Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
gareth wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message "Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering. Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique from the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the norm today? Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... gareth wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message "Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering. Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique from the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the norm today? Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it? No, it isn't. I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I do not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will will be likely to bin the lot. I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow progress in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now considering the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X. One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it is that single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the moment. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
gareth wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique from the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the norm today? Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it? No, it isn't. I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I do not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will will be likely to bin the lot. I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow progress in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now considering the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X. One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it is that single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the moment. Yes, and you would like to understand how that device works in terms of modern nyquist filter theory, correct? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... gareth wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique from the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the norm today? Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it? No, it isn't. I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I do not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will will be likely to bin the lot. I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow progress in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now considering the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X. One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it is that single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the moment. Yes, and you would like to understand how that device works in terms of modern nyquist filter theory, correct? Harry Nyquist is far from modern, I have somewhere an essay of his from 1924, something along the lines of, "Certain topics in telegraph theory" What I was after was the standard way of setting up the phasing together with the BFO for eliminating an interfering carrier that was equally spaced from the BFO frequency on the other side. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"gareth" wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... gareth wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique from the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the norm today? Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it? No, it isn't. I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I do not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will will be likely to bin the lot. I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow progress in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now considering the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X. One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it is that single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the moment. Yes, and you would like to understand how that device works in terms of modern nyquist filter theory, correct? Harry Nyquist is far from modern, I have somewhere an essay of his from 1924, something along the lines of, "Certain topics in telegraph theory" What I was after was the standard way of setting up the phasing together with the BFO for eliminating an interfering carrier that was equally spaced from the BFO frequency on the other side. Once you have tuned the radio (VFO) to get the wanted signal at the centre of the crystal passband, you can set the BFO to taste and altering the phasing of the crystal will not alter the IF frequency of the wanted signal so won't alter the beat note. If the phasing shifts the crystal pass band significantly (which it probably won't) you might need to retune the radio (VFO) slightly and then the beat note would alter so you might have to adjust the BFO to taste again. But the BFO won't alter where the signal is in the passband, and the crystal phasing won't alter the beat note when it is adjusted. Only changing the VFO could do that. -- Percy Picacity |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
... Once you have tuned the radio (VFO) to get the wanted signal at the centre of the crystal passband, There is no passband, it is a single sharp peak. you can set the BFO to taste and altering the phasing of the crystal will not alter the IF frequency of the wanted signal so won't alter the beat note. If the phasing shifts the crystal pass band significantly (which it probably won't) you might need to retune the radio (VFO) slightly and then the beat note would alter so you might have to adjust the BFO to taste again. But the BFO won't alter where the signal is in the passband, and the crystal phasing won't alter the beat note when it is adjusted. Only changing the VFO could do that. Sorry OM, but you're way off topic. A single-Xtal series resonant XTal has a sharp peak, and then a deep null at the parallel resonant frequency, and the phasing control adjusts the position of the null. My assumption, which is where I came in, is that the BFO would be centred between the two frequencies so that an interfering signal at the audio image frequency would be nullified. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "gareth" wrote in message ... A single-Xtal series resonant XTal has a sharp peak, and then a deep null at the parallel resonant frequency, and the phasing control adjusts the position of the null. My assumption, which is where I came in, is that the BFO would be centred between the two frequencies so that an interfering signal at the audio image frequency would be nullified. You might choose to do this - particularly if, understandably, you find interference at the same beat frequency makes copy of the wanted signal more difficult. This approach, though, has no obvious merit over *normal procedure and has the distinct disadvantage of forcing you to listen to audio at one half the difference between the wanted and unwanted signals. *peak the wanted signal, adjust the BFO to give the optimum audio frequency while adjusting phasing for maximum readability. PA |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"gareth" wrote: "Percy Picacity" wrote in message ... Once you have tuned the radio (VFO) to get the wanted signal at the centre of the crystal passband, There is no passband, it is a single sharp peak. Sorry that is a passband, unless it is an ideal infinitely narrow filter, in which case you would not be able to hear the morse characters! you can set the BFO to taste and altering the phasing of the crystal will not alter the IF frequency of the wanted signal so won't alter the beat note. If the phasing shifts the crystal pass band significantly (which it probably won't) you might need to retune the radio (VFO) slightly and then the beat note would alter so you might have to adjust the BFO to taste again. But the BFO won't alter where the signal is in the passband, and the crystal phasing won't alter the beat note when it is adjusted. Only changing the VFO could do that. Sorry OM, but you're way off topic. A single-Xtal series resonant XTal has a sharp peak, and then a deep null at the parallel resonant frequency, and the phasing control adjusts the position of the null. My assumption, which is where I came in, is that the BFO would be centred between the two frequencies so that an interfering signal at the audio image frequency would be nullified. The crystal nulls the signal that *leads to* the audio image, not the audio image itself. The only effect of putting the BFO half way between the wanted and unwanted signal is to give them the same beat note and therefore make them harder to distinguish. If the BFO is elsewhere they will have different pitches. But the position of the BFO frequency has no effect on the the crystal nulling the unwanted signal. If you actually wanted to null the audio image (or any other audio frequency) you would need to use DSP. -- Percy Picacity |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
single rebate date , single recommended price , single recommended price | Dx | |||
Phasing Verticals | Antenna | |||
DRM signal and reception compared to analogue .... | Shortwave | |||
Radio Shack PRO-97 No reception of audio signal | Scanner | |||
Single frequency (channel) TRF for AM/BCB reception? Candidate Radios of Yesteryear? | Shortwave |