Yep, regens, not super-regens. Mea culpa!
Kim N5OP
"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the
music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith
On Jan 19, 2014, at 10:23, John Farler <k4avx1@windstream.net> wrote:
> Really? Super-regen receivers? Help me out here. I know how a
> regen rx works, but I've never heard of a "super-regen" except on
> Vhf ala the famous Heath Lunchboxes. They didn't decode CW,
> nor SSB. I know very little about their theory of operation.
>
> But Regens will decode CW, of course, but would need a stage
> or stages of RF amplication (or isolation) in the front end to
> keep the RX from sending out a signal that could be detected
> from it's oscillating detector.
>
> Not saying a real "super-regen" might not somehow be used, but
> please fill me in...Maybe you are referring to such REGENS as
> described above as "super regens?"
>
> John, K4AVX
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:44:07 -0600
> From: Kim Elmore<cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment<tentec@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] On Switching Power Supplies
> Message-ID:<B88F15AE-8654-4639-86AB-E4A1C419617C@sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> If and only if the sole and singular concern is RF quiet operation, the a
> linear supply is the only choice. If efficiency plays a role, the you choose
> the technological path.
>
> As an aside, in WWII and the decades that followed -- when CW was the
> dominant mode and required only a Second Class Radiotelegraph license was
> needed -- most ships used super regen receivers, even though superhet
> receivers were significantly better. Why?
>
> Because submarines couldn't find shops with super regen receivers because
> they're radio-quiet.
>
> It all depends on the operational constraints.
>
> Kim N5OP
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|