Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] DSB AM - was S/S Amp's

To: amps <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] DSB AM - was S/S Amp's
From: Colin Lamb <k7fm@teleport.com>
Reply-to: Colin Lamb <k7fm@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:25:19 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
List-post: <amps@contesting.com">mailto:amps@contesting.com>
 > Why are Hams still rf-spamming 160 & 80m with AM carriers
 > when a DSB suppressed-carrier signal is just as good, uses
 > less power, and may be sync-detected to remove flutter, etc?<

And, AM has a distinct advantage if you want to set up a hot dog cooker across 
the street from KDKA with a suitable antenna and use the rf to cook hot dogs - 
that is until KDKA got an injunction.  Hard to know how long to cook the hot 
dogs with suppressed-carrier.  

73,  Colin  K7FM
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>