K1 on USB CW

[Steve Lawrence-2]

Anyone have any experience changing the K1 from LSB to USB CW?

73, Steve WB6RSE

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Leigh L. Klotz Jr WA5ZNU]

Today I worked EC6UN Jurek (Balearic Is., Spain) on 20M with 4W to a
PAC-12 from my KX1 #712 on a Lake Ontario pier in Webster, NY and got a
569.

See http://wa5znu.org/log for pix.
73,
WA5ZNU Leigh
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jimmy Lee-4]

Way to go Leigh.
72, Jimmy, AE4DT

"Leigh L. Klotz, Jr." wrote:

> Today I worked EC6UN Jurek (Balearic Is., Spain) on 20M with 4W to a
> PAC-12 from my KX1 #712 on a Lake Ontario pier in Webster, NY and got a
> 569.
>
> See http://wa5znu.org/log for pix.
> 73,
> WA5ZNU Leigh
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> You must subscribe to post.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Mike Morrow-3]

Steve WB6RSE wrote:

> Anyone have any experience changing the K1 from
> LSB to USB CW?

Steve,

That's an interesting question.

The K1 front end mixer injects the local oscillator (LO) signal ABOVE the
incoming RF signal (high side injection), while the product detector injects
the BFO signal BELOW the IF signal (low side injection).  The result is the
receiver functioning in LSB mode.  One could raise the frequency of the BFO
so that it is above the IF signal (high side injection), and you would have
as a result a receiver operating in USB mode.

The *only* positive attribute of going to high side BFO injection that I can
think of would be a theoretical improvement in opposite sideband rejection
due to the asymetrical shape of the IF crystal filter bandpass skirts.  But
the opposite sideband rejection of the K1 is already as good as one will
ever need.

The big negative to USB for me would be losing the ability to copy LSB phone
on the lower 20 kHz of the 40m phone band on my K1 with a 170 kHz VFO span.
One finds no USB signal worth covering on 30m unless it is military/utility
outside the ham band, and nothing on 17m or 15m on USB within the K1 tuning
range, nor are the foreign phone USB signals on 20m of much interest to me.

The other operating characteristic that would change is that the AF tone of
the received signal would lower as the VFO is tuned upward in USB mode.  I
like the LSB characteristic of the AF tone going up as I tune upward on the
VFO.

I'd be curious about the advantages that you see in a K1 LSB-to-USB
conversion.

73,
Mike / KK5F


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Steve Lawrence-2]

On Jun 17, 2004, at 10:43 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:

> I'd be curious about the advantages that you see in a K1 LSB-to-USB
> conversion.
>
> 73,
> Mike / KK5F
>
Mike - I have no interest in listening to SSB with the K1 and have set
it up for an 80 kc spread. The advantage to USB CW is that it has long
been the standard for CW - even on 160-80-40 where sideband operation
is LSB - CW is still USB. I usually start tuning from the bottom end of
the band going up and it is often useful to hear what's up the band as
you tune higher. For casual operation, it is not that big a deal but in
chasing DX it is nice hear the split up frequency. With LSB you would
hear the last station worked only if he was below your listening
frequency rather than above, especially if the signal is weak. For
serious DX chasing, USB CW is the way to go.

That said, the K1 is a very impressive design with clever mechanical
assembly features and carefully thought out ergonomics. Wayne and Eric
really know their stuff.

By-the-way: The present day LSB - USB band "standards" have their roots
from years ago in the availability of 9 Mc crystals / filters - when
SSB was experimental and you had to build your own. 9 Mc plus a VFO
running at 5.0 to 5.5 Mc gives you 20m USB. Subtract the VFO frequency
and you tune "backwards" on 75/80m and you get LSB. There is actually
no reason for USB vs LSB on any band anymore. It's just convention from
the original experimental designs. 20m and above is USB, below 20m it's
LSB. You'll occasionally hear some DX on 20m on LSB to keep the crowd
away.

