| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
September 27th 04, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: I simply tweaked the 100Khz xtal oscillator to get it dead on against WWV on several freqs and took it from there. The out-of-the-box Collins PTO . . . . Straight out of the 1950s ham catalogs bub . . all of it. Point is, even those who couldn't afford Drake or Collins could get almost as close to a band or subband edge - using '50s technology. 'Nother whole discussion but I'll pass this time. It's a fact. So Len's claim of needing "modern frequency synthesizers" is utterly bogus. Also his claim that it was "all about staking territory" or some such nonsense. False. Without any facts to back it up. His blather reminds me of my days out in school yard during recess arguing with "the guys". ?? It's clear that he doesn't really understand what amateur HF operation is/was like at all, nor amateur radio economics, nor even what really happened historically. OBVIOUSLY! Agreed. Quick topic switch: After 1929 and before 1951, there were *no* subbands-by-license-class in US amateur radio. There *were* mode limitations, of course. Until 1968, the only subbands-by-license-class in US amateur radio were the "Novice bands" and the limits on Techs and Novices on 2 meters. (Techs had only 145-147 for quite a while). The subbands-by-license-class thing was suggested by numerous (a least 6, but not the ARRL) petitioners in 1964, who saw it as a better alternative than simply closing off certain bands to Generals and Conditionals. FCC liked the idea so much it became part of their 1965 incentive licensing plan. Which plan was argued for another year or two and then became the final 1967-68-69 changes. . . . the A4. I didn't own or need a synthesized xcvr "to stay within the bands" until I bought a used Icom 2M mobile FM rig around 1988. Yup. And the only reason that thing was synthesized is that it was cheaper than buying lots of xtals. Nah, not today or in 1988 for that matter, there's a bunch more valid reasons for using current-tech synthesized VHF/UHF FM rigs than just getting rid of the old xtal packs. It's all in the plethora of tricks 2M mobile rigs do today which go far beyond just their "synthetic" frequency generation circuitry. Wasn't talking about today. Size per watt, (my FT-1500M cranks 50W out of a package about the size of a couple packs of smokes), computer control, both internally and computer programmable, memories, the availability of all the PL & DTMF tones, odd splits, band scanning, wideband receivers, digital displays, etc. Agree 100%. The '70s boat anchor 2M rigs like the Heath 2036 certainly did get rid of the xtal packs which was their Big Thing but that's about all they did vs. the xtal controlled rigs of the 1960s. That was enough. The cost of xtals in those days was enough that once you got beyond a coupla pairs it was cheaper to get a '2036 or other synth rig. Fun fact: The HW-2036 was PLL synthesized. The popular Clegg FM-27B was heterodyne synthesized. The Clegg's system was crystal intensive, of course, but electrically quite simple by comparison, and since the xtal price was part of the rig price you paid up front and were done. Plus with synthesized VHF/UHF you didn't have to worry about running out of sockets in the rig when new repeaters got on the air. Or traveling to an area where different freqs were in use. Or finding an open simplex spot, being able to listen on the input or transmit on the output, or a dozen other tricks. Etc. Point is, the move to frequency synthesis in mainstream ham radio was driven by VHF FM repeaters and economics. Not by other services and certainly not by incentive licensing and subbands-by-license class. Dredge up some of the results of the 1950s FMTs to really drive the point home. Back about 1979 I had a BC-348 and BC-221 in good shape. Just for the heck of it I I tried 'em out in the FMT. Error on each band was better than your 200 Hz. I'm not talking abt using my boat anchors in FMTs. Nor I. The example was just to show what could be done with '40s technology that was available cheap in the '60s and later. I sed "I could comfortably transmit CW within 200Hz or subband edge with my Collins 75A4" and know I was legal. bwaahaahaaa As in being able to quickly swish within 200 hz of a band edge in the heat of a contest pileup and know I wasn't out of band. Yup. That's a whole different ballgame from taking the time to carefully diddle a bunch of knobs in a FMT. Of course. The proper comparison in your context would be between the BC-348 without the BC-221 and the A4 under real operating condx. HAW! The unaided 348 might be good for 5 kHz on 80 meters on a good day, warmed up and recently calibrated. I don't want to think about 20 meters... Or get into a FMT with the 75S-3B vs. the BC-348/BC-221. The BC-348/BC-221 would win, unless the S3 had some help beyond its internal calibrator. That's assuming a good '221 and an op who knows how to use it. The '348's accuracy isn't part of the equation in an FMT setup; it's all on the '221. (I prefer the LM - sold my BC-221 years ago. Must be the Navy vintage or something.) After all, the S3 is a receiver, not a freqmeter. But that's not the issue. The main point is simply that hams *did not* need frequency-synthesized rigs to stay within their bands and subbands back in 1968 - or 1978, or 1988, or 1998. Or even in 2004. Another of Len's claims revealed as being unsupported by fact. Now before somebody gets all excited about 60 meters... 1) It's not a band - it's 5 spot frequencies 2) It wasn't available to hams back in the '60s, or even the '90s. 3) (The biggie) The digital readouts on modern ham rigs are not as useful as some might think in setting to 60 meter channels because different frequency description systems are used. Ham SSB gear universally reads out the suppressed-carrier frequency - been that way since A4 days. But the channels are specified by their *center* frequency, not suppressed carrier, so you have to mentally add an offset to the indicated frequency on a ham rig to be on-channel on 60 meters. How much of an offset? About 1400 Hz - give or take. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
| 1960's incentive licensing proposal | Policy | |||
| My restructuring proposal | Policy | |||
| Why You Don't Like Warmed Over Incentive Licensing | General | |||
| Why You Don't Like Warmed Over Incentive Licensing | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
