| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Any Good Solid State XCVR for AM?
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! |
There are lots of folks running the 'rice boxes'. I can attest by using the
following rigs to got results. Yaesu FT-101 series. Kenwood Twins Newer rigs such as the FT-1000MP does fine also, and the new Kenwood TS-2000 sound good. 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! |
There are lots of folks running the 'rice boxes'. I can attest by using the
following rigs to got results. Yaesu FT-101 series. Kenwood Twins Newer rigs such as the FT-1000MP does fine also, and the new Kenwood TS-2000 sound good. 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! |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net... There are lots of folks running the 'rice boxes'. I can attest by using the following rigs to got results. Yaesu FT-101 series. Kenwood Twins Newer rigs such as the FT-1000MP does fine also, and the new Kenwood TS-2000 sound good. Running AM is fun, but you don't get the 'full effect' unless it smells funny and once in a while catches fire. Or get a nice arc from the PA plates to the cage (or, occasionally, the operator.) :) |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net... There are lots of folks running the 'rice boxes'. I can attest by using the following rigs to got results. Yaesu FT-101 series. Kenwood Twins Newer rigs such as the FT-1000MP does fine also, and the new Kenwood TS-2000 sound good. Running AM is fun, but you don't get the 'full effect' unless it smells funny and once in a while catches fire. Or get a nice arc from the PA plates to the cage (or, occasionally, the operator.) :) |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
There are lots of folks running the 'rice boxes'. I can attest by using the following rigs to got results. Yaesu FT-101 series. Kenwood Twins Newer rigs such as the FT-1000MP does fine also, and the new Kenwood TS-2000 sound good. 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 -- Remove spam-suppression X from my address |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
There are lots of folks running the 'rice boxes'. I can attest by using the following rigs to got results. Yaesu FT-101 series. Kenwood Twins Newer rigs such as the FT-1000MP does fine also, and the new Kenwood TS-2000 sound good. 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 -- Remove spam-suppression X from my address |
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 |
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 |
"Bob Stein" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: There are lots of folks running the 'rice boxes'. I can attest by using the following rigs to got results. Yaesu FT-101 series. Kenwood Twins Newer rigs such as the FT-1000MP does fine also, and the new Kenwood TS-2000 sound good. 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 -- Remove spam-suppression X from my address Your arguement is invalid. Considering modern day receivers with DSP, notch filters, and crystal/DSP IF filters. You don't hear the other sideband, or the carrier.....if you know how to use them that is. Dan/W4NTI |
"Bob Stein" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: There are lots of folks running the 'rice boxes'. I can attest by using the following rigs to got results. Yaesu FT-101 series. Kenwood Twins Newer rigs such as the FT-1000MP does fine also, and the new Kenwood TS-2000 sound good. 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 -- Remove spam-suppression X from my address Your arguement is invalid. Considering modern day receivers with DSP, notch filters, and crystal/DSP IF filters. You don't hear the other sideband, or the carrier.....if you know how to use them that is. Dan/W4NTI |
"Paul Clay" wrote in message ... 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 Exactly correct. I operate AM on a limited basis. I also run less than the legal limit for AM all the time. I do not operate on 20 meters, nor do I operate on 75 after dark in the AM mode. I can't speak for others.' Dan/W4NTI |
"Paul Clay" wrote in message ... 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 Exactly correct. I operate AM on a limited basis. I also run less than the legal limit for AM all the time. I do not operate on 20 meters, nor do I operate on 75 after dark in the AM mode. I can't speak for others.' Dan/W4NTI |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. As for "Crowded bands", well that's been around for years and a few stations using "AM" won't be a problem. After all, "AM" was the original mode of voice long before "SSB" ever came around. That was not to mean that "SSB" is no more important that "AM", just to say "AM" still works and a lot of folks still use it. I have no problem with stations that want to operate "AM". So if you are looking for "AM" gear than charge on my friend, there's tons of it out there for the picking. 73's Mike DA1TNJ / WB8TNJ "Paul Clay" wrote in message ... 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 |
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. As for "Crowded bands", well that's been around for years and a few stations using "AM" won't be a problem. After all, "AM" was the original mode of voice long before "SSB" ever came around. That was not to mean that "SSB" is no more important that "AM", just to say "AM" still works and a lot of folks still use it. I have no problem with stations that want to operate "AM". So if you are looking for "AM" gear than charge on my friend, there's tons of it out there for the picking. 73's Mike DA1TNJ / WB8TNJ "Paul Clay" wrote in message ... 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 |
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 |
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! |
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! |
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:34:18 -0800, Paul Clay
wrote: 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. As far as Heathkits go, the DX-60 was a relatively simple am-cw transmitter. About 60 watts, screen modulated. The Johnson Ranger, with 75 watts, was plate modulated, and had much richer audio, although much more complexity. It sounded as strong as other AM rigs running hundreds of watts. A Heathkit DX-100, if you can handle the weight and size, would be ideal; plenty of power, no amp needed, and a built-in vfo. I have an Icom 735 -- never tried it on AM. It does have the ci-v link on the back. Rated at about 25 watts on AM. Not sure whether many people will be able to hear you at that level, though -- most of the AM'ers I hear on 75m are using amplifiers to cut through the static and hash. Try 3885 khz at about 5 a.m., any morning. A lot of these guys have several AM rigs sitting around, gathering dust, and you could probably pick one up for a song. Good luck... Bob k5qwg |
