[TenTec] Enhanced SSB

Sat Apr 19 19:43:13 EDT 2003

Yes, George, I'm sorry I didn't get the tone of sincerity that I should have from your post, but you gotta understand that when you follow up a post with a "Sorta hard to answer, eh?" post it casts doubt on the sincerity of the original, don't it? I mistook yours for a troll. Sorry about that. No ridicule intended at all, just the posing of other questions in an attempt to make a point about yours. Was it really ridiculous?

But I don't feel like I wasted my time at all because believe it or not, there are points to be taken from my seemingly sarcastic answers. Yes, we'll let the rest of the reflector decide.

The way I see it, this issue boils down to this: should we let a few hams experiment with enhanced SSB, or should we prohibit them from experimenting? That's all. Those that would prohibit the experimentation need to take a good, hard look at themselves and why there is such a thing as ham radio at all.

Al W6LX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George, W5YR [mailto:w5yr at att.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, 19 April 2003 3:15 PM
> To: tentec at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Enhanced SSB
> 
> 
> Al, I am sorry that you had to take so much time to attempt 
> to ridicule me
> on the reflector for asking a sincere technical question . 
> Seems like some
> folks on here have to play policeman these days to ensure 
> that the content
> remains acceptable (to them).
> 
> The question was asked objectively with no agenda on my part. 
> I simply would
> like to know what advantages come from extending the 
> transmitted bandwidth
> below the 300 Hz that most international regs stipulate. If I 
> should already
> know why, then it is news to me and/or I've forgotten more 
> than I thought I
> had.
> 
> I received a sensible, factual answer from Paul W9AC which I 
> appreciated.
> >From that, I know more than I did.
> 
> Sorry you wasted all that time . . .the reflector readers can 
> decide who is
> being provocative.
> 
> 73/72, George
> Amateur Radio W5YR -  the Yellow Rose of Texas
> Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13QE
> "In the 57th year and it just keeps getting better!"
> <mailto:w5yr at att.net>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <al_lorona at agilent.com>
> To: <tentec at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 4:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [TenTec] Enhanced SSB
> 
> 
> >
> > Aw, c'mon, George, that question is simply meant to 
> provoke. You already
> know why!
> >
> > Look, I can be just as silly:
> >
> > For that matter,
> >
> > What are the advantages of transmitting a signal with more 
> than 25 W of
> power?
> >
> > What are the advantages of transmitting your call many, 
> many, many times,
> over and over, using up valuable bandwidth, in an attempt to 
> contact someone
> in the South Sandwich Islands?
> >
> > What are the advantages of transmitting a signal that 
> bounces off of the
> moon, when you could simply turn your antenna directly toward 
> the other guy,
> switch to a lower frequency band, and work him directly?
> >
> > What are the advantages of transmitting all weekend, 
> practically nonstop,
> foregoing sleep and family, just so you can see your call 
> sign in 2-point
> type in the contest results of a magazine that is read by 
> fewer than 250,000
> people?
> >
> > What are the advantages of transmitting with home-built 
> gear, when you can
> just go out and buy new equipment from a dealer?
> >
> > Heck, for that matter, why transmit voice at all? If the same
> communications can be done on CW, then am I to presume that 
> you are prepared
> to declare that the lower bandwidth mode is always preferable?
> >
> >
> > Al W6LX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Carl Moreschi [mailto:n4py at earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Saturday, 19 April 2003 1:35 PM
> > > To: tentec at contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [TenTec] Enhanced SSB
> > >
> > >
> > > Simply because it sounds nice.
> > >
> > > Carl Moreschi N4PY
> > > Franklinton, NC
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "George, W5YR" <w5yr at att.net>
> > > To: <tentec at contesting.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 5:12 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [TenTec] Enhanced SSB
> > >
> > >
> > > > What are the advantages of transmitting voice frequency
> > > components in the
> > > > range of 50 to 300 Hz?
> > > >
> > > > 73/72, George
> > > > Amateur Radio W5YR -  the Yellow Rose of Texas
> > > > Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13QE
> > > > "In the 57th year and it just keeps getting better!"
> > > > <mailto:w5yr at att.net>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <attorney at broadcast.net>
> > > > To: <tentec at contesting.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:42 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [TenTec] Enhanced SSB
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > I understand that the purpose of SSB was to minimize
> > > the bandwidth,
> > > > increase
> > > > > efficiency, and pass only the necessary voice bandwidth for
> > > > communications.
> > > > >
> > > > > After researching the subject matter from QST issues
> > > during the '40s and
> > > > '50s, I have concluded that SSB was developed as a mode
> > > > > which would offer greater articulation of 
> communications through:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) A reduction in transmitted power for a 
> commensurate level of
> > > > intelligibility compared with that of AM;
> > > > > 2) A reduction in equipment weight;
> > > > > 3) A reduction in power supply capacity and loading
> > > (owing to a lower
> > > > overall duty-cycle);
> > > > > 4) A reduction in transmitted bandwidth without
> > > necessarily compromising
> > > > transmitted fidelity;
> > > > > 5) The elimination of an unnecessary redundant sideband; and
> > > > > 6) The elimination of an unnecessary "power hungry" carrier.
> > > > >
> > > > > A note concerning point #4 above: The fact that SSB
> > > transmitted audio
> > > > bandwidth has been relatively restricted during the past forty
> > > > > years without an emphasis on low-frequency energy, is due
> > > to limitations
> > > > in crystal filter technology: in order to achieve
> > > > > reasonable alternate sideband rejection, the carrier set
> > > point must
> > > > necessarily be placed in a region which compromises low
> > > > > frequency energy.
> > > > >
> > > > > While the "phasing" method of eliminating the opposite
> > > sideband first
> > > > appeared as a solution, maintaining good carrier suppression
> > > > > and alternate sideband rejection became a problem with
> > > temperature and
> > > > mechanical changes and deterioration.  It wasn't until the
> > > > > advent of DSP technology that better fidelity could 
> be reasonably
> > > > transmitted.  If DSP techniques were available in the '40s and
> > > > > '50s, the overall audio quality and bandwidth we hear on
> > > the bands today
> > > > would be much different.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Paul, W9AC
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > > TenTec at contesting.com
> > > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > TenTec at contesting.com
> > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 