N6KB wrote:
> I would hope that people who modify their radios to
> operate this way don't use them when the band is
> crowded. Either stay off the air in those conditions or have
> another radio that is narrow band voice grade for crowded
> conditons. If you want wideband SSB, why not use a phasing
> type exciter like a Central electronics 10B or 20A.
Ken,
Two point eight kHz is "wideband"?
1. The guy who started the thread is talking about increasing his
transmitted bandwidth from 2.4 kHz to 2.8 kHz. Is this increase *really*
going to make that much of a difference to a neighboring QSO? In my
opinion, if this increase is what puts a QSO over the edge of viability,
then that QSO was too close in frequency to begin with, no?
2. If he had said, "I'm going to install 2.45 kHz filters to replace the
2.4 kHz filters in my radio," would you have objected to this?
3. If 2.8 kHz is too wide, but 2.4 kHz is okay, then can you tell me
where the switchover point is, that is, the bandwidth which is
acceptable under all conditions? I haven't been able to get a straight
answer up until now from "anti-wideband" hams.
4. If a ham is using a rig manufactured in the last 15 years, then that
radio certainly has either IF shift, high/low cut, or some other forms
of shaping the IF bandwidth of the receiver. Maybe we need to do a
better job of training folks how to use those controls to improve
selectivity under crowded band conditions, because I constantly hear
hams on-the-air who, upon hearing QRM from an adjacent frequency,
immediately begin commenting and even complaining about it but evidently
don't make any use of the tools in their receivers to alleviate it. QRM
is part of the package, and dealing with it is part of being a ham, or
so I was taught when I was studying for my Novice license. In the
intervening years, hams got this notion that we should be able to get on
at any time of the day or night, find a clear spot, get into a QSO for
any amount of time, and that during that time nothing bad should happen
to us: no QRM, no power line noise, no fading, and *certainly* no
"wideband" guys crowding us in.
5. Most rigs manufactured in the last three years are capable of varying
their transmit bandwidth on-the-fly. Hams no longer have to go into a
rig and modify it by changing the IF filters (or whatever other means).
The Jupiter and Orion, for example, can be switched to a 3.9 kHz
transmit bandwidth *by twiddling a knob*. I think Kenwood and Icom are
the same. So, shouldn't you be taking your argument to the manufacturers
themselves? To my knowlege, the "anti-wideband" crowd hasn't done this.
6. Why is 2.4 kHz automatically okay? That was an arbitrarily chosen
number by the manufacturer, Ten Tec in this case. Since there are hams
who cut their transmit bandwidth to 1.8 kHz and still make contacts,
couldn't we say that 1.8 kHz is a better number than 2.4 kHz (if
bandwidth is our sole criterion for judging an SSB signal, which is
apparently is the position held by "anti-wideband" hams), and that any
bandwidth above 1.8 kHz is just a waste of spectrum?
7. For that matter, using the same argument as the "anti-wideband"
crowd-- i. e., less bandwidth is good and more is bad-- couldn't we say
that SSB as we know it is a waste of spectrum because other modes (like
CW for instance) use far less bandwidth yet maintain communications?
These are not rhetorical questions. You and anybody else are welcome to
address them.
Regards,
Al W6LX
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|