform
predictably. ICOM probably left off the LW BPF to save $1. companies are
cheap.

Actually I got word from someone who said that the '75 was considered
a work in progress that never progressed.

i know what the R75 is and is not.

Then all I ask is that you remember that when you brag on it. Good
bargain? definitely. Ultimate radio? No.

i am lucky to
have Pete as a mentor.

That you are. I wish I was fluent enough in electronics to be able to
speak the same language as Pete.

if you gain access to that antenna try your RX340
and bring along a 7030 owner.

No radio is perfect; the '7030 wouldn't hold up out there... To me
the question would be whether or not the '340 would.

Eric

--
Eric F. Richards,
"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

"Eric F. Richards" wrote:

"phil " wrote:

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

Quite true, but that's not what you said -- you said it was
"resonant." A nit-pick, perhaps,

at 3/4 wavelenghts resonance is at 736-kHz. as a 2 wavelengths beverage:
1.9-MHz. your antenna is quite capable on MW.

Oh, I don't argue *that*, I just argue that it wasn't resonant.

Not that it matters, really, my WR-G303i reports its signal strength
as 30 mV 120 miles away on a 400 foot wire broadside to the antenna.
Flamethrower, indeed.

As for the "flamethrower" at the end of the wire, they are in
violation of 47 CFR 22.369, which explicitly lays out the field
strength limits on Table Mountain. They may get grandfathered in, but
now that the feds are reopening Table Mountain for NIST projects, the
local HDTV wannabes are chafing at the restrictions -- even though
their antennas would be about 40 miles away.

what frequency are they on?


Dunno. I don't keep up with the local doings of the broadcasters
much. I assume they are in the old standard TV UHF band; 47 CFR 369
says that from 470 to 890 MHz, field strength on Table Mountain must
be less than 30 mV/m.

radios are black boxes: feed them signals within specs and they perform
predictably. ICOM probably left off the LW BPF to save $1. companies are
cheap.

Actually I got word from someone who said that the '75 was considered
a work in progress that never progressed.

That's an understatement if I ever heard one!



i know what the R75 is and is not.

Then all I ask is that you remember that when you brag on it. Good
bargain? definitely. Ultimate radio? No.

i am lucky to
have Pete as a mentor.

That you are. I wish I was fluent enough in electronics to be able to
speak the same language as Pete.

if you gain access to that antenna try your RX340
and bring along a 7030 owner.

No radio is perfect; the '7030 wouldn't hold up out there... To me
the question would be whether or not the '340 would.

Eric

--
Eric F. Richards,
"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

In article ,
N8KDV wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote:

"phil " wrote:

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

Quite true, but that's not what you said -- you said it was
"resonant." A nit-pick, perhaps,

at 3/4 wavelenghts resonance is at 736-kHz. as a 2 wavelengths
beverage: 1.9-MHz. your antenna is quite capable on MW.

Oh, I don't argue *that*, I just argue that it wasn't resonant.

Not that it matters, really, my WR-G303i reports its signal
strength as 30 mV 120 miles away on a 400 foot wire broadside to
the antenna. Flamethrower, indeed.

As for the "flamethrower" at the end of the wire, they are in
violation of 47 CFR 22.369, which explicitly lays out the field
strength limits on Table Mountain. They may get grandfathered
in, but now that the feds are reopening Table Mountain for NIST
projects, the local HDTV wannabes are chafing at the
restrictions -- even though their antennas would be about 40
miles away.

what frequency are they on?


Dunno. I don't keep up with the local doings of the broadcasters
much. I assume they are in the old standard TV UHF band; 47 CFR
369 says that from 470 to 890 MHz, field strength on Table Mountain
must be less than 30 mV/m.

radios are black boxes: feed them signals within specs and they
perform predictably. ICOM probably left off the LW BPF to save
$1. companies are cheap.

Actually I got word from someone who said that the '75 was
considered a work in progress that never progressed.

That's an understatement if I ever heard one!

Welcome to the real world. Engineers will play with a design until they
are happy with it but management runs the show. As soon as the pointy
haired boss thinks that the design has met its goals the effort ends.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

They might be able to fix that problem in the RX340 if they use a longer
time constant in the loop filter. They could even use a dual time constant
loop filter, they way it is done in fast lock time synthesizers.

