Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"gb" ) writes: I see you used a 9 MHz IF. Any particular reason that you used separate (LO) oscillators for each band (rather than a single oscillator with switchable crystals) ? Surely because it works out to be simpler. People often make the mistake that extra circuitry is bad because it complicates things, but the reality is often that extra circuitry simplifies things. Back in the days of tubes, their bulk and filament current (or slow startup if you switch the filament) meant that one did give thought before adding another tube. It probably was simpler to switch crystals than switch oscillators, and compared to the cost of tubes and sockets, the switch was relatively cheap. Once transistors came along, their size, low current and instant on meant the game changed. If adding another transistor in an IF stage meant that all the stages were running at a lower level, better to do. It added little to the cost, and pretty much nothing to the current drain. If you switch crystals, you limit layout. You need that switch near the crystals (and in some cases may need two poles per position), or you need to use relays (I've seen it done in mods to tube equipment) or diode switches. Those diodes can often cause some problems, depending on choice and useage. Switching crystal oscillators means none of this applies, and the cost of the transistor and passive components is nothing compared to the cost of the crystal. This is a theme of some of Hayward's work. Various times, he's described transceivers, and not only is he using separate IF strips for receive and transmit, but he's got a separate IF filter for each function. His reasoning is that it makes the chain cleaner by not having the switching. Given the cost of commercial filters, I'm not sure that's the best choice, but certainly there is a tradeoff. If adding a few dollars for an extra RF stage rather than switching tuned circuits requires a cheaper switch, or makes it easier to do the switching, it may be worth spending those few dollars rather than fuss too much. Jerry Vogt (I"ve spelled that wrong) who seemed to be connected with Hamtronics (at least, he wrote about their stuff for Ham Radio magazine) pointed out in an article about preamps that a manufacturer needs to cut costs. They skimp on parts because any single part saved is multiplied by the number of units built. But a hobbyist building a single unit doesn't have that multiplier. If they toss in an extra bypass capacitor here, or build each stage into a metal box for shielding, the cost is right there. They don't have to worry about 10,000 more capacitors, or whatever. Michael VE2BVW |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Homebrew SRIII? ( Comparison of six portable radios) | Shortwave | |||
FA: Ugliest homebrew linear project EVER - Ebay ad, but ya gotta see this | Homebrew | |||
FA: Ugliest homebrew linear project EVER - Ebay ad, but ya gotta see this | Homebrew | |||
Dust off your homebrew rig this weekend | Policy | |||
need homebrew microphone ideas/help | Homebrew |