[AMRadio] 7160 tonight: Suggestion


Todd, KA1KAQ ka1kaq at gmail.com
Fri Apr 3 20:25:48 EDT 2009


You're booming in down here, Ken - on my 'marginal' antenna. Hearing
everyone fine, even ...Peter? DF...forgot the call between the radio
room and here!

~ Todd,  KA1KAQ/4

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Ken <kenw2dtc at comcast.net> wrote:
> thanks !
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Prohigh" <tomp at prohigh.com>
> To: "'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service'"
> <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 7:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] 7160 tonight: Suggestion
>
>
> 7160
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Ken
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 7:26 PM
> To: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] 7160 tonight: Suggestion
>
> what freq
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Prohigh" <tomp at prohigh.com>
> To: "'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service'"
> <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 7:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] 7160 tonight: Suggestion
>
>
> Right now Timtron doing DX AM with Germany!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of D. Chester
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 1:52 PM
> To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] 7160 tonight: Suggestion
>
>
>> From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
>
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM, D. Chester <k4kyv at charter.net> wrote:
>>> One suggestion. We need to be more careful about zero beating each other
>> on
>>> the 40m frequency. At times in the QSO, stations are so scattered out
>>> over
>>> a 1-2 kHz range, that my sync detector won't stay locked when one station
>>> turns it over to another. But the real problem is that this frequency
>>> scattering is bound to be generating unnecessary hostility from the SSB
>>> DX'ers, and will likely to result in deliberate QRM and other hostile
>>> actions against the AM'ers
>
>> When has that ever bothered you before, Don? To borrow your own words
>> on such matters, 'strap and ignore', 'turn up the wick' etc. I'd agree
>> with you if folks were scattered out over 4-5 kcs or more, but 1-2
>> seems m ore related to sync detectors not locking up than to offending
>> any SSB ops. After all, it's been one of the ways to discourage
>> anti-AM SSB types from crowding in close to a QSO in progress.
>
> I have ALWAYS, ever since the early 60's, advocated operating zero-beat with
>
> the other station whenever possible.  One exception might be when two or
> more stations are xtal controlled, and some of the older VFOs do drift.  But
>
> failure to zero-beat when it is easily possible and convenient is just plain
>
> sloppy operating.
>
> This is an example of the difference between necessary bandwidth and
> occupied bandwidth.  If you are running audio out to 5 kHz, 10 kHz is the
> NECESSARY bandwidth of the signal.  But if two stations in the QSO are 3 kHz
>
> apart, then the OCCUPIED bandwidth of the QSO becomes 13 kHz.  There is no
> rule that says all stations in a QSO have to be on the same frequency.
> Hell, DX'ers routinely take up two whole SSB communications channels for one
>
> QSO by working split frequency (and these are often the very same
> self-righteous kilocycle kops who gripe the loudest about all that
> "bandwidth" that AM and ESSB signals take up).  Nevertheless, conspicuous
> sloppiness about zero-beating just unnecessarily gives the slopbucketeer
> lunatic fringe more ammunition to use against AM.
>
> Another often-overlooked advantage of carefully zero-beating (whenever
> practicable) is that a "breaking" station attempting to enter into the QSO
> is less disruptive.  If you can hear his audio underneath the transmitting
> station, and at most, the puttering sound of a nearly zero-beat carrier,
> this is far less disruptive to the conversation, than a loud 1-2 kHz squeal
> of an off-frequency carrier, which garbles up the sidebands of both signals.
>
> You often miss what the transmitting station was saying, while at the same
> time, missing the callsign of the breaking station. It is not unusual that
> "breakers" into a QSO are ignored for this very reason.
>
> But older transmitters with drifty VFO's are not the only problem.  Some of
> the worst offenders are using modern transceivers on AM.  Even if the audio
> level and carrier level are adjusted properly, so that a good, undistorted,
> plate-modulated quality AM signal is generated, many transceivers lack any
> kind of frequency spotting function.  In AM mode the received signal is
> clearly audible as long as it lies within the transceiver's passband. So it
> is easy to tune in the signal on the receiver and then transmit, and end up
> with a carrier 1.5 kHz or more off frequency.  If everyone is using a wide
> bandpass at the receiver and there is little congestion on nearby
> frequencies, this is  no big deal and no-one may even notice.  But if the
> band is crowded and many stations in the QSO are operating with the receiver
>
> in narrow bandpass, with heavy QRM off to both sides, some people in the QSO
>
> may miss the call entirely.
>
> I have seen modifications to transceivers that allow a spotting function for
>
> zero-beating purposes.  Depending on the circuit design, this may be very
> easy with minimal alteration of the circuitry, while on others it simply
