well i came up in the 50s hams loved am and you had to be in that era to love
and understand it. then came collins with their first ssb rigs. talk about
resentment because the money boys all gathered together there was lots of
qrming of them. with the lack of hams on the bands now we could go back to am
with no problem.
personaly i think ham radio has gone as far as it needs to go. oh there will
always be a few tinkers to go into the digital modes but really for what reason
except to prove up well we are different thats fine but i dont see where it can
really apply on the ham radio bands.
by the way when working field day the bands can close down for some reason on
ssb but cw will always get through. that old stinkin cw!
73
bob k0wtz
all things are possible in Christ Jesus our savior
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2/24/14, k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Monday, February 24, 2014, 7:03 PM
I suppose it would have had to have
been the '30's and those were tough times.
On Feb 24, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Brian Carling wrote:
> And maybe they were too busy fighting a war to play
radio.
>
> Best regards - Bry Carling
>
>
>
>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:03 PM, k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net>
wrote:
>>
>> We're cruising toward the 100 year anniversary of
SSB. It definitely qualifies as older technology.
>>
>> It was the famous John Carson patent for SSB filed
in 1915 that used the antenna circuit for more than just
radiating. He suppressed the carrier with a balanced
modulator but sliced off the opposite sideband in the
antenna coupler. That's a higher Q tuner than your average
MFJ.
>>
>> I've never understood why it took so long for
amateurs to pick up SSB. AT&T had it in commercial
service in 1927. A couple of guys did stuff in the '30's.
But not until the Stanford experiments in 1947 and the QST
articles the next year did it really start to take off.
Maybe it took cheaper and better components that came out of
WWII to make it practical for hams. Or maybe it was
just wasn't interesting to them.
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:08 PM, k6jek wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a lot to be said for an antenna as a
resonant circuit. One of the very early SSB patents did just
that. They sliced off the carrier and opposite sideband at
the antenna. Now if I can just remember who that was.
I bet one of you can
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Ron Notarius
W3WN wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Loomis was a quack. I'd rather hang
out with Reginald Fessenden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/24/14, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doug, I think you've been hanging out with
Mahlon Loomas too long!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And for those of you who can't remember who
he was, it might be worth your
>>>> while to look it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I bet most of you didn't even know that
wireless communications was invented
>>>> by a DENTIST!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, he also invented the very first
Aerial, although some might argue it
>>>> was Benjamin Franklin.
>>>>
>>>> Franklin only used the kite wire to capture
electricity; Loomas used it as
>>>> an Aerial to send and receive signals.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahlon_Loomis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though his patent for a wireless telegraph
was in 1872, as I recall he
>>>> discovered this about 4 years earlier. Hard
to remember exactly. I was
>>>> just a young whipper snapper back then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So guys, take it from me; next time you're
having problems with your
>>>> antenna, don't ask an engineer, consult
your dentist!
>>>>
>>>> Hey, I oughta know... I work for an antenna
company!
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does all of this have to do with
Doug's comment?
>>>>
>>>> Everything.
>>>>
>>>> Mahlon discovered that if he made the
length of the wire of the TX and RX
>>>> aerial the exact same length,
communications was much more reliable. Thus
>>>> you might conclude that the length of wire
was determining the frequency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that's not quite accurate.
>>>>
>>>> Actually it was transmitting on (almost)
all frequencies, but only
>>>> efficiently radiating into the ether on the
wavelength associated with the
>>>> length of his aerial. So specifically, the
aerial, not the transmitter,
>>>> determined the frequency being radiated
into the distant ether. In the near
>>>> field, a broad frequency spectrum was being
radiated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ... at least that's my understanding of
what was happening.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, how would I know?
>>>>
>>>> I'm neither an engineer nor a dentist!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
>>>>
>>>> (Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Doug Reid
>>>> Back when I started out, we used a spark
generator and the frequency was
>>>> determined by the length of our
antenna......
>>>>
>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|