Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] Centurion cooling improvement ideas for AM service

To: "Joe Isabella" <n3ji@yahoo.com>, "Amps" <amps@contesting.com>,"Bill Fuqua" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
Subject: Re: [Amps] Centurion cooling improvement ideas for AM service
From: "Frank Mayer" <domino@worldlynx.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:23:19 -0400
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>
There wil be no way to police any bandwidth restrictions.   Period. The ARRL 
should concentrate on real problems like cb'ers in the ten meter band
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Fuqua 
  To: Joe Isabella ; Amps 
  Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [Amps] Centurion cooling improvement ideas for AM service


       With easing up on the requirements to get a HF license. It is becoming 
  more and more difficult to find a spot to operate. Some would interpret 
  6KHz bandwidth limit for SSB to mean that splatter is acceptable.  3 Khz is 
  sufficient band width to communicate by voice. In fact telephones have been 
  built using the 300 to 3000 Hz band width ( or there about) as being 
  sufficient for all voices but
  perhaps not music.
       6 kHz on SSB would be greater audio bandwidth than used for standard 
  AM broadcast (5kHz). Which was adopted to accommodate music broadcast.
      The other side to using 6kHz for SSB in particular on the receiving end 
  would require twice the  transmitted power to accomplish the same signal to 
  noise as compared to 3khz. And 3 times the tx power than when using 2kHz. 
  So the minimum power rule enters in as well.
       Using twice the bandwidth than necessary just does not make sense.
       What I don't understand is the use of independent sideband. What does 
  ISB have to do with ham radio. It was used for long distance phone 
  communications before undersea cables and satellites to either transmit two 
  or more channels or for secure transmissions. Are we going to transmit 
  stereo? If so it seems to be a waste of bandwidth.
       Also, mixing automated digital modes and voice or manual CW is a bad 
  mistake. For example a PSK 31 station observing a CW station would perhaps 
  think that he is not going to interfere with it and go ahead and transmit 
  only 50 or 100 Hz from the CW stations frequency. Or a CW station may think 
  that a PSK31 station was just a birdie or some other obnoxious signal that 
  was not a ham station if he did not have a means of monitoring (a computer 
  and such). You can hear the modulation on a PSK31 signal if you have 
  sufficient signal strength. But other wise it may just sound like some 
  other spurious signal produced by the numerous microcontrollers in the 
  neighborhood.
      The accepted minimum bandwidth for CW 3 times the dit rate (2.5 times 
  WPM= Hz bandwidth)  the word rate. The theoretical limit is actually the 
  dit rate but it is difficult to copy with out using a computer at that 
  narrow of a bandwidth (this is easy to prove mathematically). So 11 or 12 
  WPM would take up the space of 1 PSK31 signal if we limited the rise and 
  fall time of the transmitter to what would be necessary. Or if you used a 
  computer to copy, the speed of OOK (CW) could be raised to over 20 wpm but 
  to limit the TX bandwidth to the real bandwidth limit would require more 
  than a key click filter. Just limiting the rise and fall times to some 
  value will not do it. This is another story entirely. You might call it 
  SSBCW with Carrier.

       My fear is that if we persist in setting HARD limits in bandwidth and 
  such we will finally end up with the HF bands defined as channels (like 
  60meters) and require everyone to use "Standardize radio equipment". This 
  would prevent lots of experimentation and learning by young and old ham.  I 
  would like one change, after giving it much thought. That is, to allow HF 
  amplifiers to be manufactured that  can be driven by low power 
  transmitters. This allows QRP operators/experimenters  to easily purchase 
  QRO equipment. It is OK as long as there are provisions for not allowing 
  amplifiers to be sold to non-HF-hams.

