Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] Maximum RF output in practical application: 4-250A

To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>,"'Joe Isabella'" <n3ji@yahoo.com>, <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] Maximum RF output in practical application: 4-250A
From: "Jim Tonne" <tonne@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:09:04 -0400
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>
I want to strengthen the information that Joe has stated:

> Bell Labs and other competent 
> research facilities have long proven that communication is substantially 
> unimpaired in a 2.5 to 3 KHz bandwidth and additional bandwidth does 
> not contribute to significant improvement in reliability.  The ITU and 
> national regulatory bodies have recognized that and have designed 
> most regulations around a 3 KHz bandwidth for voice.  

In the days when telephone calls were sent inter-city by microwave,
those signals were in the form of single-sideband signal  
frequency-modulating a 3.9 GHz carrier.  Each voice signal 
occupied most of a 4 kHz baseband "slot."  Those signals were 
sometimes generated in the 64 to 108 kHz region, sometimes at a 
higher frequency and heterodyned down to that region.  After 
generating such a "group" those groups were again heterodyned
upwards to form a super-group and so on.  The final collection of stuff
that actually modulated that 3.9 GHz carrier occupied several MHz.
(Megacycles in those days.)

Nevertheless, each individual channel had to pass - hold on to your 
hats, gents - the region from 300 to 3400 Hz.  Period.  The response 
was  *quite flat*  over that range.  But there were NO specs above or 
below that.  Period.  The various schemes used to generate a 
channel all had the same responses, regardless of whether they
used an L-C or a crystal filter.  I have designed and put into 
production such equipment.

This business of "300 to 3000" and the like is a terribly casual 
approximation of things.  

The numbers I just stated were not come by casually, you may rest
assured, because the research was done by Ma Bell long ago.  And 
they had a serious financial interest in things.  They wanted people 
to be happy and use "long distance" a lot.  But they did not want to 
waste a single little bit of bandwidth to do so.  (Prior to microwave
the group signal was sent via wireline.)

Listening to signals through such a channel - the broadcasters called
it a "Schedule C" - was really quite pleasant.  And that is where I am
about to stop.  You do NOT NEED the region above 3400 Hz to 
make the "quality" any significantly better.  To do so in the olden Telco
days was expensive and in the area of diminishing returns.  Even the
coast-to-coast network signals only went to about 4800 Hz.  And 
remember that no matter how wide a signal  you transmit, the 
RECEIVER has to be similarly wide (or else insane amount of 
pre-emphasis has to be used in the transmit end) or all is wasted.

The FAA specs (or at least DID spec) their voice-channel equipment
to go to 2400 Hz.  Tones for signalling and the like were at 2700.
Sounded awful to me.

My point?  A flat system response to three or so kilohertz is really 
pretty nice.

- Jim WB6BLD




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

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