IC-775DSP Questions answered

Mon Jul 24 10:20:04 EDT 1995

From: wd5n at msg.ti.com

Subject: IC-775DSP Questions answered

Thanks to K1CC for his answers to my questions, which I now forward to
the group.  I won't waste space repeating the questions as Rich's answers
make it pretty clear what the questions were.  Also, Rich indicates
he has submitted a brief review of the rig to the NCJ so we can look
forward to more info when that comes out.

> 1.  The subreceiver uses the same filters as the main receiver, and is also
> restricted to the same band.
>
> 2.  The main and subreceivers can only be mixed (there's a balance control),
> but no stereo is possible.   Furthermore, both must use the same antenna,
> even though there's a 2-antenna input and front panel switching.
>
> 3.   The internal power supply is 110/220 switchable.
>
> 4.   Beverage input is like most radios -- there's a "radio out" and
> "antenna in" jack in the back which is normally jumpered, you remove the
> jumper and do your own switching externally.

Thanks also to Peter Hutter for his comments.

 73, Dave Harper  WD5Neato  <wd5n at msg.ti.com>

>From Ronald D. Rossi" <rrossi at VNET.IBM.COM  Mon Jul 24 15:33:58 1995
From: Ronald D. Rossi" <rrossi at VNET.IBM.COM (Ronald D. Rossi)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 10:33:58 EDT
Subject: "Is the frequency in use?" or "QRL?"

In a previous message, N0AX wrote:
>>
>> Legal limit into some nice antennae
>> would sure help.  The higher the power you use, then the better
>> your ears should be as well.  Higher power doesn't reciprocate with
>> better reception as better antennae do.
>>
>
>Actually, nice antennae help on the receiving end, too.  It's much less
>likely that with good antennas, you won't hear the other channel
>occupants.  I think there's a lot more contest QRM generated by ops with
>small antennas running a full gallon.  This is so because they can't/don't
>hear well.
>

I agree 100%.  That is what I said.  To paraphrase: Better antennae
receive better, higher power does not.  The ears I refer to in my
statement are those of the operator not the station.

>K3ZO and the others at the "top of the food chain" consider QRM from a
>strategic standpoint; Can I keep my rate high?  Can I hear the third level
>of JA's and Eastern EU?  Will the VU's call me here, or will I have to move?
>
>Those of us farther down on the hog, so to speak, must consider QRM from a
>survival standpoint; Can I hold the frequency at all?  Will I hear the
>first level of DX?  Will they be interested if they can hear me?  How
>close can I get to K3ZO before fire comes out of the speaker?
>
>It's funny to consider that the questions about transmitting are
>usually answered by receiving.
>
>73, Ward N0AX
>
>

Hey, again I agree!  Thanks for you comments Ward and I look forward to
working you from the knuckle off the hind quarters of the hog.

73 de N1PBT...Ron  (rrossi at vnet.ibm.com) ><>

>From Lau, Zack,  KH6CP" <zlau at arrl.org  Mon Jul 24 15:46:00 1995
From: Lau, Zack,  KH6CP" <zlau at arrl.org (Lau, Zack,  KH6CP)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 10:46:00 EDT
Subject: QRL on VHF calling frequencies
Message-ID: <3013B250 at arrl.org>

Does this logic make sense?

Because people aren't suppose to ragchew on
calling frequencies, it doesn't make sense to
ask if these frequencies are in use.  Merely listening
for a few minutes and hearing nothing is adequate.

Incidentally, I actually use the calling frequencies
as they are intended--find someone and move off
to other frequencies--often to other bands...

Zack Lau KH6CP/1zlau at arrl.org

See you in the UHF CONTEST from FN33KD on all
bands through 24 GHz after I get back from Colorado
Springs and the Central States Conference.

>From ke7gh at primenet.com (Brian Short)  Mon Jul 24 15:53:05 1995
From: ke7gh at primenet.com (Brian Short) (Brian Short)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 14:53:05 +0000
Subject: Sorry-Multiples
Message-ID: <199507241459.HAA27537 at mailhost.primenet.com>

Hi,

I received 2 copies of one of my posts, myself.  Sorry!  I will contact
my Internet provider today.  Several users have been having difficulty 
with the news reader and the mail reader.  I suppose it could be coming 
from there?

Sorry, Brian

>From jholly at hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback)  Mon Jul 24 18:45:07 1995
From: jholly at hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback) (Jim Hollenback)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 10:45:07 -0700
Subject: transformers for EWE antena's
Message-ID: <9507241045.ZM14940 at hpwsmjh1.cup.hp.com>

can the QRL discussion QRX for a technical question?

I built up some transformers for the top fed EWE antennas I plan to
put up this year. (As you might recall, this is a 9:1 with a 1:1 
isolation transformer). So I thought, "Hey, let check these out with my
Autek RF-1 before I mount them!". Perhaps this was not a good idea. 

I put a 470 ohm resistor across the "top" and "bottom" connectors and
hooked my RF-1 up to the bnc that goes to the 1:1 matching transformer
that is across the bottom windiing of the 9:1 transformer. The SWR is
high (around 7-8:1 and the Z is about 82 ohms). Hmmm, not so good.

I then built another 9:1 transformer and wired it up to a SO-239 and 
tried this one out. The 470 ohm resistor is across the entire transformer
and the RF-1 is hooked to the bottom winding. This one reads a SWR of 
around 6:1 and the Z is about 64 ohms. More interesting, the SWR goes
off scale when the resistor is disconnected, but the Z stays about the
same. 

I was using a Amidon FT-82-??. I forget the mix, but it was the one 
in "Low Band Dxing" and the turns was as in John's book. The frequency
I used was 3.55 MHz. I wound the windings like in W2FMI's book on 
transmission line transformers. Since the cores seemed big enough,
I used 20 gauge wire.

So, is this a normal reading? (a little voice keeps saying NO)

Perhaps I should use a different winding method?

Perhaps someone has a suggestion?

Oh, yes, I plan to use these antennas for CONTESTing. (there, got the 
C word in)

thanks,

Jim, WA6SDM
jholly at cup.hp.com

You may now conitinue your QRL discussion.

>From ke7gh at primenet.com (Brian Short)  Mon Jul 24 20:19:14 1995
From: ke7gh at primenet.com (Brian Short) (Brian Short)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 19:19:14 +0000
Subject: Sorry-Multiples
Message-ID: <199507241925.MAA13237 at mailhost.primenet.com>

Sorry Bob,

According to the highly trained technical staff at Primenet Technical
Support, their Mail Server got "SPAMMED."  This term is not in my Funk 
and Wagnall, but I assume it means a bad, perhaps malicious, attack on 
the system by a misdirected individual or individuals.  Apparently, the 
Mail Server became "ILL."  This technical stuff!  I hope it is over, and
I am working directly with my provider.  I even told them about the type 
AAA+ folks complaining etc.  Again, sorry!  73 de Brian

>WHAT DID YOU SAY?
>WHAT DID YOU SAY?
>
>DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
>DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
>
>AM I REPEATING MYSELF.
>AM I REPEATING MYSELF.
>
>N5RP, Bob
>Houston, Texas
>Email: perring at icsi.net