I'd be interested in anyone's attempts at shifting the K1 to USB CW.

73, Steve WB6RSE

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Mike Morrow-3]

Steve wrote:

>The advantage to USB CW is that ... it is often useful to hear
> what's up the band as you tune higher. ...With LSB you would
>hear the last station worked only if he was below your listening
>frequency rather than above, especially if the signal is weak. For
>serious DX chasing, USB CW is the way to go.


Very interesting, Steve.   Thanks for the explanation.

In my 36 years as a ham I've pursued mainly MARS, portable, rag-chew, sched,
or casual DX/contest operation, the last to test antennas, usually.  I'd
never heard of a receive mode advantage for USB on CW before.  Still, the
advantage seems to stem from operation conventions for how a band is scanned
and how the DX being chased offsets his receiver, rather than from a
technical-based superiority.

Perhaps playing around with reducing the value of RF-C66, C63, and/or RFC1
might get the existing K1 product detector crystal (X5) oscillation
frequency (BFO) high enough to get above the IF frequency.  Then you'd have
to play around with the transmitter offset oscillator crystal (X6)  and
components (C62 and RFC2) to get the transmitter offset above the receiver
zero-beat frequency rather than below it as it now is.  Seems like an upward
shift of just a couple of kHz would do.

It doesn't seem too daunting...definitely possible, it appears to me.
However, I've not seen any postings since the K1 came out in 2000 reporting
that anyone has actually done this.  Good luck, and post results if you try!

> The present day LSB - USB band "standards" have their roots
> from years ago...

Frankly, I think in modern times it is silly to retain the convention of LSB
on the lower bands except when old ham gear is being used.  There's a lot of
military surplus equipment available that operates on USB only.  Forget
using that on the lower ham bands without some non-original re-engineering!

73,
Mike / KK5F



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[giuliano-8]

To solve this problem see my SSB mods for K1 and see only the schematic part
regarding BFO .
Documentation to my web page:
http://it.geocities.com/giulianoi0cg/k1_page.html
73 de Giuliano I0CG



> Steve WB6RSE wrote:
>
> > Anyone have any experience changing the K1 from
> > LSB to USB CW?
>


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 6/17/04 2:41:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> The present day LSB - USB band "standards" have their roots
> from years ago in the availability of 9 Mc crystals / filters - when
> SSB was experimental and you had to build your own. 9 Mc plus a VFO
> running at 5.0 to 5.5 Mc gives you 20m USB. Subtract the VFO frequency
> and you tune "backwards" on 75/80m and you get LSB.


No, that's just not true. Urban legend. I believed it for years but when I
did the math the truth could not be denied. The only way you get sideband
inversion is if the heterodyne oscillator is above *both* the input and output
frequencies of a mixing process.

Yes, the 9 MHz IF / 5-5.5 Mhz VFO scheme was popular, and it does result in
one band tuning backwards. But it *does not* result in sideband inversion!
Generate USB and 9 MHz and mix it with a 5-5.5 MHz VFO and you get USB on 75 and
20.

The LSB/USB convention for hams goes back to before hams used 9 MHz filters
to generate SSB. .

Now if you use a 5 MHz SSB generator and a 9 MHz VFO you *do* get sideband
inversion.

If anyone wants the exact math, I have it all written up.

73 de Jim, N2EY
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Don Wilhelm-2]

There IS one reason to generate the SSB signal as LSB - many crystal lattice
filters (including the one in the KSB2) have a steeper slope on the low
frequency side, so the LSB generation is better than USB generation.  Yes,
the sideband CAN be inverted by the proper mixing scheme - the current state
of affairs -- it depends on which transceiver you are talking about.

73,
Don W3FPR

Life is what happens when you are making other plans

----- Original Message -----
>
>
> > The present day LSB - USB band "standards" have their roots
> > from years ago...
>
> Frankly, I think in modern times it is silly to retain the convention of
LSB
> on the lower bands except when old ham gear is being used.  There's a lot
of
> military surplus equipment available that operates on USB only.  Forget
> using that on the lower ham bands without some non-original
re-engineering!
>


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Leigh L. Klotz Jr WA5ZNU]

I just picked up a copy of the June CQ in the airport bookshop and p.28
has a sidebar by K2MGA (CQ Publisher) on the history of SSB:

   Regardless of how the SSB signal was
   generated, the 455 kc USB signal was mixed up
   to 9 Mc.  Using a converted war-surplus
   BC-458 transmitter...as a VFO, the
   4.0 to 5.3 Mc output was either added
   to or subtracted from the 9Mc SSB
   signal.  That produced a USB signal on
   20 meters or an LSB signal on 75 meters.
   (That's the origin of the world-wide
   convention: LSB below 20 meters; USB on
   20 meters and up. ..)

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 5:37pm, [hidden email] wrote:
> No, that's just not true. Urban legend.
> ...
> Now if you use a 5 MHz SSB generator and a 9 MHz VFO you *do* get
> sideband
> inversion.

73,
WA5ZNU Leigh
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Vic K2VCO]

Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. wrote:

> I just picked up a copy of the June CQ in the airport bookshop and p.28
> has a sidebar by K2MGA (CQ Publisher) on the history of SSB:
>
>   Regardless of how the SSB signal was
>   generated, the 455 kc USB signal was mixed up
>   to 9 Mc.  Using a converted war-surplus
>   BC-458 transmitter...as a VFO, the
>   4.0 to 5.3 Mc output was either added
>   to or subtracted from the 9Mc SSB
>   signal.  That produced a USB signal on
>   20 meters or an LSB signal on 75 meters.

This is just wrong.  Say you generate a USB signal at 9 MHz from a 1 KHz
audio tone.  The (suppressed) carrier of the generated USB signal is at
9.000 MHz and the upper sideband is at 9.001 Mhz.  Then mixing with a
5.0 MHz VFO would give sum frequencies of 14.000 and 14.001 MHz as well
as differences of 4.000 and 4.001 MHz.  This is USB in both cases.

Of course, the VFO would tune in opposite directions.

Even a CW operator like me can add and subtract!

--
73,
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Leigh L. Klotz Jr WA5ZNU]

As I read it, the USB signal was generated at 455Kc and then mixed up to
9Mc, thus giving a USB 9Mc signal.  The VFO was then in thr 4.0-5.3Mc
range.   And that was added or subtracted...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 8:02pm, Vic Rosenthal wrote:

> Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. wrote:
>> I just picked up a copy of the June CQ in the airport bookshop and
>> p.28 has a sidebar by K2MGA (CQ Publisher) on the history of SSB:
>>   Regardless of how the SSB signal was
>>   generated, the 455 kc USB signal was mixed up
>>   to 9 Mc.  Using a converted war-surplus
>>   BC-458 transmitter...as a VFO, the
>>   4.0 to 5.3 Mc output was either added
>>   to or subtracted from the 9Mc SSB
>>   signal.  That produced a USB signal on
>>   20 meters or an LSB signal on 75 meters.
>
> This is just wrong.  Say you generate a USB signal at 9 MHz from a 1
> KHz
> audio tone.  The (suppressed) carrier of the generated USB signal is at
> 9.000 MHz and the upper sideband is at 9.001 Mhz.  Then mixing with a
> 5.0 MHz VFO would give sum frequencies of 14.000 and 14.001 MHz as well
> as differences of 4.000 and 4.001 MHz.  This is USB in both cases.
>
> Of course, the VFO would tune in opposite directions.
>
> Even a CW operator like me can add and subtract!
>
> --
> 73,
> Vic, K2VCO
> Fresno CA
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> You must subscribe to post.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc):
> http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

73,
WA5ZNU Leigh
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Steve Lawrence-2]

Vic - As I recall from about a million years ago, when the hardware was
actually built, when you subtracted to get to 75m, the sideband
reversed. If not, the standard on 160-80-40 today would be USB - but it
isn't.

