Re: [IRCA] phasing

["Bill Harms" <wharms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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