开云体育

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "badgerscreek" <qrp73@...>
wrote:

There is a nice article published in the latest QEX. Its for a
filament voltage regulator. Its Titled " A high Efficiency

Filament

regulator" K8LV. It uses a PIC and some pass resistors. It seems

any size tube is accomodated by increasing pass transistor sizes,

including bumping up heatsink sizes. It also has a ramp up

feature. My guestimate suggests that it would be cheaper building
this regulator than buying 2 X 50 or 100 watt rheostats.

Greg

### Greg.... how would 2 x 50/100 w rheostats regulate fil
V ?? Or are they using pass transistor's in a regulator ?

### Fil V can be of concern...esp when sucking vast amounts of
current for the plate xfmr. On a set up where the fil xfmr pri V
is derived from the same 240 V source as the plate pri.... under a
full bore load... the fil V can be affected.

### One way out of this mess, is to run a separate, smaller 240 V
line... just for the fil xfmr pri. That might not solve all the
fil sag problems... but at least the separate fil 240 v supply...
will only have the v drop on your drop wires coming into your
home, to contend with. If anybody goes this route... make sure
you label.. "more than one live circuit present". You are gonna
have to kill TWO sets of breakers to completely kill all 240 v
coming into the amp. In cases where the RF deck is totally
separate from the HV supply, it may not be an issue.

### I have the fil xfmr, and associated variac for it.. + a
sola constant V xfmr.. in a shelf... below RF deck.... so RF deck
is in top of rack... fil stuff is below... in same rack. HV supply
is in a separate rack.


### another method is to use a sola constant V xfmr. These are all
of the ferroresonant type. Mine has input taps for
118....208....236 v. The output side is a constant 236 /118 V
It regulates very well. You can swing the input Voltage a huge
amount on either side of a particular input tap... and output side
remains constant. These things are HEAVY though.... my 750Va unit
weighs 65lbs. I have seen em in 250-500-750-1000-2000 va. Fair
radio had tons of em.... some brand new in the box.... dirt cheap.

### A SS regulated method might be the ticket....would be lighter.
How much fil POWER can these things handle ? Are they RELIABLE ?
The last thing anybody needs is a regulator to crap out... and fil
V increase... even a few percent.

### Another related issue is seasonal line V regulation. I have
seen mine as high as 247.2 V at 1 AM in the summertime [122.2 +
125 =247.2] Usually , in the dead of winter, at dinner time,
it's 240v, or 239.9v. Last week, it's 234V [117+117]... and that
was at 2 pm on a sunday afternoon... go figure.

Point here is the variation is from 247.2 v... down to 234V... and
that's just measuring the V with HV supply OFF... no big load.
With a big load on thr plate xfmr.. it's going to get sucked down
even more. Changing taps on a plate xfmr is one thing... having to
constantly be tweaking a fil variac is a real pain... and impossible
to do between RX/TX. I don't use the variac for step start
either. The variac.. once set.. stays put. A 25 ohm 100/150 w
metal finned resistor in one leg of the 240 V, feeding the fil xfmr
primary.. and a 8 second delay, is used.

Later... Jim VE7RF

A CV transformer is uneffected by RF. An active regulator will have to be properly shielded so RF doesn't modulate it. I saw it as a cool idea but the failure modes could be a problem. gfz

pentalab wrote:

pentalab wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "badgerscreek" <qrp73@...> wrote:

There is a nice article published in the latest QEX. Its for a
filament voltage regulator. Its Titled " A high Efficiency

Filament

regulator" K8LV. It uses a PIC and some pass resistors. It seems

any size tube is accomodated by increasing pass transistor sizes,

including bumping up heatsink sizes. It also has a ramp up

feature. My guestimate suggests that it would be cheaper building this regulator than buying 2 X 50 or 100 watt rheostats.

Greg

### Greg.... how would 2 x 50/100 w rheostats regulate fil V ?? Or are they using pass transistor's in a regulator ?

I'd be interested in the article (wonder why ARRL puts good technical articles in QEX instead of QST?) but I don't see huge rheostats for filaments either.

### Fil V can be of concern...esp when sucking vast amounts of current for the plate xfmr. On a set up where the fil xfmr pri V is derived from the same 240 V source as the plate pri.... under a full bore load... the fil V can be affected.

Especially with indirectly heated cathodes. They are much more likely to be damaged by changing filament voltages, especially low voltages.

