|[AMRadio] AM promo in QST|
manualman at juno.com
Wed Jan 20 14:19:10 EST 2010
You said: "It ignores the fact that most SSB ops now have auto-notch"
I can't think of any common SSB rig that has an "auto-notch" function.
Also, SSB activity with vintage SSB rigs is probably far more popular
then AM running vintage AM rigs on the bands today. Don't know any of
those vintage SSB rigs with an "auto-notch" feature either.
You said: "What the heck is a 'channel'?"
Maybe this is outgrowth from the imaginary "AM Window" terminology.
Overall, not a bad article although, as some have pointed out, some of
his wording could have been tailored to be more pleasant to all readers.
Also, if you haven't read it, Steve, WD8DAS, has an excellant article in
the same issue on the Chinese 222-1 receiver. Cool stuff. Plus, on the
ARRL web site, there is a file with additional pictures and schematic of
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:35:00 -0600 Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>
> Here is what irritated me for the most part:
> "In addition the carrier of an AM signal can make an annoying
> tone in the receiver of a station that is listening to SSB in the
> channel. ...listen in SSB mode first to make sure that no one is
> SSB nearby before making a call using AM."
> That torques me off for three or four reasons. 1. It implies that
> AMers must not "annoy" those operating SSB. Oooh, we'd better tip
> around the great exalted SSB stations. 2. It ignores the fact
> most SSB ops now have auto-notch. 3. What if the AMer only has an
> old receiver like a SX28 and can't listen in SSB? Yes, some guys
> there only have old recievers. I guess they all are supposed to
> out and get a SSB rx so they can be considerate. 4. What the heck
> a "channel?" What is this now, CB? (I am seeing more and more CB
> type lingo creeping into ham radio but that's another issue.) I
> thought we were using frequencies.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 11 Dec 2017.