Pete

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Kenneth) wrote:

Telamon wrote in message

What quotes this quotes from passport to world band radio?:
The Ten Tec RX340 [$3,999]test findings:The sync selectable
sideband lose look relatively easily,Passport recomend an
external Sherwood SE-3 [500.00],poor dynamic range,static crashes
sound harsher than on analog receivers.Spurious signal noted
around 6MHZ segment,notch filter does not work in AM,Sync
selectable sideband or ISB modes,Noise blanker not effective
ect, ect, ect,


You play fast and loose with the facts, misstating or exaggerating
them. I used to think that you were just confused but you continue
although corrected so I can only conclude that your thoughts are
completely prejudicial whatever your motivation. You have no
credibility.
What the problem? Do you don't like this passport RX 340 flaws
report? This is NOT MY OPPINION but the "con" part of the passport to
world band radio magazine review.Do you think they are "prejudiced
whatever their motivations"?.Then why you not call them and protest?
You are making a ridiculous ninny paper prattling "You have no
credibility" "you have not credibility" but this is only your
nonsense oppinion because you want to deflect the attention and hide
the passport report about your expensive receiver.Why don't accept it
or complain with the right people [passport reviewers staff]about the
review and stop this nonsense? This sample of the report [the flaws
part] is an accurate quote of what the passport reviewer wrote and
NOT MY OPPINION.I don't add anything or exaggerate anything.You are
the only one confused and with credibility deficiency here. Ken

You have no credibility. You may have copied what is written in
Passport and twisted it for your own evil ends but that does not
constitute a quote.

Here is the way to do it.

In the 2004 Passport RX340 review I read "Noise blanker not effective
at some locations; for example, other receivers (but not the POS
IC-R75) work better in reducing noise from electric fences." This means
it is effective against some noise types but not all. This entire quote
about the noise blanker reads differently from your writing (sic)
"Noise blanker not effective ect, ect, ect," as an example of your
bias.

I think Passport had their hands on a bum unit. I have not had the
problems they describe in my RX340 with one exception and that is it
does lose sync lock on rapid and deep fading signals. The signal can be
very weak or deeply fading and it is not a problem unless the fade is
rapid. The fading can be rapid without a locking problem as long as it
is not deep. The radio will lose lock if both conditions exist at the
same time to a great enough extent. It is one area of the radios
performance I whish was better.

The other cons as I've told you several times are not evident in my
unit and I would expect other people that own this radio to come back
and post that their unit does have the other problems but you don't see
those posts do you? What you do see is Kenneth flapping in the breeze
trying to justify his decisions by knocking other people.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

The only way that this should happen is if either the receiver is very
conservatively rated (do we know exactly what method was use to make this
measurement?), or if the measurements were incorrectly done. I am not sure
that real world performance would reflect those measurements, unless you are
in an area where there are several strong signals that are only 5kHz apart.
When I am measuring the overload point on the receiver that I am developing,
it is very easy to drive the system into overload with a signal generator,
yet with a 100 foot longwire in the presence of three 50kW MW broadcasters,
no overload is present.
I think that specs do tell the story, if the measurement system is properly
set up.
As an example, on one project, I needed to make some desense measurements
from 5kHz to several hundred MHz away from the desired signal. The desired
signal level was -140dBm. Using an HP8657 or an 8640B, the broadband noise
from these two units was so high, even a 300MHz away from the desired
signal, that I had to run the generators through a K&L tunable filter. The
only generator that was slightly usable was an HP8642B. This is the one that
uses the Modulated Fractional Divider, with the Sigma-Delta modulation.
In reference to you statement about the receiver working better than its
rated specs, I just don't think so, unless as I said earlier, the
measurements were done incorrectly. The only way to really to a close-in IP3
measurement is to run the interfering signal through a very selective, deep
skirted crystal filter. You need the interfering signal to have almost
non-existant close-in phase noise; otherwise, the measurement is
meaningless.

Pete

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article , "phil "
wrote:

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

You can mark the group unread or un-subscribe and re-subscribe to the
group to get all messages on the news server.

snip

But at very different signal strenghts and with very different
characteristics: The R8B overloaded abruptly -- switching in a 1 dB
step was enough to have it operating normally or overloaded. The R75,
by contrast, had this "mushy" signal strength area.

neither radio is an IP3 god. a portable with LW loop will outperform a
radio hooked to a wire requiring 40+ dB attenuation.

Blindly reading specifications can lead you astray on how the radio will
perform. Some measurements require the radio be in a non-optimum
reception state.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask the question "why do some
radios work much better than the IP3 @ 5KHz measurement would indicate?"

