Bob Peters, W1PE writes:
CW is really not a viable means of communication
Sure Bob, sure funny how many thousands of guys use it
every day when it is not viable!
__
AMRadio mailing list
List Rules (must read!):
That came along because CW is really not a viable means of communication...
AM and CW will survive for a LONG time yet - maybe as long as
the other modes.
Don't count CW out yet!
There was a recent contest held between sending a message via
morse code and sending a text message between two
Bill said:
We need the ARRL to recognize the AM Window from 3870 to 3885 and we
need to
petition the FCC to allow AM to use a power level of 1000 Watts carrier.
No arguement here, Bill. I don't think it would put us on an even
playing field with sloppbucketeers, (no offense to those
If ARRL insists on further changes followig the phone band expansion, maybe
now is the time to once again look at the idea of getting rid of subbands
altogether, as in Canada, and as in USA on 160m.
Don k4kyv
__
AMRadio mailing
I would like to see someone who has experience with filing
petitions to the FCC do one. In it would be the suggestion
you are making Don and concurrently proposing to raise the
power to 1000 watts for continuous carrier transmitters.
Also there is no need to have modulation exceed 100 percent
Peter you are so correct...It is not a bandplan on AM it is a calling
frequency...The idea of a calling freq is WA2CWA this is W1PE...Hi Peter
move to 3.650 so we can chat...No more no less... Same as Chan 16 for
boaters or Chan 14 for CB or Chan 1 for FRS...If we used it that way and
if people
Very simple Pete. Input power is much easier to measure.
Read the meters and do a bit of math. As for the 1000 watt
thing, why not? Measuring or calculating PEP with an AM
signal is like trying to hit a turkey at 1000 yards for most
people. I never did understand the reason for changing to
Dear Don:
I am interested in either the 1951 or 1962 Radio Handbook. I am leaning
more towards the 1962 in reasoning that tubes in the projects are more
recient and easier to find than would be used in the 1951 version. I am not
exactly
sure. By the way how would you like me to get
- Original Message -
From: Peter Markavage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snips
Jim:
What justification would you or someone present to the FCC raise the
power level back to 1000 watts as it was a number of years ago?
And Bill said: a petition for an AM Window from 3870 to 3885.
I view the AM
Bill writes:
The ARRL should
consider recommending a 3870 to 3885 KHz AM window in it's 80 meter band
plan. That doesn't mean that AM will not be heard outside the window,
or
that stations using other modes cannot operate inside the window. It
would
suggest that if a station were
It's really easy to attack someone if you don't name them, and
just make up some accusation for some general thing that the
un-named person suppsedly did. Let's see how well his narrow
filter works when the unattended robot station is running 3 KW
and only 5 or 10 miles from his QTH.
I wonder
Jim said:
Measuring or calculating PEP with an AM
signal is like trying to hit a turkey at 1000 yards for most
people. I never did understand the reason for changing to
PEP or for that matter 1500 watts. Why not 2000 watts PEP?
If you notice it on your S meter, you have a better S meter
Come on Pete. How you do it is up to you???
That is part of the problem. So someone could run 100 watts
with 150% modulation and sound like crap. One thing the
current generation did not learn in school is that unlike
laws written by man, natural laws cannot be overruled.
With what
Peter Markavage wrote:
Jim:
What justification would you or someone present to the FCC raise the
power level back to 1000 watts as it was a number of years ago?
And Bill said: a petition for an AM Window from 3870 to 3885.
I view the AM Window (if you want to call it that) from 3600 to 4000
Sorry about your Dinner Jim...I had Homemade Mac and Cheese...Big Burger
Fresh Tomatoes and Homemade Peach Pie...Yummy
Bob W1PE
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Wilhite
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:58 PM
To: Discussion of AM Radio in
FIRST WEDNESDAY AM NIGHT!!! Sponsored by the Collins Collectors Association.
Wednesday May 2nd 2007 on 3880 kcs at 7:00 PM local East Coast time marks
the start of the latest
chapter of First Wednesday AM Night, drawing hundreds of vintage stations
from across the country.
The event is
Bill Smith wrote:
There is plenty of reason to allow AM operation at 1000 watts carrier
output. Carrier serves to strongly reduce or eliminate background noise and
provide a comfortable communications environment. AM was severely
short-changed by the 1500 watt PEP regulation. AM stations are
Jim Wilhite wrote:
Come on Pete. How you do it is up to you???
That is part of the problem. So someone could run 100 watts with 150%
modulation and sound like crap. One thing the current generation did
not learn in school is that unlike laws written by man, natural laws
cannot be
I was generalizing Jim but I'll keep it simple. Under the current 1500
PEP max. rules, run more carrier power (i.e. 375 watts) and less audio
(i.e. 100%). If you have great audio at 100%, hopefully you should
still have great audio at 85 or 90%. More power provides more carrier
presence and
- Original Message -
From: Geoff/W5OMR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snips
Are you sure -you- know how much PEP your rig is running, without
distorting/flat-topping the peaks?
