[1000mp] RE: Ten-Tec Orion Specs - MP BDR

[Tracy, Michael, KC1SX]

"Barry N1EU" wrote:

> FYI, the 111dB figure in the comparison table for the=20
> FT-1000MP is wrong.  When I saw those figures first
> published over a year ago, I checked the expanded
> test report for the FT-1000MP myself and then wrote=20
> Mike Tracy at the ARRL.  He wrote back: "I have to
> say the error is all mine . . . the actual BDR at
> 5 kHz spacing on the FT-1000MP should have been=20
> listed as 119 dB.

Actually, there was a little more confusion than that on my part.  :-)  =
Here's the complete run-down.  When I originally prepared the chart in =
Jan 2001 (for a posting on the topband email list), I had included data =
for the original FT-1000MP, plus the Mark V.

Fortunately, in most cases, I had access to the original 'raw' data, so =
I could come up with a direct figure.  However, in the case of the =
original MP I could not locate the raw data and instead had to estimate =
the figure by making measurements of the printed swept plot in the =
expanded report (kept as a Word doc file, the data is an imbedded =
graphic).

When the QST Review for the Kenwood TS-2000 was put together, I included =
the same data from my internet post.  For reasons I no longer recall, =
the data for the original MP was removed from the QST table (perhaps =
because I was uncomfortable with the estimate).

As soon as the issue of QST went to the printer, the review was also =
posted to our Member's web page (standard proceedure).  At that time, =
Barry contacted me, saying that there was a difference in the data for =
the published review and the original internet posting. =20

At that time, I located the floppy disk where the original data was =
located and dug out the correct figure of 119 dB.  I then looked at the =
data on the web page a bit too quickly, and replied to Barry thus:

"I have no idea where the 106 dB might have come from, but the actual =
BDR at 5 kHz spacing on the FT-1000MP should have been listed as 119 dB. =
 I will send a correction to the Product Review editor."

Note the "106 dB" and "FT-1000MP" - I had missed the fact that the =
published review data was *only* for the Mark V and *not* for the =
original!  Since the data did not include the original MP, no =
"correction to the editor" was either needed or appropriate.  However, I =
did also err at the time by not following up in sending a correction to =
the folks with web pages quoting my original internet posting!  Well, =
hindsight is 20/20, and I shall see to this now. =20

As to how I could make an 8 dB error in my estimate taken from the =
graph, a look at the printed (low res) copy of the swept data shows how =
"fuzzy" the FT-1000MP's BDR is in this region...

73, Michael Tracy, KC1SX, ARRL Lab