RadioBanter - View Single Post

September 26th 04, 06:28 PM

In article , PAMNO
(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message news:
...

All it took for a ham to stay inside the subbands was a frequency standard
of
known accuracy. This could take the form of an accurately-calibrated
receiver,
transmitter or transceiver, an external frequency meter (WW2 surplus
BC-221
and
LM units were relatively inexpensive in the 1960s) or a 100 kHz oscillator
with
suitable dividers.

He's clueless.

Of course. What else is new?

As usual. I could comfortably transmit CW within 200Hz
of any band edge or subband edge with my Collins 75A4 and know I was
"legal".

Sure - mentioned earlier in the post.

I simply tweaked the 100Khz xtal oscillator to get it dead
on against WWV on several freqs and took it from there. The
out-of-the-box Collins PTO and linear dial with it's adjustable cursor
*is* a frequency meter and it's far more accurate than any of W2
surplus units. Not to mention being much more convenient to use.

Point is, even those who couldn't afford Drake or Collins could get almost as
close to a band or subband edge - using '50s technology.

So Len's claim of needing "modern frequency synthesizers" is utterly bogus.
Also his claim that it was "all about staking territory" or some such
nonsense.
False. Without any facts to back it up.

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

You just can't do that with a '50s VFO in that time frame. You can,
long, long after the fact, brag about "being able to do so" but it
couldn't be done in second it takes to move a tuning knob...nor
could you as easily do "split" to another, pre-selected frequency
with that VFO. Not even with a garage full of BC-221s. :-)

It's clear that he doesn't really understand what amateur HF operation is/was
like at all, nor amateur radio economics, nor even what really happened
historically.

You should tell more about how you became a ham the moment
you were born into that era. Talk about child prodigies... :-)

It's true I can't understand the fantasy mindset of some hams. I've
perhaps been "held back" by the harsh reality of the real world. :-)

Some real world: 1954, the first visit to Camp Owada in Japan, the
huge radio receiving site for the FEC Hq run jointly by the USA and
USAF. Seeing the "388" and "390" Collins receivers for the first
time...able to tune in within 1 KHz on an analog dial (the 390 series
had a digital indicator but it was mechanical since the tuning was
ALL analog). Remarkable stuff, I admit.

But "synthesized?" No. Far from it. All heterodyning on the analog
level. Not a PLL, not a Fractional-N, not a DDS in any of them.

He wasn't alone. B&W came out with their 6100 transmitter and it was a flop.
The synthesizer feature in it was neat but nobody wanted to pay $700 for one
when they could have a Collins or Drake for the same or less.

Straight out of the 1950s ham catalogs bub . . all of it.

There are "experts" whose entire experience is leafing through
catalogs. Then there are the few "drudges" (like myself) who've
gotten our hands dirty doing the design and testing of synthesizers.

The A4 served me well into the early 1980s. The 75S-3B and Drake R4B
were just as accurate as the A4. I didn't own or need a synthesized
xcvr "to stay within the bands" until I bought a used Icom 2M mobile
FM rig around 1988.

Yup.

What? No "inventiveness" or "innovation" that all right-thinking hams
are supposed to have? Kellie actually bought a ready-made VHF HT
and "went channel?!?!?" :-)

"Real hams" (PCTA extras) shouldn't soil their whatevers going up
above 30 MHz! Tsk. [not even if they wanted to work Frenchmen
out of band on 6]

And the only reason that thing was synthesized is that it was cheaper than
buying lots of xtals.

So, you still think that "frequency synthesizers" began with banks of
quartz crystals in oscillators heterodyned to produce many frequencies?

The civilian avionics industry was a step ahead of hams in that regard,
perhaps the first to have light transceivers for small civilian aircraft
using the international VHF civil aviation bands.

My 1976 vintage HW-2036 was Heath's synthesizer replacement for the HW-202,
which used crystals.

Dredge up some of the results of the 1950s FMTs to really drive the
point home.

Back about 1979 I had a BC-348 and BC-221 in good shape. Just for the heck of
it I I tried 'em out in the FMT. Error on each band was better than your 200
Hz.

Tsk. You should contribute your knowledge and expertise to NIST.
Show them how good you are. Atomic standards are nothing to
one who can tweak a '221. :-)

[talk about "spin resonance" at the molecular level... :-) ]