[TenTec] In praise of older technology

[R. Eric Sluder-W9WLW]

I say we (Ham's in general) will keep up this need for accuracy to the point of lodging complaints to the ARRL and then the FCC, and we will eventually be channelized like most other HF services.  Even the military works on channel assignments ya know.  I just had a conversation over Christmas break with an Army Capt. about how they use HF, and he said it's all channelized in their SDR radios and put into talk groups for specific uses (he would not elaborate beyond there, and I didn't expect him too).

I share the above negative outlook because if we're not careful, we're going to loose our "experimentation" view the FCC has viewed as part of our service.  I know the ARRL promotes to oru government that we're the emergency communicators and there are many among us who do, but there is still others who are experimenting.  Examples include open source HF digital communication taking place right now on 20 meters, and of course look at all of the digital data modes that keep popping up.  I could keep mentioning others, but I'll close with this.  

If the other station doesn't like that you're not exactly on their frequency, just remind them in a gentle way that we're not a channelized service, and not required to use TXCO's that meet NTIA standards.  We're here to experiment and have fun.  Or, since I'm known for my candor... I'd probably say, suck it up cupcake!  :-) Of course, I'd add a chuckle at the end of that statement.

I'm currently restoring a TR-4c.  So this is going to be interesting when I get it on the air.


 73
- R. Eric Sluder

W9WLW
Omni VII
Eagle driver





>________________________________
> From: Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick at DJ0IP.de>
>To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment' <tentec at contesting.com> 
>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:28 AM
>Subject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology
> 
>
>...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 at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
>