> isn't practical.  Lacking a spotting function, the easiest method would be
> to put the rig in SSB/CW mode and zero-beat the AM carrier, then switch back
>
> to AM.  But on some rigs, this automatically produces a frequency error,
> because there is a built-in frequency offset when switching between modes.
> In that case, you have to note the digital display frequency, and retune
> back to that frequency in AM mode.  Even then, there may also be an offset
> in the digital display reading that  must be taken into account.  It is a
> matter of figuring out exactly what works with a particular ricebox and
> getting into the habit of using it.
>
> One factor that hinders proper zero-beating with any receiver is
> space-shuttle quality, so-called "communications grade" audio, that cuts off
>
> everything below about 500 Hz.  That makes it nearly impossible to hear two
> carriers approach zero-beat, if the audio drops out once they are within
> 300-500 Hz of each other.  One more reason to have good low frequency
> response at the receiver, working into a decent speaker or headphones.
>
> While it may be poor operating practice to intentionally operate on
> scattered frequencies just to discourage SSB stations, that doesn't mean you
>
> should hesitate to go into the "SBE" mode when SSB stations intentionally
> zero in and try to piggy-back ride the AM carrier.  Then, to use a Timtron
> expression, it may be time to "exit stage left" and move about 1.5 kHz down
> into the LSB passband, and for each station in the QSO to operate a  little
> off frequency to make it necessary for the offending  parasites to keep
> changing frequency to keep up with you.  But this should be used only as a
> defensive tactic in the presence of deliberate QRM, not as a preventive
> measure. When the QRM finally goes away, then everyone should re-zero beat.
>
> Something that I have experienced many many times, is for the offending
> slopbucketeers to zero-beat, so I exit stage left.  The other AM station in
> QSO zero-beats me. Then the SSB'ers re-zero beat to ride the  carrier.  So
> we exit stage left once again.  This continues for several more
> transmissions, until we are 5-6 kHz down from the original frequency. Then,
> without fanfare, we move back up to the original frequency.  Sometimes the
> SSB QSO stays down below, and we all co-exist peacefully.  At other times
> the slopbucketeers move back up to zero-beat us.  When that  happens, they
> have clearly demonstrated that the interference is intentional.  Once,
> someone from an FCC monitoring station (remember those?) explained that if
> one amateur station merely transmits on top of another, it is not considered
>
> deliberate and no "pink slip" will be issued, because amateur radio operates
>
> on an interference-expected basis.  But if the operators in the original QSO
>
> move frequency, and the interfering station follows them to the new
> frequency to continue causing interference, the FCC considers that to be
> deliberate.
>
> But rather than getting into a pissing  contest with jammers, it is
> sometimes better to just pretend they don't exist and ignore them.  "Strap
> softly and turn up the wick."
>
> All said, careful zero-beating is even more essential in the 7125-7200
> segment during prime time after-work hours, which just happens to
> simultaneously be prime time for cross-country propagation AND for European
> grey-line DX propagation.  Because of the outmoded subband restrictions that
>
> presently exist on 40m in continental US,  the overlap between the new
> privileges enjoyed by European and other DX stations, and US phone
> privileges, is only 75 kHz.  One AM QSO occupying 7.5 kHz, about the minimum
>
> actual bandwidth occupied by a real-world AM signal, is fully 10% of the
> entire segment, while ZILLIONS of the "Hello-g'bye, ur five-nine, pse QSL,
> 73, QRZ?" DX'er types are just getting home from work to play a little radio
>
> before dinner, or are getting in some last minute DX before bedtime in
> Europe.  Sloppily operating in a manner such that we occupy 15-20% of the
> segment for one round-table will do nothing but attract the massive
> wholesale wrath of this element, which will eventually generate unwanted
> anti-AM sentiment within the greater amateur community, and possible
> lobbying efforts and FCC petitions to restrict or downright outlaw AM.
>
> To repeat a cliché, we need to keep our ducks in a row while using the 7160
> frequency.
>
> Don k4kyv
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
>
> http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/
>
> http://gigliwood.com/abcd/
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/amradio@mailman.qth.net/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.37/2036 - Release Date: 04/03/09
> 06:19:00
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.37/2036 - Release Date: 04/03/09
> 06:19:00
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/amradio@mailman.qth.net/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/amradio@mailman.qth.net/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.37/2036 - Release Date: 04/03/09
> 06:19:00
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.37/2036 - Release Date: 04/03/09
> 06:19:00
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/amradio@mailman.qth.net/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/amradio@mailman.qth.net/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 18 Oct 2017.