Phil wrote: > Interesting analysis, Mike -- though relating the various *AT* acronyms > to rigs is a bit mind bending :-)
Don't I know it, Phil! K1AT, K2AT, K3AT, KX1AT, KX2AT, KX3AT, etc. would be clearer and cleaner. Then, there's KAT100, KAT500, KXAT100...perhaps K2AT100, K3AT500, KX3AT100 would be more obvious, or just K2AT1, K3AT5, KX3AT1. This is only good-nature'd nitpicking...but after 17 years I still wonder why a simple consistent nomenclature system is not used. :-) 73, Mike / KK5F ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [email protected]