### One way out of this mess, is to run a separate, smaller 240 V line... just for the fil xfmr pri. That might not solve all the fil sag problems... but at least the separate fil 240 v supply... will only have the v drop on your drop wires coming into your home, to contend with. If anybody goes this route... make sure you label.. "more than one live circuit present". You are gonna have to kill TWO sets of breakers to completely kill all 240 v coming into the amp. In cases where the RF deck is totally separate from the HV supply, it may not be an issue.

And if you have line voltage variations that are common, especially in areas where high air conditioning loads are the norm, even separate circuits wont help.

### I have the fil xfmr, and associated variac for it.. + a sola constant V xfmr.. in a shelf... below RF deck.... so RF deck is in top of rack... fil stuff is below... in same rack. HV supply is in a separate rack.
### another method is to use a sola constant V xfmr. These are all of the ferroresonant type. Mine has input taps for
118....208....236 v. The output side is a constant 236 /118 V It regulates very well. You can swing the input Voltage a huge amount on either side of a particular input tap... and output side remains constant. These things are HEAVY though.... my 750Va unit weighs 65lbs. I have seen em in 250-500-750-1000-2000 va. Fair radio had tons of em.... some brand new in the box.... dirt cheap.

And they get hot! That means they waste LOTS of power... and that is not a good thing. If you're going to consume lots of power, let's convert at least half of it to RF ;)

### A SS regulated method might be the ticket....would be lighter. How much fil POWER can these things handle ? Are they RELIABLE ? The last thing anybody needs is a regulator to crap out... and fil V increase... even a few percent.

I have used some 12 Volt switchers for GS-35B supplies with good luck. They are slow starting and have over voltage and over current protection built in. RF Noise, if any, can be easily controlled with the switcher living inside the cabinet where you can properly filter it.

### Another related issue is seasonal line V regulation. I have seen mine as high as 247.2 V at 1 AM in the summertime [122.2 + 125 =247.2] Usually , in the dead of winter, at dinner time, it's 240v, or 239.9v. Last week, it's 234V [117+117]... and that was at 2 pm on a sunday afternoon... go figure. Point here is the variation is from 247.2 v... down to 234V... and that's just measuring the V with HV supply OFF... no big load.
With a big load on thr plate xfmr.. it's going to get sucked down even more. Changing taps on a plate xfmr is one thing... having to constantly be tweaking a fil variac is a real pain... and impossible to do between RX/TX. I don't use the variac for step start either. The variac.. once set.. stays put. A 25 ohm 100/150 w metal finned resistor in one leg of the 240 V, feeding the fil xfmr primary.. and a 8 second delay, is used. Later... Jim VE7RF

Variations in the plate voltage wont do the harm that variations in filament might so I'll take whatever comes out so long as it doesn't exceed the component ratings (not in this life time!)

Jim, isn't 8 seconds a bit long for your step start? That's 480 cycles at 60 Hz. Even with the huge capacitor bank and a good step start, it should be up to snuff long before then shouldn't it?

73, Tony W4ZT

Tony Wrote

I'd be interested in the article (wonder why ARRL puts good technical
articles in QEX instead of QST?) but I don't see huge rheostats for
filaments either.

I think that is fairly obvious. Most hams today wouldn't understand them
and don't care, and the ARRL can make more money selling another magazine.

David
KC2JD

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., Tony King - W4ZT <w4zt-
060920@...> wrote:

pentalab wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "badgerscreek" <qrp73@>
wrote:

There is a nice article published in the latest QEX. Its for a
filament voltage regulator. Its Titled " A high Efficiency

Filament

regulator" K8LV. It uses a PIC and some pass resistors. It

seems

any size tube is accomodated by increasing pass transistor sizes,

including bumping up heatsink sizes. It also has a ramp up

feature. My guestimate suggests that it would be cheaper

building

this regulator than buying 2 X 50 or 100 watt rheostats.

Greg

### Greg.... how would 2 x 50/100 w rheostats regulate fil
V ?? Or are they using pass transistor's in a regulator ?

I'd be interested in the article (wonder why ARRL puts good

technical

articles in QEX instead of QST?) but I don't see huge rheostats for
filaments either.

### Fil V can be of concern...esp when sucking vast amounts of
current for the plate xfmr. On a set up where the fil xfmr pri

V

is derived from the same 240 V source as the plate pri.... under

a

full bore load... the fil V can be affected.

Especially with indirectly heated cathodes. They are much more

likely to

be damaged by changing filament voltages, especially low voltages.

