RadioBanter - View Single Post

April 22nd 05, 05:12 PM

From: on Thurs,Apr 21 2005 2:35 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)

Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain
should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception

...and for RTTY.

etc., :-)

Oh my how the LITERALISTS hop in with FALSE "corrections" in
order to attempt making nasty to "opponents."

Notice the little smiley I originally wrote? You two didn't?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk... :-)

With maximum gain, almost ANYTHING will be "heard" on a
radio with NO signals present. If someone WANTS to hear
morse, then, listening to noise, they eventually will. :-)

Note: Check one of Cecil Moore's early postings about
how he (in humor) said he "could hear morse from his
car tires when traveling on rough highways." :-)

Now let's turn back to the good old ARC-5 Command
receivers...which DID have BFOs and thus morse code
beeping capability in the audio output. Look again at
their circuitry. See any "A.F.gain" control in there?
What, couldn't find it? You couldn't, the thousands of
them were NEVER made with any "A.F. gain" or "volume"
control! Amazing!

Only ONE "volume" control, better known as an "R.F.gain"
that changed input amplifier bias. That even included
the original "Q-Fiver," the LF band version of the ARC-5
receiver.

Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment.
While
we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an
audio
TU, there are other ways.

While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or product
detector
in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It was also
the
method used by USG agencies at HF.

Oh, dear, here comes the Department of State, equating
amateur radio with "U.S. Government agencies!" :-)

Tsk, tsk, then whatever you TWO know suddenly becomes
what "ALL hams" do!! Marvelous.

Commercial and Government users of TTY reception
NORMALLY use "converters" outboard of the receivers.
Those are specifically tailored to detect the FSK
(Frequency-Shift Keying) that is COMMON in RTTY
communications. Those converters (in the generic
sense, NOT as "what hams know" as "converters" to
down-frequency-convert VHF or UHF to HF) usually
have (in older days) some mild analog signal
processing to both clean up the demodulated TTY
Mark and Space for less distortion and to limit
interfering signal amplitude in between Mark and
Space as well as above and below them.

One of the arguments for keeping some sort of code test is that
hams do, indeed, use Morse Code. And on HF, they use it *a lot*.

Hams use morse code to sell real estate? :-)

Now whether that constitutes enough reason to keep the test is
purely a matter of opinion - but it *is* a reason.

A vapid "reason" considering that the government
does NOT *REQUIRE* any class ham to specifically
USE morse code over and above other OPTIONAL modes.

As Hans Brakob pointed out in another thread, ANY
U.S. class radio amateur CAN use morse code...but
they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.

As we have often seen, Len constantly minimizes and ignores the
role Morse Code plays and has played in radio communication.

Oh, oh! Jimmie done said a WRONG THING there!

I've repeatedly pointed out that On-Off Keying, as
by morse code, was THE ONLY METHOD OF USING EARLY
RADIO AS A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM!

As the ONLY way to communicate by early radio, I'd
say - and HAVE SAID - that the ONLY way is IT. As
such, it would intrinsically BE the "great part" of
early radio! :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I don't see (and hardly anyone else
"can see") Jimmie maximizing the early SPARK
transmissions as having been a "role" as great as
morse code...:-)

So it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode..

Poor baby...can't understand simple HUMOR, can you?
You MUST be the LITERALIST, taking EVERYTHING EXACTLY
as its written!! No possibility of exaggeration as an
essential part of humor. To you two, all things ham
are SERIOUS BUSINESS (even if amateur means not to gain
monetarily from the activity). :-)

Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out
his error, or even acknowledging it.

Tsk, tsk, I "acknowledge" only that you wrote what you
THOUGHT was a "correction." It was NOT a "correction."
The "correction" (as it was portrayed with an example
of the original "Q-Fiver" out of an LF Command Set
receiver) was WRONG. There is NO "A.F.gain" on any of
those receivers. With NO such control it is impossible
to "set gain" of it. :-)

What "thanks" does Jimmie Noserve "deserve" in here?

Come back when you've learned to get along with non-
morsemen, general.