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

Amps

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

To:	amps@contesting.com
Subject:	[Amps] DSB AM - was S/S Amp's
From:	peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>
Reply-to:	g8on@fsmail.net
Date:	Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:57:16 +0200
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?<

They don't take up any more bandwidth than DSBSC, so why not?

Plus Am is easier to detect.....

73

Peter G3RZP
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[Amps] DSB AM - was S/S Amp's, peter chadwick <= Re: [Amps] DSB AM - was S/S Amp's, Colin Lamb

Previous by Date:	Re: [Amps] Clipperton-L question, Vic K2VCO
Next by Date:	Re: [Amps] 3CX5000A7 -YC156 -YC179 Tube amplifier question, Harald
Previous by Thread:	[CQ-Contest] Really big RF out, Charles Harpole
Next by Thread:	Re: [Amps] DSB AM - was S/S Amp's, Colin Lamb
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]