Anybody feel free answer the question.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Hey Eric................anytime you have any questions, feel free to shout
me down, and I will be glad to answer them as clearly as I know how! The
coolest thing about knowledge it that it can be shared. Someday, I will
write a comprehensive book all about radio design...............I just need
to learn more than the
..00000000000000000000000001% that I know right now!

Pete

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"phil " wrote:

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

Quite true, but that's not what you said -- you said it was
"resonant." A nit-pick, perhaps,

at 3/4 wavelenghts resonance is at 736-kHz. as a 2 wavelengths beverage:
1.9-MHz. your antenna is quite capable on MW.

Oh, I don't argue *that*, I just argue that it wasn't resonant.

Not that it matters, really, my WR-G303i reports its signal strength
as 30 mV 120 miles away on a 400 foot wire broadside to the antenna.
Flamethrower, indeed.

As for the "flamethrower" at the end of the wire, they are in
violation of 47 CFR 22.369, which explicitly lays out the field
strength limits on Table Mountain. They may get grandfathered in, but
now that the feds are reopening Table Mountain for NIST projects, the
local HDTV wannabes are chafing at the restrictions -- even though
their antennas would be about 40 miles away.

what frequency are they on?


Dunno. I don't keep up with the local doings of the broadcasters
much. I assume they are in the old standard TV UHF band; 47 CFR 369
says that from 470 to 890 MHz, field strength on Table Mountain must
be less than 30 mV/m.

radios are black boxes: feed them signals within specs and they perform
predictably. ICOM probably left off the LW BPF to save $1. companies are
cheap.

Actually I got word from someone who said that the '75 was considered
a work in progress that never progressed.

i know what the R75 is and is not.

Then all I ask is that you remember that when you brag on it. Good
bargain? definitely. Ultimate radio? No.

i am lucky to
have Pete as a mentor.

That you are. I wish I was fluent enough in electronics to be able to
speak the same language as Pete.

if you gain access to that antenna try your RX340
and bring along a 7030 owner.

No radio is perfect; the '7030 wouldn't hold up out there... To me
the question would be whether or not the '340 would.

Eric

--
Eric F. Richards,
"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

Now I know it is getting late...................sorry about those typos!

Pete

"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
...
The only way that this should happen is if either the receiver is very
conservatively rated (do we know exactly what method was use to make this
measurement?), or if the measurements were incorrectly done. I am not sure
that real world performance would reflect those measurements, unless you
are
in an area where there are several strong signals that are only 5kHz
apart.
When I am measuring the overload point on the receiver that I am
developing,
it is very easy to drive the system into overload with a signal generator,
yet with a 100 foot longwire in the presence of three 50kW MW
broadcasters,
no overload is present.
I think that specs do tell the story, if the measurement system is
properly
set up.
As an example, on one project, I needed to make some desense measurements
from 5kHz to several hundred MHz away from the desired signal. The desired
signal level was -140dBm. Using an HP8657 or an 8640B, the broadband noise
from these two units was so high, even a 300MHz away from the desired
signal, that I had to run the generators through a K&L tunable filter. The
only generator that was slightly usable was an HP8642B. This is the one
that
uses the Modulated Fractional Divider, with the Sigma-Delta modulation.
In reference to you statement about the receiver working better than its
rated specs, I just don't think so, unless as I said earlier, the
measurements were done incorrectly. The only way to really to a close-in
IP3
measurement is to run the interfering signal through a very selective,
deep
skirted crystal filter. You need the interfering signal to have almost
non-existant close-in phase noise; otherwise, the measurement is
meaningless.

Pete

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article , "phil "
wrote:

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

You can mark the group unread or un-subscribe and re-subscribe to the
group to get all messages on the news server.

snip

But at very different signal strenghts and with very different
characteristics: The R8B overloaded abruptly -- switching in a 1 dB
step was enough to have it operating normally or overloaded. The
R75,
by contrast, had this "mushy" signal strength area.

neither radio is an IP3 god. a portable with LW loop will outperform a
radio hooked to a wire requiring 40+ dB attenuation.

Blindly reading specifications can lead you astray on how the radio will
perform. Some measurements require the radio be in a non-optimum
reception state.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask the question "why do some
radios work much better than the IP3 @ 5KHz measurement would indicate?"

Anybody feel free answer the question.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California