In article ,
"gareth" wrote:

"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gareth" wrote:
"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gareth" wrote:
But the fact remains that for those who understand the use of a
crystal
phasing control in pre-1950
receivers that the questions as posed above are as completely
informative
as
is necessary.
And you have had your answer - the tuning of the BFO has no effect on
the phasing control and vice versa. Do you not believe the answer?
Stating the bleeding obvious which we all knew any way is about as useful
and as relevant as quoting Newton's laws of motion; for neither are an
appropriate
response to the query as originally put.
I refer you page 79 of the previously mentioned book.

Sorry, perhaps you could tell us what the question was again. I thought
you were asking if there was an advantage to tuning the BFO half way
between the wanted and unwanted signals. There isn't.


There is. You get single signal reception for CW despite the wide bandwidth
of
a trnasformer-only IF strip.

You get the selectivity regardless of the BFO setting. Putting the BFO
half way just makes it *harder* to distinguish the two signals. The
advantage of the notch is if you *want* the BFO at that setting to give
a comfortable pitch and there *happens* to be an interfering signal just
in the wrong place (presumably one of many interfering signals in the IF
bandwidth) then the notch gives you a way of suppressing it. But you
don't *deliberately* tune the BFO to give you an interfering audio
image, you would do better tuning the BFO to where the interfering
signals were all a few kHz different. If there isn't a gap big enough
between interfering signals, *then* the notch helps get rid of the most
annoying one.

--

Percy Picacity