[TenTec] On Switching Power Supplies

[Kim Elmore]

Yep, regens, not super-regens. Mea culpa!

Kim N5OP

"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith

On Jan 19, 2014, at 10:23, John Farler <k4avx1 at windstream.net> wrote:

> Really?  Super-regen receivers?  Help me out here.  I know how a
> regen rx works, but I've never heard of a "super-regen" except on
> Vhf ala the famous Heath Lunchboxes.  They didn't decode CW,
> nor  SSB. I know very little about their theory of operation.
> 
> But Regens will decode CW, of course, but would need a stage
> or stages of RF amplication (or isolation) in the front end to
> keep the RX from sending out a signal that could be detected
> from it's oscillating detector.
> 
> Not saying a real "super-regen" might not somehow be used, but
> please fill me in...Maybe you are referring to such REGENS as
> described above as "super regens?"
> 
> John, K4AVX
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:44:07 -0600
> From: Kim Elmore<cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net>
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment<tentec at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] On Switching Power Supplies
> Message-ID:<B88F15AE-8654-4639-86AB-E4A1C419617C at sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=us-ascii
> 
> If and only if the sole and singular concern is RF quiet operation, the a linear supply is the only choice. If efficiency plays a role, the you choose the technological path.
> 
> As an aside, in WWII and the decades that followed -- when CW was the dominant mode and required only a Second Class Radiotelegraph license was needed -- most ships used super regen receivers, even though superhet receivers were significantly better. Why?
> 
> Because submarines couldn't find shops with super regen receivers because they're radio-quiet.
> 
> It all depends on the operational constraints.
> 
> Kim N5OP
>