Gary, the kind of noise I'm speaking about is probably not going to be heard
or seen at the far end.
But your neighbors will hear it and your field day buddies will hate you.
I understand how most of you guys who have never experienced this may be
finding it difficult to believe.
But once you've experienced it live, I guarantee you will jump on the
bandwagon with me.
73
Rick, DJ0IP
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of GARY HUBER
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 5:58 PM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor "TX IMD"
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
|