The only fallacy to this method is that one needs to look at the
transmitted signal several MHz away from the carrier frequency. A true
Spectrum Analyzer is about the best method.
My new spectrum analyzer has a tracking generator, it covers 9 KHz to 1
GHz and is available for under %1500. It was recently reviewed in QST.
While that price is more than many hams pay for their transceivers, it
certainly is more useful than many of the "ham" displays which cost less.
73
Bob, K4TAX
> Those who have a SDR running PowerSDR or similar can use the panadapter
> and
> other functions to look at received signals and if optioned to receive
> during local transmit can also look at their OWN transmitted signals.
> N4PY
> developed a mod which works well with the OMNI-VII, providing a real-time
> look at one's transmitted signal.
>
> 73 ES DX,
> Gary -- AB9M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: k6jek
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 10:33 AM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor "TX IMD"
>
> I've been a ham since 1962 long before incentive licensing. There were
> plenty of terrible signals on the band back then.
>
> CW signals were raspy, chirpy, clicky, and drifty.
> AM signals were FMing, had RF in the audio, had audio distortion, and
> drifted,
> SSB signals had terrible opposite side band and carrier suppression, bad
> audio and drifted.
> Splatter was common.
> Harmonics radiation was common, broadcasting on several bands at once.
>
> Spectrum displays are becoming common on high end radios. This may be a
> boon
> since others may tell you when your signal is bad. Of course they'll be
> wrong because they don't know the definition of bandwidth but they didn't
> know it fifty years ago either.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>
>>> Guys, I maintain there are a lot less lids and a lot more bad radios
>>> then
>>> you think!
>>
>> Any ham who takes for granted what his or her radio is doing, without
>> measuring it him- or herself and correcting it as necessary, IS a lid.
>> And yes, unfortunately, I know that I have just described 85% of all US
>> hams. I would much prefer that those 85% had never been licensed, or
>> had
>> been required to learn and demonstrate genuine technical proficiency to
>> become licensed (I don't care a whit about whether they know code).
>>
>> IMO, we should get rid of the whole VE structure and go back to
>> examinations by an FCC field engineer at an FCC field office using
>> tests
>> that have not been made public. Ideally, including some hands-on
>> operation and troubleshooting. Putting testing in the hands of people
>> who
>> have an interest in how many new hams there are is the worst possible
>> way
>> to run things. Having a limited number of publicly-available test
>> questions is a deplorable farce.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
--
Disclosure:
I am a Tentec Ambassador and compensated according to the Tentec
Ambassador plan. I serve as a volunteer beta test person for the Omni
VII, Eagle and Argonaut VI products. Otherwise, I hold no business or
employment interest with Tentec.
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|