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:34:18 -0800, Paul Clay
wrote: 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. As far as Heathkits go, the DX-60 was a relatively simple am-cw transmitter. About 60 watts, screen modulated. The Johnson Ranger, with 75 watts, was plate modulated, and had much richer audio, although much more complexity. It sounded as strong as other AM rigs running hundreds of watts. A Heathkit DX-100, if you can handle the weight and size, would be ideal; plenty of power, no amp needed, and a built-in vfo. I have an Icom 735 -- never tried it on AM. It does have the ci-v link on the back. Rated at about 25 watts on AM. Not sure whether many people will be able to hear you at that level, though -- most of the AM'ers I hear on 75m are using amplifiers to cut through the static and hash. Try 3885 khz at about 5 a.m., any morning. A lot of these guys have several AM rigs sitting around, gathering dust, and you could probably pick one up for a song. Good luck... Bob k5qwg |
"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! Another example of a simple question where the threads stray so far off topic, he question isn't even addressed in the end. Paul, to answer your question: The FT101's sound very good with a D104 microphone. If you are looking for a good current solid state rig, the TS850 with the DSP100 and modulator feed is very hard to beat. Of course, these are my opinions only and others may disagree. Max |
"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! Another example of a simple question where the threads stray so far off topic, he question isn't even addressed in the end. Paul, to answer your question: The FT101's sound very good with a D104 microphone. If you are looking for a good current solid state rig, the TS850 with the DSP100 and modulator feed is very hard to beat. Of course, these are my opinions only and others may disagree. Max |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Paul Clay" wrote in message ... 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 Exactly correct. I operate AM on a limited basis. I also run less than the legal limit for AM all the time. I do not operate on 20 meters, nor do I operate on 75 after dark in the AM mode. I can't speak for others.' Dan/W4NTI Dan, Like you, I run AM at times, but I do it during the day when many ops are at work anyway. Usually it's on 7290 or 95. If someone tells me I am messing them up, I will yield immediately. After all, it's only a hobby and courtesy should be the order of the day---at least, that's what I was taught. 73 Jerry K4KWH |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Paul Clay" wrote in message ... 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 Exactly correct. I operate AM on a limited basis. I also run less than the legal limit for AM all the time. I do not operate on 20 meters, nor do I operate on 75 after dark in the AM mode. I can't speak for others.' Dan/W4NTI Dan, Like you, I run AM at times, but I do it during the day when many ops are at work anyway. Usually it's on 7290 or 95. If someone tells me I am messing them up, I will yield immediately. After all, it's only a hobby and courtesy should be the order of the day---at least, that's what I was taught. 73 Jerry K4KWH |
"Bob Stein" wrote in message ... snip 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. \ Bob, W6NBI Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Even with the wider bandwidth with AM, why should the AMers have to yield to SSB? The point is to be courteous to ALL oper- ators and if there is a signal too close to me, I just move. There still is plenty of room. Why are ops so "territorial"--they MUST operate on a certain frequency or just DIE! They get all bent out of shape if someone happens to be on "their" frequency. Why not just move away a few khz? I will move in a heartbeat--even if a rude op tells me to "hit the road" (ever heard that phrase?). It doesn't mean that much to me. The AM guys usually operate at the top end of 80, 40, and 10 Meters, leaving the rest of the band to the SSB folks. The point is, all ops have just as much right to operate as any other. AM is still legal, and many fellas love it. I only do so on occasion and chat with a few of my friends on 7290. I run 40 watts with an IC706; most of the time, however, I am on SSB. I do still miss that warm glow in the shack and the sound of the CLACK as the dynamotor kicks on my old mobile Lettine about 38 years ago. Jerry K4KWH -- Remove spam-suppression X from my address |
"Bob Stein" wrote in message ... snip 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. \ Bob, W6NBI Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Even with the wider bandwidth with AM, why should the AMers have to yield to SSB? The point is to be courteous to ALL oper- ators and if there is a signal too close to me, I just move. There still is plenty of room. Why are ops so "territorial"--they MUST operate on a certain frequency or just DIE! They get all bent out of shape if someone happens to be on "their" frequency. Why not just move away a few khz? I will move in a heartbeat--even if a rude op tells me to "hit the road" (ever heard that phrase?). It doesn't mean that much to me. The AM guys usually operate at the top end of 80, 40, and 10 Meters, leaving the rest of the band to the SSB folks. The point is, all ops have just as much right to operate as any other. AM is still legal, and many fellas love it. I only do so on occasion and chat with a few of my friends on 7290. I run 40 watts with an IC706; most of the time, however, I am on SSB. I do still miss that warm glow in the shack and the sound of the CLACK as the dynamotor kicks on my old mobile Lettine about 38 years ago. Jerry K4KWH -- Remove spam-suppression X from my address |
"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! Am surprised that none of the below posts mentioned the Icom 706 series! My IC706 (both of them) do excellent sounding AM and I have gotten quite a few compliments. 73 Jerry K4KWH |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com