TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] In praise of older technology
From: k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:03:42 -0800
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
I suppose it would have had to have been the '30's and those were tough times. 

On Feb 24, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Brian Carling wrote:

> And maybe they were too busy fighting a war to play radio.
> 
> Best regards - Bry Carling
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:03 PM, k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> We're cruising toward the 100 year anniversary of SSB. It definitely 
>> qualifies as older technology.
>> 
>> It was the famous John Carson patent for SSB filed in 1915 that used the 
>> antenna circuit for more than just radiating. He suppressed the carrier with 
>> a balanced modulator but sliced off the opposite sideband in the antenna 
>> coupler. That's a higher Q tuner than your average MFJ.
>> 
>> I've never understood why it took so long for amateurs to pick up SSB. AT&T 
>> had it in commercial service in 1927. A couple of guys did stuff in the 
>> '30's. But not until the Stanford experiments in 1947 and the QST articles 
>> the next year did it really start to take off. Maybe it took cheaper and 
>> better components that came out of WWII to make it practical for hams. Or 
>> maybe it was just  wasn't interesting to them.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:08 PM, k6jek wrote:
>>> 
>>> There is a lot to be said for an antenna as a resonant circuit. One of the 
>>> very early SSB patents did just that. They sliced off the carrier and 
>>> opposite sideband at the antenna.  Now if I can just remember who that was. 
>>> I bet one of you can
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Loomis was a quack.  I'd rather hang out with Reginald Fessenden
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 02/24/14, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Doug, I think you've been hanging out with Mahlon Loomas too long!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And for those of you who can't remember who he was, it might be worth your
>>>> while to look it up.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I bet most of you didn't even know that wireless communications was 
>>>> invented
>>>> by a DENTIST!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, he also invented the very first Aerial, although some might argue it
>>>> was Benjamin Franklin.
>>>> 
>>>> Franklin only used the kite wire to capture electricity; Loomas used it as
>>>> an Aerial to send and receive signals.
>>>> 
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahlon_Loomis 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Though his patent for a wireless telegraph was in 1872, as I recall he
>>>> discovered this about 4 years earlier. Hard to remember exactly. I was
>>>> just a young whipper snapper back then.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So guys, take it from me; next time you're having problems with your
>>>> antenna, don't ask an engineer, consult your dentist!
>>>> 
>>>> Hey, I oughta know... I work for an antenna company!
>>>> 
>>>> ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What does all of this have to do with Doug's comment?
>>>> 
>>>> Everything.
>>>> 
>>>> Mahlon discovered that if he made the length of the wire of the TX and RX
>>>> aerial the exact same length, communications was much more reliable. Thus
>>>> you might conclude that the length of wire was determining the frequency.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> But that's not quite accurate.
>>>> 
>>>> Actually it was transmitting on (almost) all frequencies, but only
>>>> efficiently radiating into the ether on the wavelength associated with the
>>>> length of his aerial. So specifically, the aerial, not the transmitter,
>>>> determined the frequency being radiated into the distant ether. In the near
>>>> field, a broad frequency spectrum was being radiated.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ... at least that's my understanding of what was happening. 
>>>> 
>>>> Then again, how would I know?
>>>> 
>>>> I'm neither an engineer nor a dentist!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
>>>> 
>>>> (Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Doug Reid
>>>> Back when I started out, we used a spark generator and the frequency was
>>>> determined by the length of our antenna...... 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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>