### One way out of this mess, is to run a separate, smaller 240

V

line... just for the fil xfmr pri. That might not solve all

the

fil sag problems... but at least the separate fil 240 v supply...
will only have the v drop on your drop wires coming into your
home, to contend with. If anybody goes this route... make sure
you label.. "more than one live circuit present". You are

gonna

have to kill TWO sets of breakers to completely kill all 240

v

coming into the amp. In cases where the RF deck is totally
separate from the HV supply, it may not be an issue.

And if you have line voltage variations that are common, especially

in

areas where high air conditioning loads are the norm, even separate
circuits wont help.

### I have the fil xfmr, and associated variac for it.. + a
sola constant V xfmr.. in a shelf... below RF deck.... so RF

deck

is in top of rack... fil stuff is below... in same rack. HV

supply

is in a separate rack.

+++ C&H Sales has a sweet SOLA CVS, rack/floor mount that will handle
a single YC-156/179 or +++GS-35B's, metered in/outs...plus other
120vac control/rotors/etc. up to 500VA output...(best to load heavy
for best regulation). Their Stock #STR9900

73, Mike WD4EFI

a cheap and reliable methode is the magnetic regulator,
I use choke regulated heater transformers.
There is no need for fast regulation.

73
Peter

________________________________

From: ham_amplifiers@... [mailto:ham_amplifiers@...]
On Behalf Of hinrgdj1

### Fil V can be of concern...esp when sucking vast amounts of
current for the plate xfmr. On a set up where the fil xfmr pri

V

is derived from the same 240 V source as the plate pri.... under

a

full bore load... the fil V can be affected.

Especially with indirectly heated cathodes. They are much more

likely to

be damaged by changing filament voltages, especially low voltages.

### One way out of this mess, is to run a separate, smaller 240

V

line... just for the fil xfmr pri. That might not solve all

the

fil sag problems... but at least the separate fil 240 v supply...
will only have the v drop on your drop wires coming into your
home, to contend with. If anybody goes this route... make sure
you label.. "more than one live circuit present". You are

gonna

have to kill TWO sets of breakers to completely kill all 240

v

coming into the amp. In cases where the RF deck is totally
separate from the HV supply, it may not be an issue.

And if you have line voltage variations that are common, especially

in

areas where high air conditioning loads are the norm, even separate
circuits wont help.

### I have the fil xfmr, and associated variac for it.. + a
sola constant V xfmr.. in a shelf... below RF deck.... so RF

deck

is in top of rack... fil stuff is below... in same rack. HV

supply

is in a separate rack.

+++ C&H Sales has a sweet SOLA CVS, rack/floor mount that will handle
a single YC-156/179 or +++GS-35B's, metered in/outs...plus other
120vac control/rotors/etc. up to 500VA output...(best to load heavy
for best regulation). Their Stock #STR9900

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., Tony King - W4ZT <w4zt-
060920@...> wrote:

I'd be interested in the article (wonder why ARRL puts good

technical articles in QEX instead of QST?) but I don't see huge
rheostats for filaments either.

### I wonder the same thng.... probably to promote sales
of .."QEX". They have one too many publications imo.

### Fil V can be of concern...esp when sucking vast amounts of
current for the plate xfmr. On a set up where the fil xfmr pri

V

is derived from the same 240 V source as the plate pri....

under a

full bore load... the fil V can be affected.

Especially with indirectly heated cathodes. They are much more

likely to

be damaged by changing filament voltages, especially low voltages.

#### agreed.,

### One way out of this mess, is to run a separate, smaller 240

V

line... just for the fil xfmr pri. That might not solve all

the

fil sag problems... but at least the separate fil 240 v

supply...

will only have the v drop on your drop wires coming into your
home, to contend with. If anybody goes this route... make

sure

you label.. "more than one live circuit present". You are

gonna

have to kill TWO sets of breakers to completely kill all 240

v

coming into the amp. In cases where the RF deck is totally
separate from the HV supply, it may not be an issue.

And if you have line voltage variations that are common,

especially in areas where high air conditioning loads are the norm,
even separate circuits wont help.

### You are probably right. My buddy's 3x6.... between no load
and dead cxr... is 241 v..... down to 236.5 v... a 4.5 v instant
drop. Until we measure how much of that is from the 2 ga wire from
HV /fil supply to main 200A panel... and how much is from drop
wires coming from the street... will determine if a separate 240
v line... just for the fils, will actually help.

