I agree. Bob, you are wrong about "AM".
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using
"AM". It is an authorized mode within the
amateur radio rules and regulations! In addition,
Bob, "AM" is not "Inconsiderate". "Inconsiderate"
is about "Operators", not a "Mode", who intentionally
interfere with amateur communications and who ignore
others.

As for your comment on "CW", I agree that
has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of
"AM" other than spectrum space.

I've been in the amateur radio community for over
35 years and enjoy "ALL" the modes the
FCC has authorized us to use.

Bob, there is more to amateur radio than "SSB".
"AM" is "F U N", as amateur radio is so why not
give it a try? You have nothing, absolutely nothing,
to loose. Who knows, you might even enjoy it
from time to time.

73's

Michael
DA1TNJ / WB8TNJ

" wrote in message
news:0XXrb.121532$ao4.378226@attbi_s51...
Bob: I think you are wrong here. AM at the top of 10m hurts nobody. AM on
160 hurts nobody. proper AM operation on 80 and even 40 does not interfere
with many (time of day, power and other considerations are important
obviously.) Your CW comment has very little do with this issue. If it
makes
you feel better, substitute PSK for CW -- low power, very narrow
bandwidth.
Shall we outlaw SSB, AM, RTTY, and CW?

Is there a good reason why we must use the highest and newest technology
at
all times?

I admit that I am prejudiced -- I still make palladium prints and think
hypo
smells excellent.. I guess the same applies to my radio activities, too.

Paul


"Bob Stein" wrote in message
...
Paul Clay wrote:
Bob Stein wrote:


Running AM is fun, but you don't get the 'full effect' unless it
smells
funny and once in a while catches fire.

"Real radios glow in the dark"

Dan/W4NTI

"Paul Clay" wrote in message
...


Do any of the solid state rigs from the mid-80s to present put out a
good AM signal? If so, which ones? Is the conventional wisdom true
that only by resurrecting a boatanchor tube transmitter can an
operator
get a nice sounding AM signal?

Thanks!




It may be fun, but it is also inconsiderate unless on a little used
band. It takes up at least twice the spectrum of an SSB signal, and
possibly more - hardly necessary given crowded band conditions. Not
to
mention the off-frequency heterodynes.

Just two cents worth from an old timer (licensed for nearly 65 years)
and brought up on AM.

Bob, W6NBI



I agree that it's important to be considerate, Bob. But even today, I
think
there's still room for playing around with AM, especially if one is
carefull
about the time of operation, the amount of power used (I'm planning on
using 40
watts output or so) and radiating a good signal. No question that SSB
uses less
spectrum for voice communications, but, if one is willing to forgo the
enjoyment
(dare I say fun) of operating phone, one could conserve even more
spectrum by
operating CW exclusively. Obviously there's a trade-off involved
(between the
extra "utility", broadly defined, of higher fidelity signals and the
extra,
double as you say, bandwidth consumed), but, so long as operators
exhibit good
judgment and courtesy, I think the community's enjoyment of the hobby
is
maximized by giving people the choice of operating AM.

- Paul, N6LQ





Paul, I don't understand this "higher fidelity" hype. Amateur radio is
about communications, not high fidelity. Of course, AM is not the only
mode that is using excess spectrum. I understand that there are
sidebanders who are cluttering up the bands with their wideband signals,
although I have to admit that I have never heard them because I do not
listen much. But apparently Riley Hollingsworth has and has issued
warnings about such operation.

CW obviously takes less spectrum, but let's face it, CW is dead. The
times, they are a'changin'.

Frankly, at the risk of incurring flames, I would like to see AM
outlawed on the HF bands, just as spark was outlawed even before my
time. On the other hand, I firmly believe that ham radio is a dying
hobby, vis-a-vis computers, so it won't make any difference in the long
run.

Nice to have a civilized discussion.

