Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+SL6440\s*$/>

Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+SL6440\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. LF: SL6440 (score: 1): Author: Dick Rollema <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:33:07 +0200; To All from PA0SE Claudio, IK2PII wrote: SL6440 is a good mixer, low IMD but high noise. For HF receiver it require a preamplifier also for 7 MHz band. I don't agree. I my own homemade transceiver (s; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-09/msg00098.html (8,355 bytes)
2. Re: LF: SL6440 (score: 1): Author: [email protected]; Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:00:31 EDT; Although I have not used the device, I am pleased that Dick is another who believes in selective filtering in rx front ends. This "modern" trend towards broadband/octave filters in the per-mixer stag; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-09/msg00099.html (8,465 bytes)
3. Re: LF: SL6440 (score: 1): Author: Joe Craig <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:43:31 -0230 (NDT); Dear LF Group, I have been considering purchasing the SRA-8 for the first mixer in a new LF receiver I am designing. This is a passive DBM and is fairly expensive. Would I be better off using an SL64; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-09/msg00101.html (8,323 bytes)
4. Re: LF: SL6440 (score: 1): Author: Niels Rudberg Jørgensen <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:26:33 +0200; Dear LF Group, I have been considering purchasing the SRA-8 for the first mixer in a new LF receiver I am designing. This is a passive DBM and is fairly expensive. Would I be better off using an SL6; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-09/msg00105.html (9,644 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]