Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/3CRY6OHHVISTCTZ26LLW2OOVOGZFCOSL/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "3CRY6OHHVISTCTZ26LLW2OOVOGZFCOSL",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/IC7LCHA5EOTBT2QXJPK454AMYKXQQVMY/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "updwrb (a) bristor-assoc.com",
        "mailman_id": "6a38e6f613ad494f85758faeecec9d50",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/6a38e6f613ad494f85758faeecec9d50/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "w4upd",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000",
    "date": "2009-11-30T14:56:21Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/GK2SKG7G65ORODOEDTSE2MWHDISX27Y7/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "With watt/swr meter in-line I have found my IC-910 to actually go down \nto as low as 1 - 2 watts. It have used it in a QRP mode at this level \nmany times. I know that the brochure states 5 watts for 2/70cm and 1 \nwatt for 1.2ghz, but found it to actually go lower, but still go to full \npower as advertised.\n\nReid, W4UPD\n\n\nBruce Robertson wrote:\n> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Greg Dober <[email protected]> wrote:\n>   \n>> Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an\n>> Icom 910 thinking that \"one box\" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000.\n>> Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and\n>> another IC-910.  I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF\n>> repeater radio.  The \"birdies\" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies.\n>> Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as\n>> adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive\n>> capabilities were second to none for weak signal work.  I still love my\n>> second IC-910!  Still have the TS-870 too.\n>>\n>> Of course, all is one man's opinion.  This could become the \"great debate\"\n>> thread.  hi hi\n>>     \n>\n> I own a TS-2000. I have tried just about every solution for the\n> birdies, and have found none that works well. Thus you have to be\n> willing to lose SO-50 and AO-27 with this radio. Further draw-backs\n> for this rig and satellite work is that the lowest adjustable power is\n> 5w. I plan to install longish antennas in the near future, and with\n> them my transmit power will be, in many cases, excessive no matter how\n> low I set the TS-2000.\n>\n> I haven't used an IC-910, but I understand it has an excellent\n> reputation. I note that 5w is the minimum power for it also, but other\n> ICOM radios have an internal pot that allows you to adjust this low\n> point. Does the IC-910 as well? If price is a consideration, note that\n> the ICOM rig will require the purchase of additional filters, whereas\n> the TS-2000 has fully-adjustable filters in place. I very much like\n> this feature.\n>\n> I am very happy with my TS-2000 as an all-in-one rig, but if I could\n> own two rigs, judging by the comments here and elsewhere I would\n> probably get a IC-910 (or a software defined radio with\n> transverters!).\n>\n> 73, Bruce\n> VE9QRP\n>\n>   \n>> -----Original Message-----\n>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On\n>> Behalf Of Tom\n>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM\n>> To: [email protected]\n>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000\n>>\n>> I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've\n>> narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite\n>> operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general\n>> preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons?\n>>\n>> Thanks for your opinions.\n>> Tom, KØTW\n>>\n>>     \n",
    "attachments": []
}