TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor "TX IMD"

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor "TX IMD"
From: k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:56:41 -0700
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Back in the '60s hams made bad signals with soldering irons.
Now we do it with knobs. 

On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:57 AM, GARY HUBER wrote:

> 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

_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

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