Bob, W6NBI

--
Remove spam-suppression X from my address

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:20:58 -0800, Bob Stein
wrote:







It may be fun, but it is also inconsiderate unless on a little used
band. It takes up at least twice the spectrum of an SSB signal, and
possibly more - hardly necessary given crowded band conditions. Not to
mention the off-frequency heterodynes.

Maybe so, but in my part of the country, there's a group that gets up
at 5 o'clock in the morning to run AM on 75 meters, and their fat
signals do little harm. Good to hear the old timers keeping alive some
of our ham heritage.

Bob
k5qwg


Just two cents worth from an old timer (licensed for nearly 65 years)
and brought up on AM.

Bob, W6NBI

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:20:58 -0800, Bob Stein
wrote:







It may be fun, but it is also inconsiderate unless on a little used
band. It takes up at least twice the spectrum of an SSB signal, and
possibly more - hardly necessary given crowded band conditions. Not to
mention the off-frequency heterodynes.

Maybe so, but in my part of the country, there's a group that gets up
at 5 o'clock in the morning to run AM on 75 meters, and their fat
signals do little harm. Good to hear the old timers keeping alive some
of our ham heritage.

Bob
k5qwg


Just two cents worth from an old timer (licensed for nearly 65 years)
and brought up on AM.

Bob, W6NBI

I thought the question was about what kind of rig is usable for AM. I do
not us AM but I do listen at times to some locals, and is good to see many
modes still used. My Icom 765 should work for AM, and some day I might try
it just to say HI to the group. There is plenty of room on the bands for
their use.


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:20:58 -0800, Bob Stein
wrote:







It may be fun, but it is also inconsiderate unless on a little used
band. It takes up at least twice the spectrum of an SSB signal, and
possibly more - hardly necessary given crowded band conditions. Not to
mention the off-frequency heterodynes.

Maybe so, but in my part of the country, there's a group that gets up
at 5 o'clock in the morning to run AM on 75 meters, and their fat
signals do little harm. Good to hear the old timers keeping alive some
of our ham heritage.

Bob
k5qwg


Just two cents worth from an old timer (licensed for nearly 65 years)
and brought up on AM.

Bob, W6NBI

I thought the question was about what kind of rig is usable for AM. I do
not us AM but I do listen at times to some locals, and is good to see many
modes still used. My Icom 765 should work for AM, and some day I might try
it just to say HI to the group. There is plenty of room on the bands for
their use.


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:20:58 -0800, Bob Stein
wrote:







It may be fun, but it is also inconsiderate unless on a little used
band. It takes up at least twice the spectrum of an SSB signal, and
possibly more - hardly necessary given crowded band conditions. Not to
mention the off-frequency heterodynes.

Maybe so, but in my part of the country, there's a group that gets up
at 5 o'clock in the morning to run AM on 75 meters, and their fat
signals do little harm. Good to hear the old timers keeping alive some
of our ham heritage.

Bob
k5qwg


Just two cents worth from an old timer (licensed for nearly 65 years)
and brought up on AM.

Bob, W6NBI

Bob Stein wrote:


Paul, I don't understand this "higher fidelity" hype. Amateur radio is
about communications, not high fidelity. Of course, AM is not the only
mode that is using excess spectrum. I understand that there are
sidebanders who are cluttering up the bands with their wideband signals,
although I have to admit that I have never heard them because I do not
listen much. But apparently Riley Hollingsworth has and has issued
warnings about such operation.

I hear you, Bob. Still, I think a reasonable argument can be made that words are but
a part (admittedly, the largest part, by far) of communicating, that contacts are
enhanced when the communicators voices are received as they would be face-to-face.
I'm just getting back into ham radio after being out of it, essentially, since the
late 70s. So I'm not really aware of any increased popularity of AM being due to its
greater audio fidelity. My guess is that any increased interest in AM these days has
as much, if not more, to do with the nostalgia factor than higher fidelity audio.
Even though SSB was firmly established when I got started in ham radio in the late
60s, AM was still in use enough for me to have some exposure to it. Rightly or
wrongly, I kind of associate it with the "good ole days" which, for me, meant the
days when people were still amazed at being able to communicate over long distances
without wires with a community of people who were friendly and often very, very radio
savvy.

