There is something to be said for a chain saw CW note. You stand out in a crowd.
And as for your station, have you considered an Alexanderson Alternator as a
upgrade to your spark station? They are the cat's pajamas.
Jon
On Feb 24, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Doug Reid wrote:
> Back when I started out, we used a spark generator and the frequency was
> determined by the length of our antenna......not really.....geez, how old do
> you guys think am I anyway ! Although, I did hear a station on 20 meter cw
> the other evening that resembled a chain saw sending cq. I should have sent
> him a few new caps for his power supply.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Lelieveld <va3dwi@gmail.com>
> To: R. Eric Sluder-W9WLW <resluder@yahoo.com>; Discussion of Ten-Tec
> Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Mon, Feb 24, 2014 1:07 pm
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology
>
>
> Hi all,
> I remember the day when I got my first license, PA0MIH in the Netherlands.
> My
> tation was inspected by the PTT (Post Telephone Telegraph, the Dutch
> equivalent
> f the FCC) four months after and was approved because I had a GDO (Grid Dip
> scillator) so I could determine that I was not transmitting out of band
> i..hi.. They even measured the level of the third harmonics and assured that
> I
> ad a plate current meter so I could determine my power input level. I doubt
> if
> hey still do that. Aaaah the good old days.
> 73, Tony VE3DWI.
> ********************
> ----- Original Message -----
> rom: "R. Eric Sluder-W9WLW" <resluder@yahoo.com>
> o: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> ent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:03 PM
> ubject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology
>
> ohn:
> That is a great summation of Rick's words!
> Eric
> 9WLW
>
>> ________________________________
> From: John <jh.graves@verizon.net>
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I think what you are implying,is that we spend too much time spending
> and not enough time learning. How to make my antenna work...Is this
> REALLY an antenna and what do you mean tune my transmitter, it goes
> right to peak as soon as I turn it on. The salesman said this will cure
> all the issues (pick your own salesman and issues) Oh well. Ham radio
> is fun, and if you really work at it, your reading speed will increase
> as well. Personally, I look for the articles I don't understand, but
> then, why not!
>
> Cheers,
>
> John - WA1JG
>
>
>
>
> On 2/24/2014 10:28 AM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
>> ...and then there were the receivers and transmitters that we home-brewed
>> ourselves, which didn't have any frequency readout on them at all. We had
>> to depend on the frequency printed on a crystal to have an idea of about
>> where we were. I guess it was usually within a "kc" or 2 of what was
>> printed on the front plate of the crystal.
>>
>> The term Hertz was introduced in 1960 but for the first 5 to 10 years,
>> people were still using "kc's" on the bands.
>>
>> One of my favorite receivers was an old military surplus National HRO (like)
>> which was the NC-100 series, with that huge knob with even bigger skirts,
>> but with a readout of 0 to several hundred. Mine had sliding coils inside,
>> rather than plug in modules. I don't recall how many ranges it had, perhaps
>> 5 or 6. I believe mine was an NC-101X; can't recall for sure. The only
>> readout was in meaningless numbers. Again the xtal controlled TX helped to
>> locate the frequency. Despite that, it was one of the most fun receivers I
>> ever had. That was in 1963.
>>
>> Back then we were worried about things like cw tone, chirp, and drift.
>> Accuracy was not even considered. We didn't even have frequency counters.
>> If you were lucky, you had a surplus BC-221 frequency meter, of course we
>> had no way of knowing how accurate it was calculated.
>>
>> Now that all of those problems have gone away, there is not much left to
>> gripe about, is there?
>> So let's take Hz.
>>
>> BUT WAIT . . .
>>
>> What about stuff like:
>> ..> Our transmitters are now the big challenge of reducing the problem with
>> QRM on the bands, not the receivers; yet nobody is doing anything about it.
>> ..> Some matchbox OEMs are still selling matchboxes with Voltage Baluns in
>> them and calling them symmetrical matchboxes, which they are NOT.
>> ..> Most Balun manufacturers are selling what they call a 4:1 Guanella
>> Current balun, wound on a single torroid and calling it a Balun, which it
>> definitely is NOT. It forces an unbalance all the time. Yet they are
>> selling loads of them, and some poor Joe Ham is buying this stuff.
>> ..> Some matchbox OEMs are selling matchboxes with this single core 4:1
>> Guanella and calling it a symmetrical matchbox, which it definitely is not.
>> ..> Several antenna companies are making antennas with some random length of
>> wire or aluminum and a "magnetic balun" and flogging it as a wonder all-band
>> antenna, and many Joe Hams are buying these in good faith...
>>
>> I could go on.
>>
>> Now compare the list above with the problem of being 30 Hz off frequency.
>> Talk about majoring in minors!
>>
>> How about we all get focused on the broadband noise that all modern
>> transmitters these days generate, some less so, some more so, and some are
>> really culprits. Now that's a technical discussion that might someday lead
>> to improving our hobby!
>>
>> 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
>> (Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> enTec mailing list
> enTec@contesting.com
> ttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> ______________________________________________
> enTec mailing list
> enTec@contesting.com
> ttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|