  73
  Bill wa4lav



  At 12:02 PM 8/26/2004 -0700, Joe Isabella wrote:
  >Apparently, I'm one of "these morons".  However, be careful not to cast 
  >stones when you live in a
  >glass house, because "Bassiness" has nothing to do with the extended 
  >BW.  Only the high
  >frequencies take up the extra amount between 3 and 6 kHz.  I run out to 6k 
  >sometimes, but only
  >when there is enough space.  I'll continue to use my bottom end even if I 
  >only run out to 3.2kHz
  >or so.
  >
  >One other thing to keep in mind is that these rules only affect the 
  >US.  There are many Canadians
  >running 6k SSB (hence my moving to Canada comment), so don't expect all 
  >the 6k SSB to miraculously
  >disappear.  Their gov't allows 6k in the voice spectrum which is 
  >plenty.  I don't understand why
  >we have to put such strict limits on it.
  >
  >Oh well -- I guess I'll keep on using AM at 9 kHz of bandwidth all the 
  >time istead of the 4 to 6
  >kHz that I would normally have been running on SSB.  Be careful what you 
  >ask for.
  >
  >Joe,
  >N3JI
  >
  >--- "Steven Grant, W4IIV" <stevengrant98@yahoo.com> wrote:
  >
  > > the reason they are doing this is because some folks love to have very 
  > bassey audio. thier egos
  > > say that they must have broadcast quality audio.
  > > i dont think they will do away with AM or 10m FM
  > > i do believe that they need to limit SSB widths cause some of these 
  > "morons" insist on taking up
  > > bandwidth with a 5kc wide SSB signal
  > > steven,   W4IIV
  > >
  > > "R.Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote:
  > >
  > > On Aug 25, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Joe Isabella wrote:
  > >
  > > > Prezactly... Except that it allows wider digital modes in the "CW"
  > > > bands, and it limits SSB Voice
  > > > to 3 kHz. I'm not a big fan of this move by the League -- seems silly
  > > > to put these limits in
  > > > place on voice. I think I'll move to Canada...eh??
  > > >
  > > Joe -- Letting the amateur radio community determine how a band is used
  > > has worked well enough on 160m. The vast CW wasteland presently on 80m
  > > is a good example of bad rule-making.
  > > end
  > >
  > > > Joe
  > > >
  > > > --- Vic Rosenthal wrote:
  > > >
  > > >> R.Measures wrote:
  > > >>
  > > >>> Thanks, Joe. So this means that if adopted, 10m FM as well as AM
  > > >>> will
  > > >>> be illegal.
  > > >>
  > > >> The bandwidth allowed in 29.0 - 29.7 MHz is 16 KHz.
  > > >>
  > > >> There is a specific provision to allow DSB AM in the 3 KHz areas:
  > > >>
  > > >> "(1) The 3 kHz maximum bandwidth does not apply to double-sideband
  > > >> amplitude-modulated phone A3E emissions which are limited to --26 dB
  > > >> bandwidths of 9 kHz."
  > > >>
  > > >> You can read the whole thing at:
  > > >>
  > > >>
  > > >>
  > > >> It's not going to make any revolutionary changes.
  > > >>
  > > >> --
  > > >> 73,
  > > >> Vic, K2VCO
  > > >> Fresno CA
  > > >> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
  > > >>
  > > >>
  > > >> _______________________________________________
  > > >> Amps mailing list
  > > >> Amps@contesting.com
  > > >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
  > > >>
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > > > __________________________________
  > > > Do you Yahoo!?
  > > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
  > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
  > > > _______________________________________________
  > > > Amps mailing list
  > > > Amps@contesting.com
  > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
  > > >
  > > >
  > > Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org
  > >
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > Amps mailing list
  > > Amps@contesting.com
  > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > STEVEN GRANT    W4IIV
  > >
  > > ---------------------------------
  > > Do you Yahoo!?
  > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > Amps mailing list
  > > Amps@contesting.com
  > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >_______________________________
  >Do you Yahoo!?
  >Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
  >http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
  >_______________________________________________
  >Amps mailing list
  >Amps@contesting.com
  >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

  _______________________________________________
  Amps mailing list
  Amps@contesting.com
  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>