Re: [IRCA] phasing

["Chuck Hutton" <charlesh3@xxxxxxx>]

Try #2..... the first one bounced when the dns server couldn't find
irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .


Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Hutton [mailto:charlesh3@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 5:19 PM
To: 'Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America'
Subject: RE: [IRCA] phasing

I'd hold out some hope for the Dallas Lankford phaser that Steve Ratzlaff is
making a construction business out of.

It has an amp based on a very hefty cable TV distribution transistor and
normally (in the configuration used by Dallas and popularized by Rohde et
al) is about as bullet-proof as is reasonably possible these days. (Note to
tech types: it has an IP3 of about +40 dBm.) Its design ought to be a
noticeable improvement over the not-so-crunch-proof design (but still good)
that Gerry uses in the Quantum phaser.

It would be an interesting test to get a Quantum into Walt's hands and do a
direct A/B comparison with the Beverage/Lankford/Mizek phaser.

Or I'll deliver mine to Orcas, as soon as I get done with the plumbing at
Walt's Queen Charlottes place.



Chuck


-----Original Message-----
From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neil Kazaross
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 4:52 PM
To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America
Subject: Re: [IRCA] phasing

S9+50's can be real bad news. I think you'll end up using a passive phaser 
and in the rare cases where you may need a bit of amplification, use a good 
tuned post amp.

73 KAZ
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John H. Bryant" <bjohnorcas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America" 
<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [IRCA] phasing


> Bill,
>
> I was discussing my Quantum Phaser all right..... I have no idea why
> you don't experience the same thing.... And its Vancouver stations
> that are my problem, not Seattle, which is 60-70 miles away with a
> mixed land/seawater path,  the Vancouver stations that cause the
> overload are 20 miles of 100% sea water away from me and the most
> troublesome ones are all below 700  kHz. (600, 650, 690)  I have 6
> stations that register S-9+50 dB or so.  The Quantum loop was
> overloading running a 100 x 20 KAZ and a 100 x 20 Pennant. My unit is
> about 4 or 5 years old. Since I have heard several other experienced
> DXers notice overloads in slightly less challenging environments,
> I've never contacted Gerry about it and don't propose to do so
> now.  I think that it is a great unit.  I would guess that my problem
> is one of the worst because of the 100% seawater connection and most
> of the blowtorches being at the very bottom of the band.  For mosta
> the people on the planet, I'd recommend a Quantum Phaser without 
> hesitation.
>
> I should also add that Nick Hall-Patch actually found many more of
> the "signals that aren't really here" than I was aware of, when he
> was over here soon after I had those antennas up one year.  I
> hesitate to think what the unit would do with my two new 60' x 100'
> EWEs.  I think that kind of use is just outside the normal envelope
> of use, myself.
>
> John Bryant
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 02:37 PM 11/5/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>John:
>>
>>         Are we talking about the Quantum Loop or Quantum Phaser?
>>
>>         Please don't take this as an argument, I live in a RF "rich"
>>environment and have not noticed the problem with my Quantum Phaser
>>that you describe.  In fact, I tabulated the number of stations in my
>>area and compared it to New York,  Seattle, LA, Chicago etc. Without
>>going into a lot of detail, the Baltimore-Washington metro-area has
>>an higher station density of total stations than Seattle, LA, and
>>Chicago and is comparable to New York. Seattle has roughly the same
>>density of 50 kW that the Balt-Wash area has. I have several 50 kW
>>stations within 20 miles of my location.
>>
>>         All I know is that I would not be able to hear many of the 
>> stations
>>I have were it not for the Quantum Phaser.
>>
>>Bill Harms
>>Elkridge, Maryland
>>
>>On 5 Nov 2006 at 6:31, John H. Bryant wrote:
>>
>> > Bill,
>> >
>> > I have no overloading on my Quantum loop when I use it in Oklahoma or 
>> > at
>> > Grayland and I love it.  However at my home place here 20 sea miles 
>> > south
>> > of Vancouver, with many Canadian blowtorches looking at me, I have 
>> > signals
>> > at many places on the dial, usually over or under real signals at that
>> > point of the dial, THAT SHOULD NOT BE THERE.... they are from powerful
>> > stations on other frequencies. This is not the case with a Connelly
>> > Mini-MWDX-6, nor a Mizek/Ratzlaff phaser (I hope.)  The Quantum is 
>> > easier
>> > to use, in my somewhat limited experience, unless it is in an RF 
>> > cesspool
>> > such as some of us must suffer.
>> >
>> > John B.
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx