Elecraft › [K3]

K3: CW feature request

Classic

List

Threaded

18 messages Options

Ralph Parker

K3: CW feature request

I've tried really hard to adjust to CW on LSB, but it just doesn't work for
me.
To make matters worse, much software (eg. N1MM) insists on re-setting the
CW mode to 'normal' (after I've set it to 'REV') at the most inopportune
moments.

I plead for a CONFIG option to set CW 'normal' to USB.
I'd even pay money for this!

VE7XF

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

wayne burdick

Re: K3: CW feature request

Administrator

Added to the list -- thanks for the suggestion.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Ralph Parker wrote:

> I've tried really hard to adjust to CW on LSB, but it just doesn't
> work for
> me.
> To make matters worse, much software (eg. N1MM) insists on re-
> setting the
> CW mode to 'normal' (after I've set it to 'REV') at the most
> inopportune
> moments.
>
> I plead for a CONFIG option to set CW 'normal' to USB.
> I'd even pay money for this!
>
> VE7XF

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

K1LI

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by Ralph Parker

N1MM Logger and DX Lab Suite both give you the option. On N1MM Logger, open
the Configuration panel, choose the Other tab and check the "Use Reverse CW"
box in the lower right-hand corner.
--
73 -- Brian -- K1LI

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Ralph Parker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've tried really hard to adjust to CW on LSB, but it just doesn't work for
> me.
> To make matters worse, much software (eg. N1MM) insists on re-setting the
> CW mode to 'normal' (after I've set it to 'REV') at the most inopportune
> moments.
>
> I plead for a CONFIG option to set CW 'normal' to USB.
> I'd even pay money for this!
>
> VE7XF
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Randy, K5ZD

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by Ralph Parker

I am with you on this. Too many years tuning the band in one direction to
change now.

Randy, K5ZD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ralph Parker
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:43 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Elecraft] K3: CW feature request
>
> I've tried really hard to adjust to CW on LSB, but it just
> doesn't work for me.
> To make matters worse, much software (eg. N1MM) insists on
> re-setting the CW mode to 'normal' (after I've set it to
> 'REV') at the most inopportune moments.
>
> I plead for a CONFIG option to set CW 'normal' to USB.
> I'd even pay money for this!
>
> VE7XF
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

w8fn

Re: K3: CW feature request

>I am with you on this. Too many years tuning the band in one direction to
>change now.

Me, too. I'm getting used to the way the K3 tunes, but for ergonomic
reasons it would really be nice to have a way to make both of my
radios tune the same direction. Since my second radio is an old
FT-1000D that doesn't have the CW Reverse functionality, I suppose
it's up to the K3 to do the changing -- just because it can (or will
be able to someday).

73...
Randy, W8FN

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

wb6rse1

Re: K3: CW feature request

LSB on the lower bands and USB on the higher bands is an artifact of
the mixing scheme, from the early days of SSB, of a 9 Mc IF mixed with
a 5.0 - 5.5 Mc VFO. (Yes, it was Mc in those days, not MHz.) Add and
you get 20m. Subtract and you get 80m. The subtraction results in
sideband reversal and so LSB became the "standard" for 80m. There is
really no reason now to not to just operate USB on all bands other
than tradition.

On CW, the standard among CW DXers has always been USB CW because it
means that the higher the tone, the higher the frequency. Intuitively
useful when tuning a split pile up. Just as clockwise rotation of the
VFO knob means higher frequency.

I operate USB on RTTY for that same reason, even though the "standard"
is LSB. The stations I work on RTTY don't know that I'm USB.

It is curious that normal CW for the K3 is LSB. I'm sure Elecraft had
their reasons. My K3 is always in CW REV mode.

73! Steve WB6RSE
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Dunc Carter - W5DC

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by w8fn

On the other hand, maybe you'd want to use someone else's K3 and they
might object to having their settings changed. At one time, I was a
fairly big gun contester; I'm not now but I might operate multi-op which
I've done before. My old rig is a very modified FT-101E with good
dynamic range as a result of mixer, blanker, and IF changes, great
selectivity owing to adding the speech clipper to the IF, plus other
changes and the same opposite tuning plus the orignal finals lasted34
years. For an analog rig, it still does pretty much what I want. That
said, it hasn't been turned on since I got my K3. I've considered using
it as a second "IF" for second receiver purposes and for noise
clipper/blanker experiments but that priority is declining steadily.
It's not worth selling and the mods would frighten almost all potential
buyers. I hand made a board to follow the speech processor that Yaesu
didn't include until later and it's UGLY. I can still repair it, it
still works. I'm sure Yaesu wouldn't touch it; will they still repair
the 1000; I've heard some discouraging things about part availability.
I've offered it to a semi-interested grand-daughter but she's too busy
with school, soccer, bicycle racing, drama, etc.. Let it be a beloved
spare or maybe just.tune it with the other hand (saith the left hand
person who was forced to be right handed in elementary school, the
consequence of living in the third world).

I currently have the 101 in it's usual spot on my left and the K3 in a
new spot on my right. Both work; dyslexia isn't all bad. Maybe I
should run coax to the 101 and use both simultaneously. If only I was
schizophrenic.

The question that Wayne and crew are perhaps asking is what's the
priority and how much work is it. I'm happy; it's taken me to months to
adjust.

;-))

Dunc, W5DC

Randy Farmer wrote:

>> I am with you on this. Too many years tuning the band in one direction to
>> change now.
>>
>
> Me, too. I'm getting used to the way the K3 tunes, but for ergonomic
> reasons it would really be nice to have a way to make both of my
> radios tune the same direction. Since my second radio is an old
> FT-1000D that doesn't have the CW Reverse functionality, I suppose
> it's up to the K3 to do the changing -- just because it can (or will
> be able to someday).
>
> 73...
> Randy, W8FN
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>

Alan Bloom

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by wb6rse1

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 18:36 -0800, [hidden email] wrote:
> LSB on the lower bands and USB on the higher bands is an artifact of
> the mixing scheme, from the early days of SSB, of a 9 Mc IF mixed with
> a 5.0 - 5.5 Mc VFO. (Yes, it was Mc in those days, not MHz.) Add and
> you get 20m. Subtract and you get 80m. The subtraction results in
> sideband reversal and so LSB became the "standard" for 80m. There is
> really no reason now to not to just operate USB on all bands other
> than tradition.

I've heard people say that many times over the years but clearly it's
not true. A 9 MHz IF set up for (let's say) USB will still be USB no
matter whether you add or subtract the 5-5.5 MHz VFO.

What DOES result in opposite sidebands is to swap the IF and VFO
frequencies, that is, using an IF in the 5 MHz range and a VFO in the 9
MHz range to get 80 and 20 meters without having to band-switch the VFO.
I believe some early SSB rigs used that scheme, so that may be the
origin of the current standard.

Al N1AL

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Alan Bloom

Re: K3: CW feature request

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 21:06 -0800, Alan Bloom wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 18:36 -0800, [hidden email] wrote:
> > LSB on the lower bands and USB on the higher bands is an artifact of
> > the mixing scheme, from the early days of SSB, of a 9 Mc IF mixed with
> > a 5.0 - 5.5 Mc VFO. (Yes, it was Mc in those days, not MHz.) Add and
> > you get 20m. Subtract and you get 80m. The subtraction results in
> > sideband reversal and so LSB became the "standard" for 80m. There is
> > really no reason now to not to just operate USB on all bands other
> > than tradition.
>
> I've heard people say that many times over the years but clearly it's
> not true. A 9 MHz IF set up for (let's say) USB will still be USB no
> matter whether you add or subtract the 5-5.5 MHz VFO.

I just did a little Googling on the Internet (AC6V.com and elsewhere)
and discovered to my astonishment that this is an actual bona-fide
controversial subject among radio amateurs. Despite the fact that a
simple 2-minute back-of-the-envelope calculation is all it takes to
disprove the myth. For the record:

Intermediate frequency:
Carrier 9.000 MHz
Sideband 9.001 MHz
==> USB

Add 5 MHz VFO:
Carrier 9.000 + 5.000 = 14.000 MHz
Sideband 9.001 + 5.000 = 14.001 MHz
==> USB

Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
==> USB

I can't believe people are actually arguing about this!

Al N1AL

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Bob Cunnings NW8L

Re: K3: CW feature request

Er, hold on. you write:

> Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
> Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
> ==> USB

but shouldn't it be:

Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
Sideband 9.000 - 5.001 = 3.999 MHz
==> LSB

Since we changing the VFO, not the IF freq?

Bob NW8L

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Alan Bloom <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 21:06 -0800, Alan Bloom wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 18:36 -0800, [hidden email] wrote:
>> > LSB on the lower bands and USB on the higher bands is an artifact of
>> > the mixing scheme, from the early days of SSB, of a 9 Mc IF mixed with
>> > a 5.0 - 5.5 Mc VFO. (Yes, it was Mc in those days, not MHz.) Add and
>> > you get 20m. Subtract and you get 80m. The subtraction results in
>> > sideband reversal and so LSB became the "standard" for 80m. There is
>> > really no reason now to not to just operate USB on all bands other
>> > than tradition.
>>
>> I've heard people say that many times over the years but clearly it's
>> not true. A 9 MHz IF set up for (let's say) USB will still be USB no
>> matter whether you add or subtract the 5-5.5 MHz VFO.
>
> I just did a little Googling on the Internet (AC6V.com and elsewhere)
> and discovered to my astonishment that this is an actual bona-fide
> controversial subject among radio amateurs. Despite the fact that a
> simple 2-minute back-of-the-envelope calculation is all it takes to
> disprove the myth. For the record:
>
> Intermediate frequency:
> Carrier 9.000 MHz
> Sideband 9.001 MHz
> ==> USB
>
> Add 5 MHz VFO:
> Carrier 9.000 + 5.000 = 14.000 MHz
> Sideband 9.001 + 5.000 = 14.001 MHz
> ==> USB
>
> Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
> Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
> ==> USB
>
> I can't believe people are actually arguing about this!
>
> Al N1AL
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Byron N6NUL

Re: K3: CW feature request

This is a question in the December 2009 QST article "The Doctor is In" on page 45. He explains that the calculation with a VFO range of 5 to 5.5 Mhz is:

9 + 5 = 14 9 + 5.5 = 14.5
9 - 5 = 4 9 - 5.5 = 3.5

>From the article: "The subtractive translation reversed the frequency relations (and the VFO tuning direction) to result in LSB." The circuit design apparently saved quite a bit of cost in those days.

Byron KI6NUL

On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Bob Cunnings wrote:

Gary, W7TEA

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by Ralph Parker

I agree. I've operated CW in USB since 76 and it's hard to change. MacLoggerDX
allows for me to tweak this though so if I select a spot, it stays in CW Reverse.

I have an additional request though. I would like to be able to adjust the volume of the
SPOT and Sidetone independently. Often the SPOT volume is down in the mud when
trying to spot a signal amidst the band noise. If I increase the volume, then the sidetone
knocks my ears off when I transmit. CW Tune is rather approximate and I tend to get different
results if I use auto Spot.

W7TEA

Ralph Parker wrote

I've tried really hard to adjust to CW on LSB, but it just doesn't work for
me.
To make matters worse, much software (eg. N1MM) insists on re-setting the
CW mode to 'normal' (after I've set it to 'REV') at the most inopportune
moments.

I plead for a CONFIG option to set CW 'normal' to USB.
I'd even pay money for this!

VE7XF

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

73,

Gary W7TEA K3 #1001, #5763

Phil Hystad

Re: K3: CW feature request

Just to make sure I have the right understanding,

CW in USB is equivalent to CW Reverse

CW in LSB is equivalent to CW Normal

Or, does the connection between {reverse, normal} and {USB, LSB} not fixed by definition.

On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Gary, W7TEA wrote:

>
> I agree. I've operated CW in USB since 76 and it's hard to change.
> MacLoggerDX
> allows for me to tweak this though so if I select a spot, it stays in CW
> Reverse.
>
> I have an additional request though. I would like to be able to adjust the
> volume of the
> SPOT and Sidetone independently. Often the SPOT volume is down in the mud
> when
> trying to spot a signal amidst the band noise. If I increase the volume,
> then the sidetone
> knocks my ears off when I transmit. CW Tune is rather approximate and I
> tend to get different
> results if I use auto Spot.
>
> W7TEA
>
>
>
> Ralph Parker wrote:
>>
>> I've tried really hard to adjust to CW on LSB, but it just doesn't work
>> for
>> me.
>> To make matters worse, much software (eg. N1MM) insists on re-setting the
>> CW mode to 'normal' (after I've set it to 'REV') at the most inopportune
>> moments.
>>
>> I plead for a CONFIG option to set CW 'normal' to USB.
>> I'd even pay money for this!
>>
>> VE7XF
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> 73,
>
> Gary W7TEA K3 #1001
> --
> View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/K3-CW-feature-request-tp4098311p4107567.html
> Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

AC7AC

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by Alan Bloom

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

Alan Bloom

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by Bob Cunnings NW8L

No, we're talking about sideband direction, not VFO tuning direction.

Al

On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:15 -0700, Bob Cunnings wrote:

> Er, hold on. you write:
>
> > Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
> > Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> > Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
> > ==> USB
>
> but shouldn't it be:
>
> Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
> Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> Sideband 9.000 - 5.001 = 3.999 MHz
> ==> LSB
>
> Since we changing the VFO, not the IF freq?
>
> Bob NW8L
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Alan Bloom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 21:06 -0800, Alan Bloom wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 18:36 -0800, [hidden email] wrote:
> >> > LSB on the lower bands and USB on the higher bands is an artifact of
> >> > the mixing scheme, from the early days of SSB, of a 9 Mc IF mixed with
> >> > a 5.0 - 5.5 Mc VFO. (Yes, it was Mc in those days, not MHz.) Add and
> >> > you get 20m. Subtract and you get 80m. The subtraction results in
> >> > sideband reversal and so LSB became the "standard" for 80m. There is
> >> > really no reason now to not to just operate USB on all bands other
> >> > than tradition.
> >>
> >> I've heard people say that many times over the years but clearly it's
> >> not true. A 9 MHz IF set up for (let's say) USB will still be USB no
> >> matter whether you add or subtract the 5-5.5 MHz VFO.
> >
> > I just did a little Googling on the Internet (AC6V.com and elsewhere)
> > and discovered to my astonishment that this is an actual bona-fide
> > controversial subject among radio amateurs. Despite the fact that a
> > simple 2-minute back-of-the-envelope calculation is all it takes to
> > disprove the myth. For the record:
> >
> > Intermediate frequency:
> > Carrier 9.000 MHz
> > Sideband 9.001 MHz
> > ==> USB
> >
> > Add 5 MHz VFO:
> > Carrier 9.000 + 5.000 = 14.000 MHz
> > Sideband 9.001 + 5.000 = 14.001 MHz
> > ==> USB
> >
> > Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
> > Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> > Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
> > ==> USB
> >
> > I can't believe people are actually arguing about this!
> >
> > Al N1AL
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Don Wilhelm-4

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by AC7AC

Ron,

Almost, but not complete IMHO - the 9 MHz IF and 5 to 5.5 MHz VFO does
not invert the sideband, but the 5 MHz IF with a 9 MHz VFO will invert
the sidebands. IIRC, Hallicrafters had a SSB transmitter that used a 5
MHz IF that way.
The sideband inversion thing was not a problem with phasing exciters
because the sideband was easy to swap, the operator just had to remember
which was SB1 and SB2 on the old MultiPhase exciters.
The filter based exciters of that day often used a crystal filter that
had a steep slope on the upper side of the filter, but the lower side
tapered off slowly - these were known as Lower Sideband Filters. For an
exciter that used that kind of filter, the sideband reversal created by
the mixing process was very important to maintaning carrier and unwanted
sideband rejection, and did contribute to our current 'standard' of LSB
on 75 and USB on 20.

OR, maybe my OT memory is confused too - it has been a long time since I
played with those old rigs, but I built a phasing exciter way back when.

73,
Don W3FPR

Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> I think that's because the story's gotten confused. Much SSB was generated
> using low-frequency xtal filters (in the 455 kHz and below) range and
> heterodyned into the HF range. Images were a serious problem at higher
> frequencies.
>
> I believe the popular 1950's surplus conversion for 75/20 meter SSB
> generated the SSB signal at 5 MHz. Then it was heterodyned with a 9 MHz VFO
> to produce output on 75M or 20M. Having the VFO above one band and below the
> other inverts the sidebands, putting the USB on 20M and LSB on 75M.
>
> This was all long before the popular 9 MHz crystal filters became available.
>
>

Bob Cunnings NW8L

Re: K3: CW feature request

In reply to this post by Alan Bloom

Sorry, I was confusing the two, you did say *Sideband* 9.001 after all.

So in the case where the IF is 5 MHz and the VFO is 9 MHz, we have:

Subtract 5 MHz IF:
VFO 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
VFO 9.000 - Sideband 5.001 = 3.999 MHz
==> LSB

where we do see the inversion of the sideband.

Bob NW8L

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Alan Bloom <[hidden email]> wrote:

