About Us

September 27th 04, 09:32 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

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