ÿWPC, ûÿ2Bÿÿ˜ÿÿW©ÿÿ#|xxxx ôU^Ûx Œ @ɇÏÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCourier 10 Pitchûÿ2ðV2ˆ W™ðÿÿzNxxx ôU^Ûx Œ @ɇÏÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCourier 10 Pitchûÿ2ÿÿ"ÿÿNJ*#|xDate: 14 Dec 89 06:02:00 GMT From: brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil@apple.com Subject: FT-470, the continuing saga... Message-ID: <30500324@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> > I spoke to an engineer at Yaesu (in Cerritos, CA.) about the only problem > I have with the HT - intermod in RF hot areas here in Orange county, CA. - > and he explained to me that the receiver is so hot (this appears to be true > when comparing to other HT's I own) that some intermod is unavoidable if you > use a gain antenna and are in a hot area. > > Of course, I would like to have an attenuator for the receiver built in to the > rig to take care of such problems, anyone out there ever attempt such a thing? > Looks like Kenwood put one into their dual band HT, (but the specs for recieve > sensitivity are not the same), does this help you Kenwood users? Didn't receivers used to have a front-end tuned circuit that somewhat closely tracked the frequency you were tuned to so that intermod (and probably more importantly at the time) image rejection could be done? I know I saw an AM radio construction circuit one time where there was a front end. You had to have it if converting to 455 khz I.F. on such a wide band. Why can't today's receivers use the same "technology"? --Phil Howard, KA9WGN-- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 89 10:40:25 GMT Œ