73, Steve WB6RSE

On Jun 17, 2004, at 4:59 PM, Vic Rosenthal wrote:

> This is just wrong.  Say you generate a USB signal at 9 MHz from a 1
> KHz
> audio tone.  The (suppressed) carrier of the generated USB signal is at
> 9.000 MHz and the upper sideband is at 9.001 Mhz.  Then mixing with a
> 5.0 MHz VFO would give sum frequencies of 14.000 and 14.001 MHz as well
> as differences of 4.000 and 4.001 MHz.  This is USB in both cases.
>
> Of course, the VFO would tune in opposite directions.
>
> Even a CW operator like me can add and subtract!
>
> --
> 73,
> Vic, K2VCO
> Fresno CA

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

True, Leigh... But you'll still have an upper or lower sideband after adding
or subtracting the L.O.. I got tripped up in that one myself until someone
pointed it out to me.

I haven't taken the time to dig around in the old QST archives, but in the
early days of SSB (around 1950) there was *no* 40 meter phone band. Forty
was 300 kc/s of CW and no broadcasters (Heaven with a key!!).

I'm sort of curious to see if someone built an SSB exciter that tuned 5.0 to
5.3 MHz and mixed it with a 9 MHz oscillator to put a signal into either the
70 or 20 meter "phone" bands. Now that would produce USB on one band and LSB
on the other that might have started the "convention".  

If not, it'd be interesting if someone could figure out just when the
convention of using USB above 40 meters started.

Ron AC7AC

-----Original Message-----
Leigh wrote:

As I read it, the USB signal was generated at 455Kc and then mixed up to
9Mc, thus giving a USB 9Mc signal.  The VFO was then in thr 4.0-5.3Mc
range.   And that was added or subtracted...


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stuart Rohre]

The use of the conversion from 5 MHz VFO is indeed how the USB vs. LSB
convention got started.  With 9 MHz IF you got 4.0 MHz (80M) and 20M, (14
MHz.)   9 -5 in one case, 9+5 in the other, with opposite Sidebands.

The first use of such was probably the Central Electronics or similar tube
transmitters in the early SSB days of the 1950's.

In 1967, I had my electronics class, that I taught in 9M2 land, build a
transistorized transmitter using the dual band scheme from "The Transistor
Radio Handbook" by Les Earnshaw, ZL1AAX, who later came to USA and founded
Kachina Communications, of the first PC radio fame.

This is a neat way to get two bands from one VFO and common components of
the times.
72,
Stuart
K5KVH


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bob Nielsen]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:02:25PM -0500, Stuart Rohre wrote:
> The use of the conversion from 5 MHz VFO is indeed how the USB vs. LSB
> convention got started.  With 9 MHz IF you got 4.0 MHz (80M) and 20M, (14
> MHz.)   9 -5 in one case, 9+5 in the other, with opposite Sidebands.
>
> The first use of such was probably the Central Electronics or similar tube
> transmitters in the early SSB days of the 1950's.

Ah, memories!  
 
> In 1967, I had my electronics class, that I taught in 9M2 land, build a
> transistorized transmitter using the dual band scheme from "The Transistor
> Radio Handbook" by Les Earnshaw, ZL1AAX, who later came to USA and founded
> Kachina Communications, of the first PC radio fame.
>
> This is a neat way to get two bands from one VFO and common components of
> the times.

Only partially true.  If the 9 MHz IF generates USB, then subtracting
the 5 MHz VFO would give 4 MHz but it would still be USB (subtracting
the IF from the VFO frequency would invert the sideband, however).

The Central Electronics transmitters used the phasing method of
generating SSB, so it was relatively easy to switch between USB and LSB
(compared to using filters).

