[600MRG] My local noise - more info...
Carl
km1h at jeremy.mv.com
Sun Sep 22 17:06:31 CDT 2013
OK, thanks.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Langridge" <jlangridge at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>; "600m group" <600mrg at w7ekb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [600MRG] My local noise - more info...
yes but you have to change out the HPF for a LPF. There are several mods
available for that box. It can actually work down to 100 KHz.
John XIQ
________________________________
From: Carl <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
To: kgordon2006 at frontier.com; John Langridge <jlangridge at sbcglobal.net>;
600m group <600mrg at w7ekb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [600MRG] My local noise - more info...
Does the MFJ work at 600M?
Ive heard it is excellent for 160.
Carl
KM1H
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth G. Gordon"
<kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
To: "John Langridge" <jlangridge at sbcglobal.net>; "600m group"
<600mrg at w7ekb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [600MRG] My local noise - more info...
On 22 Sep 2013 at 11:56, John Langridge wrote:
> >I have seen tests of others, like MFJ's, on youtube. Some work very
> >well, others don't.
>
> I've seen some of these tested and implemented correctly and
> incorrectly in the past. The circuits are not rocket science so I
> think more often than not the problems that exist involve 1) loss of a
> proper "noise" antenna that can actually hear the noise in question -
> it has to be able to do this if it is to phase it out and 2) the noise
> can't be in the direction that the noise antenna resides with respect
> to the main antenna.
Ah! I had never considered this...thank you for the information...and it
makes
sense too.
> These seem to work pretty well from what I have
> seen and have considered one here recently as the noise floor appears
> to be headed upward. I think most recently KL7L was using one in
> conjunction with his K9AY loop to manage the noise from the electric
> fence, IIRC.
Oh. That makes sense too.
Well, I am going to have to "revisit" those units. I have always thought
that
the principle should be workable.
FYI, the early models of the U.S. Army BC-312/342 receiver had a
manually-adjusted, passive version of this principle, but since most
operators
really never learned how to properly use it, it was removed from all
subsequent models.
Ken W7EKB
_______________________________________________
600MRG mailing list
600MRG at w7ekb.com
http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3222/6188 - Release Date: 09/21/13
_______________________________________________
600MRG mailing list
600MRG at w7ekb.com
http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3222/6188 - Release Date: 09/21/13
More information about the 600MRG
mailing list