N2EY said:
The bigger point, and the reason for all the bandwidth, is that we do
ourselves and amateur radio a disservice if we blindly accept such stories
without
checking out the facts.
The difference between high side low side injection is something I'm always
having to explain over
3) The filter system lent itself easily to transceiver
implementations. This greatly reduced size, power consumption, cost
and complexity, because the same oscillators could be used for both
transmit and receive. Also, the task of zeroing the transmitter was
mostly eliminated. (Trivia: what
Steve WB6RSE wrote:
Anyone have any experience changing the K1 from
LSB to USB CW?
Steve,
That's an interesting question.
The K1 front end mixer injects the local oscillator (LO) signal ABOVE the
incoming RF signal (high side injection), while the product detector injects
the BFO signal
On Jun 17, 2004, at 10:43 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:
I'd be curious about the advantages that you see in a K1 LSB-to-USB
conversion.
73,
Mike / KK5F
Mike - I have no interest in listening to SSB with the K1 and have set
it up for an 80 kc spread. The advantage to USB CW is that it has long
To solve this problem see my SSB mods for K1 and see only the schematic part
regarding BFO .
Documentation to my web page:
http://it.geocities.com/giulianoi0cg/k1_page.html
73 de Giuliano I0CG
Steve WB6RSE wrote:
Anyone have any experience changing the K1 from
LSB to USB CW?
In a message dated 6/17/04 2:41:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The present day LSB - USB band standards have their roots
from years ago in the availability of 9 Mc crystals / filters - when
SSB was experimental and you had to build your own. 9 Mc plus a VFO
I just picked up a copy of the June CQ in the airport bookshop and p.28
has a sidebar by K2MGA (CQ Publisher) on the history of SSB:
Regardless of how the SSB signal was
generated, the 455 kc USB signal was mixed up
to 9 Mc. Using a converted war-surplus
BC-458 transmitter...as a VFO,
Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. wrote:
I just picked up a copy of the June CQ in the airport bookshop and p.28
has a sidebar by K2MGA (CQ Publisher) on the history of SSB:
Regardless of how the SSB signal was
generated, the 455 kc USB signal was mixed up
to 9 Mc. Using a converted war-surplus
As I read it, the USB signal was generated at 455Kc and then mixed up to
9Mc, thus giving a USB 9Mc signal. The VFO was then in thr 4.0-5.3Mc
range. And that was added or subtracted...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 8:02pm, Vic Rosenthal wrote:
Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. wrote:
I just picked up a copy of
Vic - As I recall from about a million years ago, when the hardware was
actually built, when you subtracted to get to 75m, the sideband
reversed. If not, the standard on 160-80-40 today would be USB - but it
isn't.
73, Steve WB6RSE
On Jun 17, 2004, at 4:59 PM, Vic Rosenthal wrote:
This is
I just looked at my old copy of the NEW Sideband Handbook by Don Stoner
W6TNS, copyright 1958 - I have 6th printing dated June 1966.
Page 94 shows the schematic of the Central Electronics 10B phasing exciter -
and it DOES generate SSB at a fixed 9 MHz (unchanged from the 10A). The
addition of a
In a message dated 6/17/04 7:10:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I just picked up a copy of the June CQ in the airport bookshop and p.28
has a sidebar by K2MGA (CQ Publisher) on the history of SSB:
Regardless of how the SSB signal was
generated, the 455 kc USB
I mis remembered, it was a 9 MHz VFO in the radio I described, the one from
ZL1AAX, apparently.
Thanks math gurus.
73
Stuart
13 matches
Mail list logo