### another method is to use a sola constant V xfmr.

And they get hot! That means they waste LOTS of power... and that

is not a good thing. If you're going to consume lots of power,
let's convert at least half of it to RF ;)

#### Unloaded... they get hot after 1-2 hrs. But so does my Dahl
fil xfmr... with no lod on it either. One night, I left the dahl
on for several hrs.. forgot abt it... and it was HOT. With a full
bore 70-79 A load on it... it's barely luke warm ! The sola's
are sorta the same way... they run cooler with a load on em..... so
if used... you don't want to oversize em. A 500 va sola is fine
for a 375 va fil... and a 750 va sola is fine for a 560 va
fil. You want at least a 40-50% load on a sola.

### The absolute ideal scenario is to use a separate 240 v line...
[separte from the 2 ga wire to the HV supply]... directly to the
SOLA.... then to variac... then to dahl filo xfmr.



## I don't use the variac for step start

either. The variac.. once set.. stays put. A 25 ohm 100/150

w metal finned resistor in one leg of the 240 V, feeding the fil
xfmr primary.. and a 8 second delay, is used.

Later... Jim VE7RF

Jim, isn't 8 seconds a bit long for your step start? That's 480

cycles at 60 Hz. Even with the huge capacitor bank and a good step
start, it should be up to snuff long before then shouldn't it?

#### The 8 seconds was the step start on the FIL. We used a 0-30
timer... and arbitrarily 5-10 seconds for the FIL. The 25 ohm
resistor in one leg limits the fil V to exactly 75%. I'm
wondering if we should be limiting the V to 50-60% ?? We could
have just used the fil variac as a step start each time. But, the
fil variac was carefully dialled in, to give full bore out... with
the least fil V... and in this case... after 200 hrs... the fil V
was reduced from 7.0 down to just 6.1 V. Another concern was
IF the power went out from the power co in winter.... then when it
came back on... and IF fil variac still cranked up.... there would
be No step start....../ hence the 8 second delay circuit.

### Now, per this latest PDF from Reid Brandon on the YC-243....
it's saying all these big metal tubes are designed for commercial
service.... one on and one off cycle per day..... and don't keep
cycling the fil on/off several times a day. With either step
start.. and /or a variac... that shouldn't be a problem... esp bring
up a variac real slow. The 25 ohm fil step start just slams the
juice on.... it's not like charging caps up in a hv supply. It's
75% fil V... now.



### The big HV supply has a 14-18 second delay... 7900v + a 135
uf filter. You can bring it up pretty good in 5 seconds.... but
the extra 10 seconds keeps bringing it up.. slowly. When step start
finally activates... minimal secondary surge. We were in no big
rush. 1/2 V is only 1/4 charged up on hv caps. Energy storage
goes to the square of the V. You need the V on the caps to almost
70% ... just to get em 1/2 charged up.

### BTW... I saw ur sub mounted socket scheme for the russian
tube .. superb.. now I get it. Pix was obvious.

Later... Jim VE7RF

73, Tony W4ZT

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@...>
wrote:

a cheap and reliable methode is the magnetic regulator,
I use choke regulated heater transformers.
There is no need for fast regulation.

73
Peter

### What is a.... "choke regulated heater xfmr" ??

### What is a ...."magnetic regulator" ?

### How fast is fast ?? As fast as practical ?? My idea of
using a sola ferroresonant xfmr... was now I don't have to ever
worry about my fluctating line V. Seasonal variations aside...
and /or just going ftom RX to TX..... the line V can go up/down
or sideways.... the fil V doesn't budge an inch.

Later... Jim VE7RF

On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:17 PM, David C. Hallam wrote:

Tony Wrote

I'd be interested in the article (wonder why ARRL puts good technical
articles in QEX instead of QST?) but I don't see huge rheostats for
filaments either.

I think that is fairly obvious. Most hams today wouldn't understand them
and don't care, and the ARRL can make more money selling another magazine.

As I understand it, the last reason is correct. In the first and last article I wrote for QEX, the ARRL's copy-editor added 5 technical errors to my manuscript.

David
KC2JD

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

badgerscreek wrote:
<snip>

YES QEX MAGAZINE IS A RIP OFF CONSIDERING THAT YOU GET 6 ISSUES AND
WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE MAILING COSTS ITS A HUGE PRICE TO PAY FOR A
FEW ARTICLES. I HATED RENEWING MY SUBSCRIPTION BECAUSE I SINCERELY
BELIEVE EVERYTHING IN QEX COULD BE PLACED IN QST.

<snip>

Greg, I believe it SHOULD be placed in QST. QEX was nothing more than an effort to get us old timers to BUY another magazine. It HAS to be more costly to produce QEX as opposed to including the articles in QST. Seems to me they're boiling QST down and what's left isn't the best part... some of the recent articles sure make that obvious. When I was a beginner there were plenty of articles WAY over my head in QST. Now, there is little there I want to read. Too bad they can't be RE-combined to make ONE better magazine.

73, Tony W4ZT

On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Tony King - W4ZT wrote:

badgerscreek wrote:
<snip>

YES QEX MAGAZINE IS A RIP OFF CONSIDERING THAT YOU GET 6 ISSUES AND
WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE MAILING COSTS ITS A HUGE PRICE TO PAY FOR A
FEW ARTICLES. I HATED RENEWING MY SUBSCRIPTION BECAUSE I SINCERELY
BELIEVE EVERYTHING IN QEX COULD BE PLACED IN QST.

<snip>

Greg, I believe it SHOULD be placed in QST. QEX was nothing more than
an effort to get us old timers to BUY another magazine.

Correct, and, according to my source, mo' money was the internal argument presented at Newington before launching QEX. I got the impression that we were being fleeced. My solution was to send a message to Newington by unsubscribing to QST and unsubscribing to QEX.

It HAS to be
more costly to produce QEX as opposed to including the articles in QST.
Seems to me they're boiling QST down and what's left isn't the best
part... some of the recent articles sure make that obvious. When I was a
beginner there were plenty of articles WAY over my head in QST.

This was also my experience in high-school, Tony, but after a few years of additional schooling this changed and I realized that:
1. Designing and building RF transmitting amplifiers isn't akin to rocket science.
2. Many of the articles in QST were difficult to fathom because the author did a somewhat less than ok job of explaining what was going on so that new guys could understand.

Now,
there is little there I want to read. Too bad they can't be RE- combined
to make ONE better magazine.

The problem as I see it is that the powers that be at QST are presently "of, by, and for" something other than amateur radio. I also find it disturbing that the ARRL tries to control the way we use amateur radio bands. Take a look at the 1.8MHz band: There are no ARRL-approved sub-bands. No part of the band is reserved for CW, for AM, for spark. for SSB, for snobs, or for any we're better than you are elite group. We run what mode we want in any clear space we want. Things pretty much sort themselves out, and nobody owns a certain frequency -- with that one exception, of course.
OTOH, take a look at the 3.5MHz band. where many KHz are virtually a vast wasteland because of ARRL-blessed sub-bands.
cheerz

73, Tony W4ZT

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., rlm@..., www.somis.org

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

RICH SEZ... I also find it disturbing that the ARRL tries to
control the way we use amateur radio bands.

### agreed. In Canada it's any mode on any band on any freq...
there are No phone sub bands. ESSB on 3507 khz... no problem. We
would never do it of course. The rest of the planet operates this
way. Makes it totally elastic.. and flexible. The u can move
about more during a contest... whether u are for or against the
contest. CW band clogged up... move up a bit.

### Seems stupid to the rest of us that USA hams can operate CW
across the entire band... but ssb down on 3680 is a no-no.... even
though that part of the band is dead night after night.



Take a look at the 1.8MHz band: There are no

ARRL-approved sub-bands. No part of the band is reserved for CW,

for

AM, for spark. for SSB, for snobs, or for any we're better than

you

are elite group. We run what mode we want in any clear space we
want. Things pretty much sort themselves out, and nobody owns a
certain frequency -- with that one exception, of course.

### Lemme guess.... Rauch's favourite personal playground... 1822
khz...reserved exclusively for hiscw dx acivities.

OTOH, take a look at the 3.5MHz band. where many KHz are
virtually a vast wasteland because of ARRL-blessed sub-bands.

### agreed. Aren't the ARRL... the fella's that promote all the
contests [qrm fests].... guys making thousands of useless qso's?
Then they have the audacity to come up with this stupid 3 khz max
bw for ssb.... and promote digital voice [which still doesn't
work... and neither does drm/iboc]

### They couldn't band plan their way outa paper bag. I used to
be heavy into contesting yrs ago.... but I didn't call CQ... 300 hz
from a group of guys on 75m... all running QRO.

### On 40m it's a real mess. They all operate split.... too bad
they didn't listen on their TX frequency. They do the same thing
on 75m... TX right on top of a qso.... and listen down on 3610.

### The real answer is to just move ALL the AM SW broadcast junk
from both 40m and 3900-4000....... down to say... 11m.

Later... Jim VE7RF

cheerz

73, Tony W4ZT

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., rlm@..., www.somis.org

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

RICH SEZ... I also find it disturbing that the ARRL tries to
control the way we use amateur radio bands.

