Relative to CQWW MS, ARRL M1, and ARRL M2, David McCarty,
K5GN, wrote to me, in part:
> While at times they do have similar feel, I see it
> as three separate modes of station requirements. All
> three require as a start, a single transmitter station
> capable of running them on most or all bands. The
> differences are what else you have.
>
> ARRL MS SECOND STATION: an outboard receiver
> with enough isolation from the transmitter for the
> second op to be able to find multipliers and decide
> when to move the single transmitter.
> OPTIONS: The chief advantage of more than one
> transmitter station is in rapid band changes.
>
> CQ WW MS SECOND STATION: an additional
> transmitter station with (a) enough receive isolation
> from the run station for the second op to be able to
> find multipliers, (b) enough transmit isolation so
> that it does not interfere much with the run station
> receiver and (c) enough oomph to be able to work
> them. The chief requirement for the second
> transmitter station is in being able to transmit
> simultaneously with the run station when working a
> multiplier.
> OPTIONS: The advantage of one or more fully capable
> second transmitter stations is in flexibility and
> rapid band changes.
>
> ARRL M-2 SECOND STATION: an additional transmitter
> station capable of running them on most or all bands,
> independent of the first station. PLUS: another
> outboard receiver or a third station for figuring out
> where to go next.
>
> Only when propagation degrades to just one band capable
> of sustaining rate does M-2 become like CQ WW MS. Or
> if your station doesn't meet the requirement of a
> full-fledged second station.
>
> > What hardware or other demands, in your
> >opinion, might cause someone who prefers the
> >CQWW style of M-S over the ARRL style simply not
> >go to M-2 in ARRL?
>
> The requirement of a full-fledged second station is the
> key. I dare say most well-equipped single stations
> can find a way to get a lesser second signal on the air
> for the purpose of working multipliers in the WW.
> (Usually in the form of a short pole and a tribander.)
> And for the limited number of multiplier contacts, the
> run station can live with some interference. Getting a
> second station together that can hold a frequency
> without trashing the first is much more difficult.
> It's a quantum leap.
>
> I personally find the CQ WW MS the most fun, especially
> when the sunspots are higher. But it is highly
> dependent on the match of station to requirements.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave.
73 de Bob, K0KR
>From DKMC" <dkmc@chevron.com Mon Feb 28 20:05:10 1994
From: DKMC" <dkmc@chevron.com (DKMC)
Subject: more AGC
Message-ID: <CPLAN065.DKMC.6858.1994 0228 11 16 11 16>
Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: McCarty, DK 'David'
To: OPEN ADDRESSING SERVI-OPENADDR
Subject: more AGC
Priority:
Message ID: B8E7ADA6
Conversation ID: B8E7ADA6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bruce and the rest,
Eric, N7CL, wrote:
>What I usually do is run the RF gain low enough that the
>background noise isn't operating the AGC (but I can still hear it in
>there). This gives me the effect of not running AGC for most signals. But
>is a rock crusher suddenly appears, the AGC will save my ears.
In S. Texas, the major concern is the heavy static crashes from the almost
year-round nearby thunderstorm activity. I set the RF gain back until the
S-meter only barely moves in the smaller static crashes (which go past the
background noise) then switch the AGC off. This allows the average static
crash to be quite a bit louder than the minimum detectable signal, but
without affecting the level of the received signal underneath.
Your ears can handle SOME excess sound from the crashes. On bad nights,
just turn the RF Gain up and hear less of the weak ones, or turn the rig off
and avoid the frustration.
David K. McCarty, K5GN
dkmc@chevron.com
|