H mode mixer

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/14/07 8:43:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> We do owe Wayne gratitude for keeping 220 mHz
> available for ham use.
>

How did he do that?

73 de Jim, N2EY


**************************************
 See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julius Fazekas n2wn]

As I recall Jim, he championed the "220, Use it or
Lose It" campaign. There was a lot of commercial
interest in the band in the 70s, probably the same is
true now as well.

Folks had strong emotions, one way or the other, when
it came to Wayne.

73,
Julius
n2wn

--- [hidden email] wrote:

> In a message dated 5/14/07 8:43:46 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
>
> > We do owe Wayne gratitude for keeping 220 mHz
> > available for ham use.
> >
>
> How did he do that?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
> **************************************
>  See what's free at
> http://www.aol.com.
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julius Fazekas n2wn]

Hi Brian,

> Wayne was interesting to work for. He was aptly
> noted for being a  
> cheapskate and it turned out that was true. OTOH,
> one time when I was  
> up there he took me out to lunch and we had a great
> argument about  
> the future of amateur radio. (Several people in the
> office dropped in  
> a dead faint when they learned that Wayne actually
> bought me, an  
> employee, lunch. :-) I was, of course, suggesting
> that digital  
> communications was the future of amateur radio. He
> wasn't sure. Seems  
> we were both at least part right because here it is
> 18 years later  
> and we are only just starting to see changes in the
> communications  
> landscape.

I met him once very briefly. I was just a kid so other
than him being the publisher of 73 and being
reasonably nice, I can't say I knew him. He stirred
strong emotions one way or the other in the older
hams. The technical hams often dismissed 73 as a bunch
of hoowie. Still a lot of VHF/UHF guys liked the
publication. I certainly enjoyed some of the covers
;o)

>
> Anyway, he sure annoyed the hell out of everyone but
> you have to  
> admit, he had an effect on what we do and how we do
> it.
>
> Never Say Die.

"220, Use It or Lose It" I still have the button for
this somewhere...

>
> And speaking of digital communications, the loss of
> The Code as a  
> gating factor is going to prompt a shift away from
> CW as the  
> minimalist mode for HF. I believe that PSK31 is
> probably going to  
> slowly take over that position as it can be done
> with equipment  
> almost as simple as a CW rig and provides the same
> level of  
> communications at similar power levels.
>
> (BTW, I am teaching code to my kids at school as I
> want them to be  
> able to build the simplest radio possible to get on
> the air. I just  
> don't think that CW will remain as the mainstay
> "last resort"  
> communications mode.)

You're probably correct in your assessment on digital
modes. I think the K3 will go a long way in opening up
digital modes for those of us who haven't tried them
yet. Whether is PSK or another protocol, is to be
seen. Judging by the numbers of participants in RTTY
contests these days, it is a fast growing segment.
Change is good, unsettling yes, but the possibilities
are worth the uncertainty...

73,
Julius
n2wn
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[KENT TRIMBLE]

You can't copy PSK31 in your head.
You can't copy PSK31 from a flashlight.
You can't copy PSK31 from touch.
You can't copy PSK31 from sound.
You can't copy PSK31 to fight sleep on long trips.

You can't send PSK31 by touching two wires together.
You can't send PSK31 by honking a horn.
You can't send PSK31 by pressing a buzzer.
You can't send PSK31 by light bulb.
You can't send PSK31 by touch.
You can't send PSK31 by tapcode in a Vietnamese prison.


73,

Kent  K9ZTV
Jefferson City, MO

>Someone wrote:
>  
>
>>And speaking of digital communications, the loss of
>>The Code as a  
>>gating factor is going to prompt a shift away from
>>CW as the  
>>minimalist mode for HF. I believe that PSK31 is
>>probably going to  
>>slowly take over that position as it can be done
>>with equipment  
>>almost as simple as a CW rig and provides the same
>>level of  
>>communications at similar power levels.
>>
>>I just  
>>don't think that CW will remain as the mainstay
>>"last resort"  
>>communications mode.)
>>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bob Nielsen]

My memory isn't what it used to be, but wasn't Wayne also behind the  
"Save 11" movement back in the late 1950s (when it was still a ham  
band, pre-CB)?  I think that was when he was editor of CQ before he  
left and started 73.  I remember there was a big contest held as a  
last hurrah for 11 meters.