### agreed. In Canada it's any mode on any band on any freq...
there are No phone sub bands. ESSB on 3507 khz... no problem. We
would never do it of course. The rest of the planet operates this
way. Makes it totally elastic.. and flexible. The u can move
about more during a contest... whether u are for or against the
contest. CW band clogged up... move up a bit.

### Seems stupid to the rest of us that USA hams can operate CW
across the entire band... but ssb down on 3680 is a no-no.... even
though that part of the band is dead night after night.



Take a look at the 1.8MHz band: There are no

ARRL-approved sub-bands. No part of the band is reserved for CW,

for

AM, for spark. for SSB, for snobs, or for any we're better than

you

are elite group. We run what mode we want in any clear space we
want. Things pretty much sort themselves out, and nobody owns a
certain frequency -- with that one exception, of course.

### Lemme guess.... Rauch's favourite personal playground... 1822
khz...reserved exclusively for hiscw dx acivities.

OTOH, take a look at the 3.5MHz band. where many KHz are
virtually a vast wasteland because of ARRL-blessed sub-bands.

### agreed. Aren't the ARRL... the fella's that promote all the
contests [qrm fests].... guys making thousands of useless qso's?
Then they have the audacity to come up with this stupid 3 khz max
bw for ssb.... and promote digital voice [which still doesn't
work... and neither does drm/iboc]

### They couldn't band plan their way outa paper bag. I used to
be heavy into contesting yrs ago.... but I didn't call CQ... 300 hz
from a group of guys on 75m... all running QRO.

### On 40m it's a real mess. They all operate split.... too bad
they didn't listen on their TX frequency. They do the same thing
on 75m... TX right on top of a qso.... and listen down on 3610.

### The real answer is to just move ALL the AM SW broadcast junk
from both 40m and 3900-4000....... down to say... 11m.

Later... Jim VE7RF

cheerz

73, Tony W4ZT

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., rlm@..., www.somis.org

On Nov 10, 2006, at 11:36 PM, pentalab wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

RICH SEZ... I also find it disturbing that the ARRL tries to
control the way we use amateur radio bands.

### agreed. In Canada it's any mode on any band on any freq...
there are No phone sub bands. ESSB on 3507 khz... no problem. We
would never do it of course. The rest of the planet operates this
way. Makes it totally elastic.. and flexible. The u can move
about more during a contest... whether u are for or against the
contest. CW band clogged up... move up a bit.

### Seems stupid to the rest of us that USA hams can operate CW
across the entire band... but ssb down on 3680 is a no-no.... even
though that part of the band is dead night after night.

Quite

Take a look at the 1.8MHz band: There are no

ARRL-approved sub-bands. No part of the band is reserved for CW, for
AM, for spark. for SSB, for snobs, or for any we're better than
you are elite group. We run what mode we want in any clear space we
want. Things pretty much sort themselves out, and nobody owns a
certain frequency -- with that one exception, of course.

### Lemme guess.... Rauch's favourite personal playground... 1822
khz...reserved exclusively for hiscw dx acivities.

According to the guy in Manhattan who tipped me off about his debating strategies prior to the grate parasitics debate, he holds court for his groupies on his frequency using SSB.

OTOH, take a look at the 3.5MHz band. where many KHz are
virtually a vast wasteland because of ARRL-blessed sub-bands.

### agreed. Aren't the ARRL... the fella's that promote all the
contests [qrm fests].... guys making thousands of useless qso's?
Then they have the audacity to come up with this stupid 3 khz max
bw for ssb.... and promote digital voice [which still doesn't
work... and neither does drm/iboc]

Bingo

### They couldn't band plan their way outa paper bag. I used to
be heavy into contesting yrs ago.... but I didn't call CQ... 300 hz
from a group of guys on 75m... all running QRO.

### On 40m it's a real mess. They all operate split.... too bad
they didn't listen on their TX frequency. They do the same thing
on 75m... TX right on top of a qso.... and listen down on 3610.

A fun solution to this problem is to tape record them on the frequency they are interfering with and play it back on the frequency they are listening to.

### The real answer is to just move ALL the AM SW broadcast junk
from both 40m and 3900-4000....... down to say... 11m.

Guffaw

Later... Jim VE7RF

cheerz

73, Tony W4ZT

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., rlm@..., www.somis.org

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., rlm@..., www.somis.org