73, Bob N7XY
 
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Sandy W5TVW]

It goes back to the original "SSB Jr." which was ultimately the basis for the FIRST
real commercially built SSB transmitter, the Central Electronics 10A.  
It was a phasing rig and, the SSB selector was simply labeled SB1 and SB2.
Since 75 and 20 were the "popular" bands then for SSB (there wasn't a 40 meter
"phone" band back then!) the operators were "lazy" and used the SB1
position for both bands (as I remember) yielding LSB for 75 and USB for 20.
Commercially and on the marine bands, USB has been the standard since day 1
and far as I know.  Why the amateurs have hung onto this old LSB on 40
and below thing I don't know.  I forget whether the 10A/10B/20A used a
5 or a 9 mhz channel for SSB generation, but it DID "flop over" when
you went from 20 to 75 meters!  Must have been generating SSB at 5 Mhz.
Anyhow that IS how that LSB/USB phenomenon got started:  just plain
laziness!
Maybe one day they will mandate USB as the "normal" sideband?  Didn't
they state that on the 60 meter channels?  (USB only?)  I'm sure that was
to get around the stupidity of the "monitoring" personnel who obviously
used receivers with USB filters only and they didn't know CW!  I thought
it was a stupid move to "channelize" the 60 meter band on SSB only!!!
I supposed ARRL has too many irons in the fire now with the "rehashing"
of the amateur classes/privileges and BPL to worry about 60 meter
mode expansion?

73,
Sandy W5TVW
----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re: K1 on USB CW


| In a message dated 6/17/04 2:41:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
| [hidden email] writes:
|
|
| > The present day LSB - USB band "standards" have their roots
| > from years ago in the availability of 9 Mc crystals / filters - when
| > SSB was experimental and you had to build your own. 9 Mc plus a VFO
| > running at 5.0 to 5.5 Mc gives you 20m USB. Subtract the VFO frequency
| > and you tune "backwards" on 75/80m and you get LSB.
|
|
| No, that's just not true. Urban legend. I believed it for years but when I
| did the math the truth could not be denied. The only way you get sideband
| inversion is if the heterodyne oscillator is above *both* the input and output
| frequencies of a mixing process.
|
| Yes, the 9 MHz IF / 5-5.5 Mhz VFO scheme was popular, and it does result in
| one band tuning backwards. But it *does not* result in sideband inversion!
| Generate USB and 9 MHz and mix it with a 5-5.5 MHz VFO and you get USB on 75 and
| 20.
|
| The LSB/USB convention for hams goes back to before hams used 9 MHz filters
| to generate SSB. .
|
| Now if you use a 5 MHz SSB generator and a 9 MHz VFO you *do* get sideband
| inversion.
|
| If anyone wants the exact math, I have it all written up.
|
| 73 de Jim, N2EY
| _______________________________________________
| Elecraft mailing list
| Post to: [hidden email]
| http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
| You must subscribe to post.
| Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
| Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com
|
|
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Steve Lawrence-2]

In the 1954 ARRL book: "Single Sideband for the Radio Amateur," W2UNJ
describes a phasing exciter. (The book was $1.50, by the way.)

The equipment is long gone but as I recall, the plus or minus mixing
scheme reversed the sidebands. This is the case for phasing exciters.
My recollection was a crystal filter system which was not the case.

My point - as a throw away comment - was to recall the history of why
bands below 20m use LSB as the default SSB mode. And it was because of
the phase reversal due to the mixing scheme.

Meanwhile - has anyone looked at the I zero CG posting and is thinking
about tinkering with putting a K1 on USB CW?