Bob, N7XY


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brian Lloyd-6]

> Whether is PSK or another protocol, is to be
> seen. Judging by the numbers of participants in RTTY
> contests these days, it is a fast growing segment.
> Change is good, unsettling yes, but the possibilities
> are worth the uncertainty...

CW remains a mainstay because it is an efficient mode. You can  
communicate with very low power levels which makes QRP reasonable.  
RTTY is not nearly so efficient and requires much more energy per bit  
to get good copy. It forces you into more QRO operation. PSK31 is as  
narrow as CW which lets you use narrow filters to lower the noise  
energy in the passband. It also incorporates forward error correction  
which allows it to still give good copy with very marginal signals.

Now that is not to say that PSK31 is the be-all and end-all for  
casual QSOs but I personally think that it is the first of some very  
interesting modulation schemes that will provide the same level of  
performance as CW. And since new hams don't have to know the code  
anymore ...

73 de Brian, WB6RQN
Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Sandy W5TVW]

In my humble opinion, I would say PSK, generally, has it "all over" RTTY.
Communication can be maintained with very marginal signals, and very nearby
signals (unless they are "dirty" or overpowering the receiver's AGC system).
I have used a lot of RTTY systems over the years and they require MORE
bandwidth, more power for effective communication (generally), and subject
nearby signals more interference (generally).

The largest "bug" I have found in the PSK system is that it is "mangled" by
propagation phase shifts caused by auroral disturbances even though audibly,
the signal sounds "OK".
I consider this acceptable as it (PSK31) seems to "get through" much more
efficiently than RTTY with less power.  Speed in this case not a factor in
keyboard to keyboard QSO's.

I can see no sense in using MORE bandwidth than a PSK31 signal to convey
normal QSO information.  Other modes capable of data and image communication
in addition to normal keyboard QSO's wind up being gross "overkill" and use
spectrum space a lot more inefficiently.  Spectrum space for CW, digital
modes is "shrinking" from demands made for voice and wide data modes.
Therefore it would behoove us to contrate our efforts on the narrowest
digital mode that will give satisfactory communication in these days of
decreasing spectrum space.  An amazing amount of use is being made of just a
3-5 Khz. "sub band" for PSK operations on most bands from 80-10 meters.  It
amazes me why this mode isn't replacing RTTY, and remains a popular FSK
mode.  It would be like comparing effectiveness of SSB voice mode to the
older AM voice mode.  I can't see people changing over to AM, even as a
"fad", over SSB operations.  It's starkly obvious which is generally
superior!

My "two pennies" worth on this thread.

73,

Sandy W5TVW


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <[hidden email]>
To: "J F" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Elecraft Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:09 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] RTTY vs. PSK31 (was: OT - 73 Magazine (was H mode
mixer))

>> Whether is PSK or another protocol, is to be
>> seen. Judging by the numbers of participants in RTTY
>> contests these days, it is a fast growing segment.
>> Change is good, unsettling yes, but the possibilities
>> are worth the uncertainty...
>
> CW remains a mainstay because it is an efficient mode. You can
> communicate with very low power levels which makes QRP reasonable.  RTTY
> is not nearly so efficient and requires much more energy per bit  to get
> good copy. It forces you into more QRO operation. PSK31 is as  narrow as
> CW which lets you use narrow filters to lower the noise  energy in the
> passband. It also incorporates forward error correction  which allows it
> to still give good copy with very marginal signals.
>
> Now that is not to say that PSK31 is the be-all and end-all for  casual
> QSOs but I personally think that it is the first of some very  interesting
> modulation schemes that will provide the same level of  performance as CW.
> And since new hams don't have to know the code  anymore ...
>
> 73 de Brian, WB6RQN
> Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
> 269.7.1/805 - Release Date: 5/15/2007 10:47 AM
>
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

Good points Sandy, but you know there are a lot of guys with old Type 47 and
33 mechanical printers out there who enjoy firing them up and hearing them
rattle the windows of the shack pounding out TTY on paper by the hour. As
far as I know, not a one of them will do PSK or any other TOR mode.

While many Hams keep their eyes squarely on the future, many look back to
the past. Shoot, there are even many Hams who build and operate vacuum tube
gear and some who have yet to utter a single word on 'phone using anything
but AM phone! <G>

I agree that we should conserve spectrum as a matter of good stewardship of
the resource but out here in the west, at least, we have lots and lots of
KHz on the HF bands that are unoccupied except, perhaps, during a contest.
If the day ever comes that we do find ourselves unable to squeeze in
sideways on a band, perhaps we'll need to re-think the use of some wider
bandwidth modes, just like "King Spark" was outlawed for just that reason
about 75 years ago.

