RadioBanter - Lest We Forget

wrote:
From: on Thurs,Apr 21 2005 2:35 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO
on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code"
on "the bands." :-)

Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF*
gain should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception

...and for RTTY.

etc., :-)

Oh my how the LITERALISTS hop in with FALSE "corrections" in
order to attempt making nasty to "opponents."

No, Len, I just corrected your mistake. Deal with it.

Notice the little smiley I originally wrote? You two didn't?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk... :-)

You use so many smileys that they're meaningless noise.

With maximum gain, almost ANYTHING will be "heard" on a
radio with NO signals present. If someone WANTS to hear
morse, then, listening to noise, they eventually will. :-)

Just as predicted, you try to tapdance out of a mistake.

Note: Check one of Cecil Moore's early postings about
how he (in humor) said he "could hear morse from his
car tires when traveling on rough highways." :-)

You're not him.

Now let's turn back to the good old ARC-5 Command
receivers...which DID have BFOs and thus morse code
beeping capability in the audio output. Look again at
their circuitry. See any "A.F.gain" control in there?
What, couldn't find it? You couldn't, the thousands of
them were NEVER made with any "A.F. gain" or "volume"
control! Amazing!

I never said the BC-453 or any other "Command Set" had an AF
gain control, Len.

Only ONE "volume" control, better known as an "R.F.gain"
that changed input amplifier bias. That even included
the original "Q-Fiver," the LF band version of the ARC-5
receiver.

I traced the circuitry of one more than 35 years ago. I probably
know more about them than you do, Len.

I never said the BC-453 or any other "Command Set" had an AF
gain control.

Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and
equipment. While
we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and
then an audio TU, there are other ways.

While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or
product detector
in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It
was also the
method used by USG agencies at HF.

Oh, dear, here comes the Department of State, equating
amateur radio with "U.S. Government agencies!" :-)

Ever work at a US Govt. RTTY *receiving* setup, Len?

Tsk, tsk, then whatever you TWO know suddenly becomes
what "ALL hams" do!! Marvelous.

Who said that?

Commercial and Government users of TTY reception
NORMALLY use "converters" outboard of the receivers.
Those are specifically tailored to detect the FSK
(Frequency-Shift Keying) that is COMMON in RTTY
communications. Those converters (in the generic
sense, NOT as "what hams know" as "converters" to
down-frequency-convert VHF or UHF to HF) usually
have (in older days) some mild analog signal
processing to both clean up the demodulated TTY
Mark and Space for less distortion and to limit
interfering signal amplitude in between Mark and
Space as well as above and below them.

So do they demodulate audio signals or IF signals, Len?

Or don't you know?

One of the arguments for keeping some sort of code test is that
hams do, indeed, use Morse Code. And on HF, they use it *a
lot*.

Hams use morse code to sell real estate? :-)

Now whether that constitutes enough reason to keep the test is
purely a matter of opinion - but it *is* a reason.

A vapid "reason" considering that the government
does NOT *REQUIRE* any class ham to specifically
USE morse code over and above other OPTIONAL modes.

So what?

As Hans Brakob pointed out in another thread, ANY
U.S. class radio amateur CAN use morse code...but
they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.

So what?

Amateurs are not *required* to use any particular mode, frequency or
band - but they *are* tested on what modes, bands and frequencies they
are allowed to use.

As we have often seen, Len constantly minimizes and ignores the
role Morse Code plays and has played in radio communication.

Oh, oh! Jimmie done said a WRONG THING there!

Not me.

I've repeatedly pointed out that On-Off Keying, as
by morse code, was THE ONLY METHOD OF USING EARLY
RADIO AS A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM!

As a way of minimizing its use after the days of "EARLY RADIO"

And you do get upset when it is pointed out the Reginald
Fessenden was using voice radio communications as early as 1900,
and had established regular 2 way transatlantic *voice* communications
by November of 1906.

As the ONLY way to communicate by early radio, I'd
say - and HAVE SAID - that the ONLY way is IT. As
such, it would intrinsically BE the "great part" of
early radio! :-)

And I would say you're full of it ;-) ;-) ;-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I don't see (and hardly anyone else
"can see") Jimmie maximizing the early SPARK
transmissions as having been a "role" as great as
morse code...:-)

The spark era was actually very short in the history of
radio - by the mid-1920s it was almost gone.

So it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode..

Poor baby...can't understand simple HUMOR, can you?

Sure I can, Len. But your attempts at humor aren't funny.
They're just dumb.

You MUST be the LITERALIST, taking EVERYTHING EXACTLY
as its written!!

Putting a smiley at the end does not make a dumb statement funny.

No possibility of exaggeration as an
essential part of humor.

Here's a hint, Len: The *audience* decides what's funny and what
isn't.

To you two, all things ham
are SERIOUS BUSINESS (even if amateur means not to gain
monetarily from the activity). :-)

I don't take *you* seriously, Len.

I don't think anyone does ;-)

Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out
his error, or even acknowledging it.

Tsk, tsk, I "acknowledge" only that you wrote what you
THOUGHT was a "correction." It was NOT a "correction."

Sure it was, Len. You don't know squat about Morse Code or its
reception ;-)

The "correction" (as it was portrayed with an example
of the original "Q-Fiver" out of an LF Command Set
receiver) was WRONG. There is NO "A.F.gain" on any of
those receivers. With NO such control it is impossible
to "set gain" of it. :-)

I never said the BC-453 or any other "Command Set" had an AF
gain control.