CW obviously takes less spectrum, but let's face it, CW is dead. The
times, they are a'changin'.

Wow, now there's a topic. I wouldn't say CW is dead, but I would say it's a lot less
popular than it used to be. I agree the times are changing. I hear expletives and
exchanges on the air these days that I never (or virtually never) heard there 30
years ago. My impression is that the percentage of operators these days with a firm
technical grasp of radio is significantly less than it was then. For better or
worse, I'll let you and others decide, ham radio today seems to work and sound to me
a lot more like CB radio did back then (and probably still does today).


Frankly, at the risk of incurring flames, I would like to see AM
outlawed on the HF bands, just as spark was outlawed even before my
time. On the other hand, I firmly believe that ham radio is a dying
hobby, vis-a-vis computers, so it won't make any difference in the long run.

You'll get no flame from me. I understand your point of view and at some point may
end up agreeing with it. I just don't think banning AM at this time is necessary or
desirable. As to ham radio dying, it depends on what you mean by "dying". I agree
with you that many people will end up experimenting with and communicate using
computers who in the past would have gone into ham radio. And, I'll venture to guess
that of the pool of "potentials" who end up pursuing one of the two hobbies
exclusively, the larger group will go into computers (if we're lucky, that group will
include all of the inconsiderate rubes, not all of whom are CB-type appliance
operators, that one seems to encounter on the airwaves with greater and greater
frequency - no pun intended - these days. But, I don't think this necessarily
results in the death of ham radio. I think that there will always be enough people
interested in the concept and application of radio, communicating without any kind of
physical connection, for the hobby to remain alive. My recent introduction to the
Elecraft community of kit builders and radio operators gives me much hope in this
regard. But, of course, I could be wrong.


Nice to have a civilized discussion.

I agree.

73s,
Paul, N6LQ

Bob Stein wrote:


Paul, I don't understand this "higher fidelity" hype. Amateur radio is
about communications, not high fidelity. Of course, AM is not the only
mode that is using excess spectrum. I understand that there are
sidebanders who are cluttering up the bands with their wideband signals,
although I have to admit that I have never heard them because I do not
listen much. But apparently Riley Hollingsworth has and has issued
warnings about such operation.

I hear you, Bob. Still, I think a reasonable argument can be made that words are but
a part (admittedly, the largest part, by far) of communicating, that contacts are
enhanced when the communicators voices are received as they would be face-to-face.
I'm just getting back into ham radio after being out of it, essentially, since the
late 70s. So I'm not really aware of any increased popularity of AM being due to its
greater audio fidelity. My guess is that any increased interest in AM these days has
as much, if not more, to do with the nostalgia factor than higher fidelity audio.
Even though SSB was firmly established when I got started in ham radio in the late
60s, AM was still in use enough for me to have some exposure to it. Rightly or
wrongly, I kind of associate it with the "good ole days" which, for me, meant the
days when people were still amazed at being able to communicate over long distances
without wires with a community of people who were friendly and often very, very radio
savvy.

CW obviously takes less spectrum, but let's face it, CW is dead. The
times, they are a'changin'.

Wow, now there's a topic. I wouldn't say CW is dead, but I would say it's a lot less
popular than it used to be. I agree the times are changing. I hear expletives and
exchanges on the air these days that I never (or virtually never) heard there 30
years ago. My impression is that the percentage of operators these days with a firm
technical grasp of radio is significantly less than it was then. For better or
worse, I'll let you and others decide, ham radio today seems to work and sound to me
a lot more like CB radio did back then (and probably still does today).


Frankly, at the risk of incurring flames, I would like to see AM
outlawed on the HF bands, just as spark was outlawed even before my
time. On the other hand, I firmly believe that ham radio is a dying
hobby, vis-a-vis computers, so it won't make any difference in the long run.

