About Us

September 27th 04, 03:45 PM

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.

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!

. . . 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.

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.

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.

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. I sed "I could
comfortably transmit CW within 200Hz or subband edge with my Collins
75A4" and know I was legal. 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. That's a whole different ballgame from taking the
time to carefully diddle a bunch of knobs in a FMT. The proper
comparison in your context would be between the BC-348 without the
BC-221 and the A4 under real operating condx. Or get into a FMT with
the 75S-3B vs. the BC-348/BC-221.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New ARRL Proposal	N2EY	Policy	331	March 4th 04 12:02 AM
1960's incentive licensing proposal	N2EY	Policy	3	January 24th 04 03:46 PM
My restructuring proposal	Jason Hsu	Policy	0	January 20th 04 06:24 PM
Why You Don't Like Warmed Over Incentive Licensing	Arf! Arf!	General	0	January 11th 04 09:09 PM
Why You Don't Like Warmed Over Incentive Licensing	N2EY	Policy	4	January 6th 04 02:01 PM

Menu

About Us