Ron AC7AC



-----Original Message-----
In my humble opinion, I would say PSK, generally, has it "all over" RTTY.
Communication can be maintained with very marginal signals, and very nearby
signals (unless they are "dirty" or overpowering the receiver's AGC system).

I have used a lot of RTTY systems over the years and they require MORE
bandwidth, more power for effective communication (generally), and subject
nearby signals more interference (generally).

The largest "bug" I have found in the PSK system is that it is "mangled" by
propagation phase shifts caused by auroral disturbances even though audibly,

the signal sounds "OK".
I consider this acceptable as it (PSK31) seems to "get through" much more
efficiently than RTTY with less power.  Speed in this case not a factor in
keyboard to keyboard QSO's.

I can see no sense in using MORE bandwidth than a PSK31 signal to convey
normal QSO information.  Other modes capable of data and image communication

in addition to normal keyboard QSO's wind up being gross "overkill" and use
spectrum space a lot more inefficiently.  Spectrum space for CW, digital
modes is "shrinking" from demands made for voice and wide data modes.
Therefore it would behoove us to contrate our efforts on the narrowest
digital mode that will give satisfactory communication in these days of
decreasing spectrum space.  An amazing amount of use is being made of just a

3-5 Khz. "sub band" for PSK operations on most bands from 80-10 meters.  It
amazes me why this mode isn't replacing RTTY, and remains a popular FSK
mode.  It would be like comparing effectiveness of SSB voice mode to the
older AM voice mode.  I can't see people changing over to AM, even as a
"fad", over SSB operations.  It's starkly obvious which is generally
superior!

My "two pennies" worth on this thread.

73,

Sandy W5TVW


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/15/07 7:58:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> If the day ever comes that we do find ourselves unable to squeeze in
> sideways on a band, perhaps we'll need to re-think the use of some wider
> bandwidth modes, just like "King Spark" was outlawed for just that reason
> about 75 years ago.
>
>

Spark was outlawed for US hams in 1927. Part of the "1929 rules" that came
about as a result of a series of World Radio Conferences in the 1920s.  

But it was a moot point by then. Nobody was still using spark on the ham
bands by 1927 - it was simply ineffective compared to the new tube transmitters.
Time and time again, it was shown that a 50 watt CW rig could do as well or
better than a kilowatt spark on 200 meters, and that was the end of that.

When hams went to the short waves, spark did not go with them.

If you think we have fast progress and lots of change today, just consider
what those hams of the '20s and '30s went through.

When hams got back on the air after WW2, 99% were on 200 meters, using spark
rigs. The well equipped amateur might have a kilowatt rotary spark, a big
Marconi-type antenna (4 wire flat-top 100 feet long, between two 75 foot masts,
with an incredible ground system), and possibly a form of regenerative receiver
with Audio detector, loose coupler and a stage or two of audio - all battery
powered. On a really good winter night, such a setup might be good for 1000
miles. On an average night, 400-500 miles. During the day, maybe 100 miles.

Fast forward 5 years or so (1924-25).

The oceans have been spanned, using short waves and far less power than it
took to work 1000 miles on 200 meters. Tube transmitters are all the rage, while
200 meters is old hat and spark is rapidly disappearing. Superhet receivers
are in the hands of a few, bands like 20 meters allow DX in daylight, and there
are a few hams using voice. The old flat-top Marconi is gone, replaced by a
balanced Hertzian dipole fed with the new "ladder line".

Fast forward 5 more years or so (1929-30).

The whole world has been worked using short waves, to the point that "DX" has
come to mean continents and countries worked, not distance in miles.  200
meters and spark are ancient history. The advanced amateur has a multistage tube
transmitter and a superhet receiver. Crystal control is becoming popular. The
new 1929 rules require clean, stable signals, so monitors, filters and
rectifiers are the order of the day. "AC" tubes are used for the receiver, and there
is a considerable selection of new bottles for the transmitter. Some hams are
on 10 and even 5 meters.

Compare the 1919 shack with the 1929 shack, and almost nothing in the first
was used in the second. Even the keys and headphones were usually different.

Fast forward 5 more years (1934-35) and the equipment of an advanced ham
station could be used today with little or no modification. Single signal superhet
receiver, crystal controlled transmitter, T9X stabilized signals, clean Class
B plate-modulated 'phone, even SSB.

73 de Jim, N2EY


**************************************
 See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com