You'll get no flame from me. I understand your point of view and at some point may
end up agreeing with it. I just don't think banning AM at this time is necessary or
desirable. As to ham radio dying, it depends on what you mean by "dying". I agree
with you that many people will end up experimenting with and communicate using
computers who in the past would have gone into ham radio. And, I'll venture to guess
that of the pool of "potentials" who end up pursuing one of the two hobbies
exclusively, the larger group will go into computers (if we're lucky, that group will
include all of the inconsiderate rubes, not all of whom are CB-type appliance
operators, that one seems to encounter on the airwaves with greater and greater
frequency - no pun intended - these days. But, I don't think this necessarily
results in the death of ham radio. I think that there will always be enough people
interested in the concept and application of radio, communicating without any kind of
physical connection, for the hobby to remain alive. My recent introduction to the
Elecraft community of kit builders and radio operators gives me much hope in this
regard. But, of course, I could be wrong.


Nice to have a civilized discussion.

I agree.

73s,
Paul, N6LQ

Michael Waldrop wrote:

An inexpensive solid state rig for "AM" use
is the Yaesu FT-757GX or GX II. There
are a number of them around for about
$300.00 without the power supply (FD-700/757
heavy duty power supply). Any 13.5 VDC 20amp
power supply will work with this rig and the power
supplies, FD-700/757, are cheap as well. If you
don't mind the size and weight there are a number
of other trasmitters, ie Hallicrafter HT-32/A,
HT-37, Heathkit DX-40, DX-60, DX-100
etc that will give you excellent "AM" results. The latter
rigs would need an outboard receiver capable of "AM",
not zero beating an "AM" signal although that
can be done. The HT-32A is an excellent "AM"
transmitter, I used one for years before selling it
because of shipping weight and desk space.


I have an Icom R-75 receiver that I plan on using. I like the idea of going
with an old Heathkit because of their relatively small size, simplicity, and,
yes, a bit of the nostalgia factor. But I've noticed that some of those units
in good condition are going for almost $100 (more, if they've got a VFO, which
I would have to have). I was surfing the net and saw a used Icom 735, which
would interface very nicely with my R-75 (doesn't the 735 come with ICOM's CI-V
equipment link?), for $250; yes, that's more money, but then I get FM
capability, a built-in backup receiver, etc.

Michael Waldrop wrote:

An inexpensive solid state rig for "AM" use
is the Yaesu FT-757GX or GX II. There
are a number of them around for about
$300.00 without the power supply (FD-700/757
heavy duty power supply). Any 13.5 VDC 20amp
power supply will work with this rig and the power
supplies, FD-700/757, are cheap as well. If you
don't mind the size and weight there are a number
of other trasmitters, ie Hallicrafter HT-32/A,
HT-37, Heathkit DX-40, DX-60, DX-100
etc that will give you excellent "AM" results. The latter
rigs would need an outboard receiver capable of "AM",
not zero beating an "AM" signal although that
can be done. The HT-32A is an excellent "AM"
transmitter, I used one for years before selling it
because of shipping weight and desk space.


I have an Icom R-75 receiver that I plan on using. I like the idea of going
with an old Heathkit because of their relatively small size, simplicity, and,
yes, a bit of the nostalgia factor. But I've noticed that some of those units
in good condition are going for almost $100 (more, if they've got a VFO, which
I would have to have). I was surfing the net and saw a used Icom 735, which
would interface very nicely with my R-75 (doesn't the 735 come with ICOM's CI-V
equipment link?), for $250; yes, that's more money, but then I get FM
capability, a built-in backup receiver, etc.

In short....
No
Yes
YMMV
....Dave

"Paul Clay" wrote in message
...
Do any of the solid state rigs from the mid-80s to present put out a
good AM signal? If so, which ones? Is the conventional wisdom true
that only by resurrecting a boatanchor tube transmitter can an operator
get a nice sounding AM signal?

Thanks!