> No, we're talking about sideband direction, not VFO tuning direction.
>
> Al
>
>
> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:15 -0700, Bob Cunnings wrote:
>> Er, hold on. you write:
>>
>> > Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
>> > Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
>> > Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
>> > ==> USB
>>
>> but shouldn't it be:
>>
>> Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
>> Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
>> Sideband 9.000 - 5.001 = 3.999 MHz
>> ==> LSB
>>
>> Since we changing the VFO, not the IF freq?
>>
>> Bob NW8L
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Alan Bloom <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 21:06 -0800, Alan Bloom wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 18:36 -0800, [hidden email] wrote:
>> >> > LSB on the lower bands and USB on the higher bands is an artifact of
>> >> > the mixing scheme, from the early days of SSB, of a 9 Mc IF mixed with
>> >> > a 5.0 - 5.5 Mc VFO. (Yes, it was Mc in those days, not MHz.) Add and
>> >> > you get 20m. Subtract and you get 80m. The subtraction results in
>> >> > sideband reversal and so LSB became the "standard" for 80m. There is
>> >> > really no reason now to not to just operate USB on all bands other
>> >> > than tradition.
>> >>
>> >> I've heard people say that many times over the years but clearly it's
>> >> not true. A 9 MHz IF set up for (let's say) USB will still be USB no
>> >> matter whether you add or subtract the 5-5.5 MHz VFO.
>> >
>> > I just did a little Googling on the Internet (AC6V.com and elsewhere)
>> > and discovered to my astonishment that this is an actual bona-fide
>> > controversial subject among radio amateurs. Despite the fact that a
>> > simple 2-minute back-of-the-envelope calculation is all it takes to
>> > disprove the myth. For the record:
>> >
>> > Intermediate frequency:
>> > Carrier 9.000 MHz
>> > Sideband 9.001 MHz
>> > ==> USB
>> >
>> > Add 5 MHz VFO:
>> > Carrier 9.000 + 5.000 = 14.000 MHz
>> > Sideband 9.001 + 5.000 = 14.001 MHz
>> > ==> USB
>> >
>> > Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
>> > Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
>> > Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
>> > ==> USB
>> >
>> > I can't believe people are actually arguing about this!
>> >
>> > Al N1AL
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> > Elecraft mailing list
>> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>> >
>> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> >
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>

Alan Bloom

Re: K3: CW feature request

On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 14:35 -0700, Bob Cunnings wrote:

> Sorry, I was confusing the two, you did say *Sideband* 9.001 after all.
>
> So in the case where the IF is 5 MHz and the VFO is 9 MHz, we have:
>
> Subtract 5 MHz IF:
> VFO 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> VFO 9.000 - Sideband 5.001 = 3.999 MHz
> ==> LSB
>
> where we do see the inversion of the sideband.

Right. If the ***VFO*** is at 9 MHz and the ***IF*** is at 5 MHz then
the sidebands are inverted on the two bands.

Alan

> Bob NW8L
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Alan Bloom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > No, we're talking about sideband direction, not VFO tuning direction.
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:15 -0700, Bob Cunnings wrote:
> >> Er, hold on. you write:
> >>
> >> > Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
> >> > Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> >> > Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
> >> > ==> USB
> >>
> >> but shouldn't it be:
> >>
> >> Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
> >> Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> >> Sideband 9.000 - 5.001 = 3.999 MHz
> >> ==> LSB
> >>
> >> Since we changing the VFO, not the IF freq?
> >>
> >> Bob NW8L
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Alan Bloom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 21:06 -0800, Alan Bloom wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 18:36 -0800, [hidden email] wrote:
> >> >> > LSB on the lower bands and USB on the higher bands is an artifact of
> >> >> > the mixing scheme, from the early days of SSB, of a 9 Mc IF mixed with
> >> >> > a 5.0 - 5.5 Mc VFO. (Yes, it was Mc in those days, not MHz.) Add and
> >> >> > you get 20m. Subtract and you get 80m. The subtraction results in
> >> >> > sideband reversal and so LSB became the "standard" for 80m. There is
> >> >> > really no reason now to not to just operate USB on all bands other
> >> >> > than tradition.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've heard people say that many times over the years but clearly it's
> >> >> not true. A 9 MHz IF set up for (let's say) USB will still be USB no
> >> >> matter whether you add or subtract the 5-5.5 MHz VFO.
> >> >
> >> > I just did a little Googling on the Internet (AC6V.com and elsewhere)
> >> > and discovered to my astonishment that this is an actual bona-fide
> >> > controversial subject among radio amateurs. Despite the fact that a
> >> > simple 2-minute back-of-the-envelope calculation is all it takes to
> >> > disprove the myth. For the record:
> >> >
> >> > Intermediate frequency:
> >> > Carrier 9.000 MHz
> >> > Sideband 9.001 MHz
> >> > ==> USB
> >> >
> >> > Add 5 MHz VFO:
> >> > Carrier 9.000 + 5.000 = 14.000 MHz
> >> > Sideband 9.001 + 5.000 = 14.001 MHz
> >> > ==> USB
> >> >
> >> > Subtract 5 MHz VFO:
> >> > Carrier 9.000 - 5.000 = 4.000 MHz
> >> > Sideband 9.001 - 5.000 = 4.001 MHz
> >> > ==> USB
> >> >
> >> > I can't believe people are actually arguing about this!
> >> >
> >> > Al N1AL
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ______________________________________________________________
> >> > Elecraft mailing list
> >> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >> >
> >> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >> >
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> Elecraft mailing list
> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html