Brian,
You are probably correct on the organizations credited for SSB
engineering. My point was that AM was what was studied and had to exist
before SSB and it was the same type of mind set that did the
engineering. I would bet they were hams that made a living doing what
they enjoyed. What little I know of history but I have found that many
people with the design and engineering bug are hams, and that the ideas
they have, stem from their experiences in amateur radio. I would guess
that it happened something like this. An over simplification I am sure!
1. An old AM rig is being operated by an engineering and resourceful
individual.
2. He gets better receiving equipment where he can notch out an unwanted
carrier or narrow down the band pass for CW. (He probably built or
modified the receiver)
3. He finds that tuning off the side and notching the AM carrier causes
distortion. Reinserting the carrier with a LOCAL BFO improves reception.
4. Experiments and learns all the spectrum parameters of AM discovering
that the intelligence is in one sideband.
5. He works with others at work to come up with a phasing system to
eliminate the carrier (Work done by GE I think, help me here Don, K4KYV)
Later, comes up with audio phasing so that one side band can be
eliminated.
6. Collins comes up with better filtering circuits and decides that the
filtering circuit is better for the military systems due to its
simplicity for the user and get a contract with the military.
7. Mean while, back on the ranch, hams that work for "Bell Tell" are
trying to do multiplexing using independent DSB.
The scenarios could go on and on but I bet they were HAMS and had AM
rigs in 1930.
John, WA5BXO
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 7:32 PM
To: Discussion of AM Radio
Subject: RE: [AMRadio] The zeal to eliminate AM mode on the amateur
bands.
Hmmmm - I thought SSB was developed by the telephone
companies or the military back in the 1930s, rather than by
AM ham ops.
Maybe I was given wrong information.
On 18 Sep 2005 at 18:21, John Coleman ARS WA5BXO wrote:
> Yes, AMers are mavericks but I feel that the ones that did not
> go to SSB (100%) back in the 60s and 70s, are the ones that didn't
have
> any trouble communicating with whom ever they wanted and for the most
> part this took place because they were very knowledgeable folks with a
> desire to experiment and modify, or build from scratch, a better rig.
> ("That was a run on sentence if there was", somebody help me with
that.)
> Where as, the folks that just wanted to talk, collect cards and handle
> traffic found that buying a new SSB rig made that easier. I don't
think
> there is anyone among us that will deny the communication capabilities
> of a good SSB station. What many folks do forget is that the
engineers
> that researched and designed the SSB technologies were AM ops with
> mostly home brewed or highly modified stuff. Where do you think the
> ingenuity and knowledge to design the SSB stuff came from? I don't
mean
> to put down the folks that like to handle traffic, etc. There
expertise
> is certainly welcome in any part of the world. A lot of these
arguments
> can be said for CW as well. But when a SSB station, running 100
watts,
> can't cut the mustard or the rig don't work, I would be willing to
bet
> there or a lot of us AMers that could build a self oscillating single
> tube or Xsistor transmitter and be on the air with CW in short order
> with some junk parts.
>
> What I am saying is that it takes all sorts of people with
> expertise in different areas to make this hobby work and if we forget
> the old technologies then where are the building blocks for the
future.
> And if there is only a few modes to operate then where is the
incentive
> to learn.
>
> There will always be some nuts that go buy a rig just to get on
> the air and talk trash. They were there in the 50s, 60s, and 70s as
> well.
>
> I love to find a use for things for which it was not intended.
>
> John, WA5BXO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Bruhns
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 5:39 PM
> To: Discussion of AM Radio
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] The zeal to eliminate AM mode on the amateur
> bands.
>
> It's because a lot of people in authority are
> control freaks. Control was the reason they went
> after authority in the first place, and they
> consider it to be the proper reward for their
> work.
>
> AMers have long been mavericks, often behaving a
> bit wildly and holding unusual opinions, and above
> all being highly visible and audible on the bands.
> Guys with sideband gear didn't like the whistles
> and the sibilent splash, and control freaks went
> nuts wanting to rein in the independent and
> outspoken AMers.
>
> SWLs would tune the bands, but sidebanders sounded
> like Donald Duck, so the AMers were the ones the
> SWLs listened to. The control freaks sure didn't
> like that!
>
> So it went for many years. The sideband guys are
> still opposed to AM, and the control freaks still
> want control. There is not enough real activity
> on the bands to justify any conflict, but the
> control freaks still want control, and their
> failure to establish that control has made them
> really angry. Hence the zeal to eliminate AM.
>
> Bacon, WA3WDR
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Cobbeldick [KB4CVN]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <amradio@mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:10 PM
> Subject: [AMRadio] The zeal to eliminate AM mode
> on the
> amateur bands.
>
>
> > Having only been active on AM mode for just two
> short
> years, I consider
> > myself to still be a newbie, still not
> understanding
> the zeal and
> > fervor by some in the amateur community to
> eliminate
> or totally outlaw
> > the use of AM mode transmissions in the MF/HF
> amateur
> bands in the USA.
> >
> >
> > ...As quoted by one person "like using
> spark-gap".
> >
> > I look at AM communications as just one of the
> earlier modes, something
> > to be preserved, not cast aside.
> >
> > Could someone more familiar with the issue
> please
> give me a better
> > understanding of why these people are so intent
> to
> get rid of this
> > mode?
> >
> >
> > 73,
> > Mark Cobbeldick, KB4CVN
> > Monroe, VA
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> __________________________________________________
> _____
> _______
> > AMRadio mailing list
> > Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net
> > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net
> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net
> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>
______________________________________________________________
AMRadio mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net
AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
