RadioBanter - View Single Post

September 27th 04, 11:33 PM

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

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.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

Nobody has, it's just a diversion away from the original nonsense about hams
needing rigs with synthesizers.

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.

Irrelevant to 99% of amateur HF operations. With a very few special exceptions
(like 60m) we're not required by law to be on any specific freq on HF. We *are*
required, and have long been required, to be within the band or subband. Len
can't seem to grasp that concept.

In fact, in almost all HF ham operations, good operators decide their QRG based
on non-interference, not any specific channel or spot frequency.

Analog VFOs are continuously variable. Making it possible for anyone
to select an *infinite* number of "increments" within a 300Hz
bandwidth much less your coarse 300 Khz wide example. And they do it
without generating any phase noise or other forms of crud synthesizers
toss out.

You mean synthesizers aren't perfect in every way?

Remember the HRO-500?

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.

As if that was somehow important.

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.

Well, I'm not one of 'em.

My FT-847, which is not much as ham xcvrs go, can be tuned in 1 Hz
increments vs. the "make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz
increments" thingey you cite above.

That *is* a nice rig. Did a good job on FD.

You obviously need to spend
considerable time leafing thru the ham catalogs to get up to speed on
the equipment we use before you spout off and continue to goose up
your "coefficient of ignornace" on the subject of ham radio in general
and the equipment we use.

Don't hold yer breath...

Again. Gets boring.

Maybe that's the point.

Then there are the few "drudges" (like myself) who've
gotten our hands dirty doing the design and testing of synthesizers.

Then there are drudges like me who have ham licenses and and put
technoligies to work on the airwaves whilst all you're allowed to do
is bafflegab about 'em with your keyboard.

And there are drudges who can design and build a rig from top to bottom, power
supply to antenna, put it on the air and work the world with it on the ham
bands. Using a whole bunch of different modes and technologies. For which we
are called names and insulted here.

73 de Jim, N2EY