73, Steve WB6RSE

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

About the 60 meter 'band', remember that it is NOT an "Amateur Band". We
have *no* channelized Amateur Bands (at least in the USA). The ARRL was
unable to shoehorn in an Amateur Band at 60 meters in spite of a pretty good
case for having one there in order to ensure more reliable emergency net
communications - especially in hurricane country. Since they couldn't get an
Amateur Band assigned to us, they secured us permission to *share* a series
of channels assigned to commercial services on a secondary, non-interference
basis. As you pointed out, commercial SSB is invariably USB. That makes
sense in a channelized environment because you can put the channels closer
together and there's no need to switch the BFO to swap sidebands.

That sounds right about the SSB Jr. I barely remember it and never had one.
I do recall some schemes that created SSB at 455 kHz (455 kc/s back then)
and that led to a problem with image suppression if it was heterodyned
directly to frequencies as high as 14 MHz. It was easy to transmit a
substantial amount of signal at the "image" frequency only 900 kc/s away
from the carrier. So a lot of rigs were built for the lower frequencies and
used a transmit mixer for the higher bands.

Ron AC7AC

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sandy W5TVW
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:55 PM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re: K1 on USB CW


It goes back to the original "SSB Jr." which was ultimately the basis for
the FIRST real commercially built SSB transmitter, the Central Electronics
10A...Didn't they state that on the 60 meter channels?  (USB only?)  ...I
supposed ARRL has too many irons in the fire now with the "rehashing" of the
amateur classes/privileges and BPL to worry about 60 meter mode expansion?

73,
Sandy W5TVW
----- Original Message -----
F


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Don Wilhelm-2]

I just looked at my old copy of the NEW Sideband Handbook by Don Stoner
W6TNS, copyright 1958 - I have 6th printing dated June 1966.

Page 94 shows the schematic of the Central Electronics 10B phasing exciter -
and it DOES generate SSB at a fixed 9 MHz (unchanged from the 10A).  The
addition of a 5 to 5.5 MHz VFO will allow it to cover both 75 and 20 meters.

I do recall conversations among SSB ops about the sideband selection for the
various bands, but I cannot recall the details.  For many years, I thought
the sidebands were flipped between 75 and 20 meters with this 9 MHz
generator and the 5 to 5.5 MHz VFO, but then I saw the math which says the
sidebands did NOT flip with this mixing scheme - Oh well, the conventions
are well glued in place - who will be real pioneers and campaign to get
everyones mindset changed?  Anyone for no QSOs? <G>

73,
Don W3FPR

Life is what happens when you are making other plans

----- Original Message -----

> It goes back to the original "SSB Jr." which was ultimately the basis for
the FIRST
> real commercially built SSB transmitter, the Central Electronics 10A.
> It was a phasing rig and, the SSB selector was simply labeled SB1 and SB2.
> Since 75 and 20 were the "popular" bands then for SSB (there wasn't a 40
meter
> "phone" band back then!) the operators were "lazy" and used the SB1
> position for both bands (as I remember) yielding LSB for 75 and USB for
20.
> Commercially and on the marine bands, USB has been the standard since day
1

> and far as I know.  Why the amateurs have hung onto this old LSB on 40
> and below thing I don't know.  I forget whether the 10A/10B/20A used a
> 5 or a 9 mhz channel for SSB generation, but it DID "flop over" when
> you went from 20 to 75 meters!  Must have been generating SSB at 5 Mhz.
> Anyhow that IS how that LSB/USB phenomenon got started:  just plain
> laziness!
> Maybe one day they will mandate USB as the "normal" sideband?  Didn't
> they state that on the 60 meter channels?  (USB only?)  I'm sure that was
> to get around the stupidity of the "monitoring" personnel who obviously
> used receivers with USB filters only and they didn't know CW!  I thought
> it was a stupid move to "channelize" the 60 meter band on SSB only!!!
> I supposed ARRL has too many irons in the fire now with the "rehashing"
> of the amateur classes/privileges and BPL to worry about 60 meter
> mode expansion?
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
You must subscribe to post.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, Unsub etc): http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft page: http://www.elecraft.com