| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
April 21st 05, 06:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
April 21st 05, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. There was a QST article in the late 1950s or so, showing an adapter that used 'real' FM demodulation of the IF signal. Built around a BC-453 Command set. Had a 'scope built-in, IIRC. Complete receiving setup in a rack mountable unit, just feed the IF signal (190-550 kHz) from almost any superhet to it. I'm sure there were manufactured equivalents. I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that with his decades of experience. "It's a trap"... With the BFO injection of most old boatanchor receivers, (like the R-70?) he'd likely hear little or no beat note at all using the method he advocates. Maybe that's the point... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#4
April 21st 05, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: With the BFO injection of most old boatanchor receivers, (like the R-70?) Naw, Len's relic has a good product detector. He could almost use the method he described except he would have no need to switch the AGC to the "off" position--just switch it to the "fast" position. You'd think he'd be quick to put up some pics of "see...I've a radio station too...", but no...Lennie doesn't seem to have mastered getting pics onto AOL yet... (At least not ones that don't show another man's bottom...) Brag not got not, eh, Guys...??? Steve, K4YZ |
|
#5
April 21st 05, 10:35 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. 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. Still, it could be done other ways. There was a QST article in the late 1950s or so, showing an adapter that used 'real' FM demodulation of the IF signal. Built around a BC-453 Command set. Had a 'scope built-in, IIRC. Complete receiving setup in a rack mountable unit, just feed the IF signal (190-550 kHz) from almost any superhet to it. I'm sure there were manufactured equivalents. A really good use for a Q5er, too. Selectivity was about right for the 850 shift that was common in those days. Plus it was a complete unit in one package. I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that with his decades of experience. "It's a trap"... I suppose we're doomed to another "I meant to do that". Yup. With the BFO injection of most old boatanchor receivers, (like the R-70?) Naw, Len's relic has a good product detector. He could almost use the method he described except he would have no need to switch the AGC to the "off" position--just switch it to the "fast" position. Point is, somebody who didn't know Len might read what he advised and think it was the right way. he'd likely hear little or no beat note at all using the method he advocates. Maybe that's the point... If he couldn't copy it either way, what's the diff? Simple: 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*. Now whether that constitutes enough reason to keep the test is purely a matter of opinion - but it *is* a reason. As we have often seen, Len constantly minimizes and ignores the role Morse Code plays and has played in radio communication. So it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode.. Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out his error, or even acknowledging it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
April 22nd 05, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." Notice the little smiley I originally wrote? You two didn't? Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk... :-) 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. :-) 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." :-) 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! 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. 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!" :-) Tsk, tsk, then whatever you TWO know suddenly becomes what "ALL hams" do!! Marvelous. 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. 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. 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. 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! 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 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! :-) 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...:-) So it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode.. Poor baby...can't understand simple HUMOR, can you? You MUST be the LITERALIST, taking EVERYTHING EXACTLY as its written!! No possibility of exaggeration as an essential part of humor. To you two, all things ham are SERIOUS BUSINESS (even if amateur means not to gain monetarily from the activity). :-) 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." 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. :-) What "thanks" does Jimmie Noserve "deserve" in here? Come back when you've learned to get along with non- morsemen, general. |
|
#7
April 22nd 05, 10:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." Notice the little smiley I originally wrote? You two didn't? Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk... Everything can be hidden behind a smiley with you, Lennie. Jim and Dave were right...Here's your "I meant to say that" excuse. Big snip of usual "If I can baffle 'em with enuff BS, maybe I can worm my way out of this" ramblings.... 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." 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. Uh huh.... Once again, lack of practical expereince in radio OPERATING has caught you with your britches down. What "thanks" does Jimmie Noserve "deserve" in here? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh....Now all participants in this forum MUST be Veterans of the Armed Forces in order to talk to Lennie. Come back when you've learned to get along with non- morsemen, general. YOU are a LOT of "non" things, Lennie. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#8
April 24th 05, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Don't forget ! | Broadcasting | |||
| Never Forget... | CB | |||
| Forget E-bay, post your 11 meter amps here. | CB | |||
| Tampa Turd Jail Dale's forgotten FELONY, don't forget Junior | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