73, etc
-Geoff/W5OMR
Hi Geoff,
Been there, tried that.. have run increased carrier, and with an
asymmetrical limiter
Actually Mike, what I really see on 75 M is the overall lack of amateurs
to be flexible now that we have a lot more phone area. Old habits are
hard to break; AM'ers still try to cluster around an imaginary window;
diehard SSB operators are also still clustered around this imaginary
window, and
Bill Smith wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Geoff/W5OMR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snips
Are you sure -you- know how much PEP your rig is running, without
distorting/flat-topping the peaks?
73, etc
-Geoff/W5OMR
Hi Geoff,
Been there, tried that.. have run increased carrier, and
Bill Smith wrote:
Hi Geoff,
Been there, tried that.. have run increased carrier, and with an
asymmetrical limiter have limited positive peaks to comply with the 1500 W
PEP limit.
I've gone to the trouble for you (and anyone else that cares, for that
matter) of the 'heart' of the
W5DPP has a Gates BC-1G for sale on QTH.com. It has not been modified yet.No
price listed. WA2BAH has an Invader 200 for $525. plus shipping. Usual
disclaimers apply. Thought someone might be interested.
Joe W4AAB
There is plenty of reason to allow AM operation at 1000 watts carrier
output. Carrier serves to strongly reduce or eliminate background noise
and
provide a comfortable communications environment. AM was severely
short-changed by the 1500 watt PEP regulation. AM stations are now
restricted
Pete,
I think you only have to listen to the on-air comments made by the diehard
SSB operators and AM'ers to determine the motivation behind stations that
are clustered around an imaginary window.
From the AM viewpoint (this is the amradio list, isn't it?) considerable
effort has been made by AM
Pete one of the reasons 3.870-3.890 is so busy and people
don't want to move has to do with the fact many of the AM
operators are General Class. Therefore, when we call CQ. we
want maximum exposure like HP Computers (in every store you
go into). So the odds of an answer is best there.
Ok Geoff, you are beating the horse yourself.
Jim
W5JO
Bill Smith wrote:
Hi Geoff,
Been there, tried that.. have run increased carrier, and
with an
asymmetrical limiter have limited positive peaks to
comply with the 1500 W
PEP limit.
I've gone to the trouble for you (and anyone else
But my guess is that the power tube operating characteristics for
push-pull modulator service, such as one finds in the back of
the ARRggghL Handbook are actually gioven for average
continuous power with a sinewave at 1 kHz, or something
like that.
For example, let's say that you have an 807
The biggest problem I see is that the FCC would have to admit that they
were in error
Ha - well there you have it folks... saving face is more important
than doing what is sensible or right. When it comes to big shot
leaders in any organization you get the same behavior.
Don, you and several others I can think of could do a
petition on this topic. Want suggestions for help? I would
support it as would many others here and on other boards.
Jim
W5JO
The biggest problem I see is that the FCC would have to
admit that they were in error with the
Doug Dunn K7YD writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's face it Bry, there are in numbers, a small percentage
of the Amateur community on AM. The group as a whole is
small but noisy.
I think you are completely wrong on that.
I guess I just can't face it.
Don wrote:
One factor in our favor would be that J.J. whose scent
seemed to pervade the anti-AM FCC proposals throughout the 70's
and 80's has now retired.
True. Have you seen the odd rule interpretations he publishes monthly in
WorldRadio newspaper? Bizzarre.
Steve
Doug Dunn - you are just off the deep end without a life
saver, my friend!
I hear more whining than any
other form of communication But, if AMer's wont regulate
themselves, I've got a hunch it'll be done for them.
Too bad, but some of your group have it coming.
You say that you want
Here's the full text of K7YD's bizarre and not-so-brilliant rant:
K7YD:
First off, I usually calls 'em as I see's 'em I
could give you calls, names and QTH's of offending
AM signals that are splattering all over the band.
These collected from years of and monitoring. If that
gives you
Bry Carling wrote:
Well, we have a simple solution - it is called the mic gain control!
So long as you have ebough reserve power to get mjore or less
up to the 90% mod level, it should NOT be a big iussue so long
as you don't over modulate.
Aren't we getting just a little bit over-technical
John's biggest problem now is (other than finding time to get on the
air, what with two boys in scouts, school activities, his wife, and
running a successful business!) that in order to keep the output to
1.5kW PEP output, he can't run no more than about 220w of carrier output.
Are you sure
37 matches
Mail list logo
