Peter, you have received the answer to your posting days ago, the answer
is "elbow room".
When it is quite acceptable to yell "cq test" on top of someone else,
you should be grateful and humble that you managed to keep these guys in
the adjacent channel, and were able to successfully defend your
frequency (how much power were you running?).
With the philosophy of "elbow room" in mind, the more aesthetic
parameters of ham radio get lost in the overall turmoil, in fact become
irrelevant,
Ian.
Peter Sundberg wrote:
>
> Here we go again...
> As soon as we start talking about bad sounding transmitters the discussion
> drifts away and people start questioning the receivers instead !
>
> What we heard during the contest was genuinely poor signals from a number
> of stations, not receiver overload !
>
> I used up to 30 db of attenuation while listening and the distorsion and
> splatter was still there. Some had distorsion to the extent where I could
> hardly hear what the guy was saying and this had nothing to do with my
> receiver being overloaded.
>
> Face it, many stations sound bad, and given what they run we know it takes
> som knowledge on their side to make the equipment sound that bad.... or are
> they unaware ?? I doubt it !
>
> Peter/SM2CEW
>
>
>
> At 14:20 2000-03-07 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >What has not been mentioned in this discussion, is the performance of
> >noise blankers on amateur receivers, which when "in", contribute more
> >than their fair share of clicking noises to a strong signal, ala ICOM
> >IC746.
> >
> >Ian ZS6BTE
> >
> >
> >Peter Chadwick wrote:
> >>
> >> Craig says:
> >> Military receivers of the late 1980s had intercept points of
> >> around +30dbm
> >>
> >> Receiver intercept point isn't everything.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|