[TenTec] Cheap SSB and not CW rig

[Ken Brown]

Hi Geoffrey,


> Wrong. You are assuming that a narrow SSB filter, which COULD be,
> WOULD be. Quite simply it would not. So a user would be able to recieve
> CW in USB mode with a 2.4 kHz bandwidth. Possible but not likely.
I have never had any trouble receiving CW with a 2.4 kHz wide, or wider 
IF bandwidth. And were talking about the additional cost of making the 
rig CW capable, versus SSB only. We're not talking about making it a 
high performance CW rig, unless you add options at additional cost. If 
you insist, to keep the cost down, we will not  allow any options for CW 
or for SSB. CW operation in a SSB bandwidth is not a big problem for a 
basic rig.
>
> How many CW ops on this list use a 2.4Khz IF filter/DSP bandwidth? I'm not
> talking about a 2.4kHz roofing filter, I'm talking a total to your ears
> badwidth of 2.4kHz.
>   
As a Novice, I used a Hammarlund Super-Pro BC-779. I barely understood 
the operation of the crystal filter at that time, and virtually never 
used it for a CW QSO. Probably had a IF bandpass of 5 or 10 kHz with the 
bandwidth control in the center setting. To say that CW operation with a 
2.4 kHz bandwidth filter is only possible, but not likely, is just 
nowhere near reasonable.
>
>
>
> A matter of opinion. Some people would not mind unpluging their microphone
> and plugging in a key some would.
>   
We're talking cheap, so that we don't keep those SSB only newbies from 
being able to buy a rig, right? The SSB only ops will never notice, 
since they never unplug the mic and plug in a key anyway. Those who are 
willing to put in the effort to learn Morse, and try CW, probably also 
have enough initiative to add a separate key jack. We can include an 
extra hole on the back panel just for this. It will add virtually no 
cost to include another hole punch in the die that stamps out the back 
panel in one pressing. (or any number of other possible manufacturing 
processes that make the case, can easily include an extra hole at no 
cost.) ...Wait a minute, maybe you have a point here, to be really 
cheap, there is no microphone connector. The microphone coiled cord is 
hardwired. Yes, we really need to include that extra hole in the design. 
Until the extra jack is added by our new operator, he'll have to use the 
microphone PTT button as a key.
> I would also design it differently. I would use a sythesized oscialtor
> not a VFO and most likely a channelized digital one. 
>   
Okay, fine, even cheaper than an additional crystal. How much fun are 
these phone only newbies going to have being stuck on channels, when so 
many other hams can move to any frequency? "Sorry OM, I've got QRM up 1 
kilohertz, I can't really copy you unless you can move down. 73 for 
now." Some body could sell them "sliders". Ten-four?
> $10 in parts adds a lot to the cost of a radio. Depending upon the
> retail markup, etc, if sold directly by Ten-Tec, it would add about $25.
> If it were to be sold in a store like AES or HRO, it would add about
> $50.
>   
Hmmm...
>   
> But if you add your $10 in parts, plus an IF filter, even a 4 crystal one,
> your $200 rig is a lot more money than $200. In the computer business it's
> called "feature creep", and it just crept up another $50 to $100 depending
> upon the filter. 
>   
The filter is an option. It won't be needed by the SSB only newbies, and 
it isn't essential to make the rig CW capable. So no cost to or feature 
creep. Or just forget any possibilities of options as suggested above.
>
>
> I'm not trying to make a cheap rig to sell to CW ops, there are plenty of them,
> I'm not trying to make a cheap rig to sell to contestors, it's just not
> possbile.
>   
Nor am I, I'm just saying that the additional cost of CW capability is 
really negligible. On the other hand adding SSB to a basic CW only rig 
is much more expensive, however that is not the topic of this discussion.
> What I am trying to do is to make a cheap rig, as cheap as possible,
> to attract hams who are not on the air and want to be. Ones with a limted
> amount of money to spend on their hobbies, and who can't copy morse code.
>   
I understand that. I don't think a channelized SSB rig, with no CW 
capability at all, would provide a very positive experience to a 
beginner. "I think I hear someone calling off frequency. Please try to 
get on frequency and join the round table. Over."
> To answer another point, would you buy a radio at a hamfest or eBay if
> you had no way of evaluating it? If you blew your ham radio budget on a
> radio and found out it was broken and the seller disapeared? Would you
> still be willing to buy those radios?
>
> If you already have a radio or have the skills or equipment to fix one that
> was broken from parts available from Radio Shack (do they still sell parts?),
> you are not someone I am trying to reach. 
>   
Fine, I except the premise that we are trying to sell an new radio with 
a warranty, to a beginner who doesn't have the knowledge or the help of 
another ham, to be able to buy a used rig without a good chance of 
getting burned. So, we're selling him/her a really basic and cheap, 
brand new and warranted rig, to make it easy to get started and have 
some fun on HF. I stand by my claim that very little would be saved by 
making it with no CW functionality whatsoever. And there would be many, 
even newbies who haven't learned or tried CW yet, who might pass that 
rig up because it doesn't have the possibility of operating CW. Also, in 
order to be cheap, it has no built in tuner. How is this operator going 
to check SWR, or adjust an antenna tuner, if the rig won't put out a 
steady level signal? It almost has to have something like CW transmit 
functionality to check SWR or adjust a tuner. This person is not going 
to own any other instruments for checking the antenna, right? Even if 
he/she buys a pre-built dipole, they're going to want to have a way to 
check it. Maybe a go/no go LED that flashes on voice peaks if the SWR is 
too high. Certainly wouldn't want the rig to be able to put out a CW 
carrier.

DE N6KB