The NCX-3 came out in 1962, the Drake TR-3 in 63, and the Swan monobanders
in 61 which was only a few years after SSB became serious with the 1957
HT-32, 1959 CE-100V, 1960 HT-37.
Before that SSB gear was low power, plug in coils, etc until the
bandswitched 20A in 56 at about 10W output. More of a curiosity than
mainstream at the time.
Ive owned the 10A, 10B, 20A, 100V and 200V over the decades and still
use....and can lift....the 100V.
The Collins KWM1 was an overpriced piece of junk in 1956 and sold poorly but
it did prove the transceiver concept.
Carl
Subject: Re: [Amps] Emergency communication
I'll admit the average ham, or even most hams would have a problem
understanding computer source code, but all it take is little studying of
the particular language used to follow it. OTOH there are some very
complex programs out there that contain thousands of line of code, that
the guys who wrote it have a problem reading it ten years later and I'm
one of them. Yes I have a degree in CS with work toward a masters, but
those are not necessary to understanding what that code is going to do. It
does often require reading at least part of a book on the particular
language. I did say would take a little study as does every facet of Ham
Radio.
Once you learn the basics, understanding well written source code can be
relatively easy to follow, BUT like mechanical aptitude, not everyone will
become proficient, or even grasp the concepts and there is a LOT of code
that is not well written.
I was raised on a farm, many years ago when it was a different world.
Improvisation was a key to fixing things when you didn't have the correct
parts, or couldn't afford them. It required that you had a fundamental
understanding of the equipment at an early age. Worn out bearings? You
made a wood block fitted to the steel bearing form, put it on the shaft
and poured Babbitt metal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(alloy)
into it giving a form fitting bearing, much like rod bearings in an engine
although far more crude. Amateur radio was the same.
One thing I disagree with is SSB and transceivers were developed close
together although the smaller and lighter SSB rigs certainly aided the
practical development of the transceiver. SSB was around quite a while
before transceivers became popular. Originally SSB was accomplished with
adapters on AM rigs. We went through several generations of those before
separate transmitters and receivers with SSB capabilities turned up.
Collins 75AXX receivers and the KWS-1 transmitter (I had both
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boat1.htm ), Hallicrafters HT32
series ( http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boat8.htm ). Then the
S-line, and less expensive equipment like HT37 turned up and suddenly
sweep tube finals to be followed by amplifiers using sweep tubes became a
relatively inexpensive rout to the latest technologies., but rigs were
still relatively simple. with the CW and SSB modes being by far the most
popular. SSB generation was relatively simple, using either phasing, or
filter generation. USB and LSB were selected by simply moving the carrier.
I would add that BOTH Collins and Hallicrafters produced transceiver along
with separate transmitters and receivers for quite a while. Just the last
generation of top end rigs and SDRs have been capable of reaching the
clean signals of those S-lines. Unfortunately, they also gave hams access
to stages that let them turn that excellent signal capability into
garbage!
The sweep tube generation was the point where signal quality began the
slide with the new, bipolar transistors adding to the decline.
Unfortunately there are many hams including old timers that do not
understand why so many of us want to see the signal quality cleaned up.
Yet if all the rigs had a signal as clean as the old Collins S-line we
could squeeze more stations onto crowded bands with far less QRM
Schematics and programs tell me a lot about a rig and particularly if the
program is open source with the source code. (source code=the program
before it's compiled)
To me the SDRs are the easiest to follow with the source code, even if I
have to back up and create a diagram. Yes, it's time consuming, but IF
the source code is laid out properly with "internal documentation"
(internal documentation= complete explanation as to what that piece of
code does and how it does it). This should be included in ever source
code.
I will add that I've spent many hours reorganizing programs written by
engineers to make them readable and added the documentation. I've also
fought battles with department heads who read a book on programming and
concluded they knew how to program.unfortunately some were higher up the
food chain than I. Those are the worst to decipher, or to get other
programs to work with them.
In the end, SDRs may turn out to be the easiest to understand, second only
to the old SSB / CW rigs, but they will require a different mind set.
73, Roger (K8RI)
On 4/28/2017 8:37 AM, Catherine James wrote:
Unless they provide you with the firmware/software, the schematic may not
tell you everything you need to know anyway. They will become ever more
true as the industry moved to SDR.
--------------------------------------------
<wlfuqu00@uky.edu> wrote:
Oh, I forgot, most radios don't come with schematics these days. You
have to
purchase a service manual. I like to see what is in my radios.
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|