| |
PF1F > MARINE 12.03.05 16:37l 34 Lines 1262 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : B40083PF1F
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: SSB reduced carrier-the point?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0CL<DB0PDF<DB0SM<DB0PKE<DB0ACH<ON0DXC<WA7V<RZ6HXA<OK0PPL<
DB0RES<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<ON0AR<IW8PGT<ON4HU<GB7YFS<GB7LGS<GB7FCR<PI8WFL
Sent: 050312/1528Z @:PI8WFL.#NH1.NLD.EU #:28489 [Enkhuizen] $:B40083PF1F
From: PF1F@PI8WFL.#NH1.NLD.EU
To : MARINE@WW
G0FTD wrote:-
> Can anyone tell me what the point is for using ssb reduced carrier ?
The point was that there was a transition period of several years, between
the first year that ONLY ssb gear could be bought, and the first year that
any double-sideband use was forbidden.
Now a lot of people thought that in the meantime, some "aid in tuning"
(actual expression used in ITU docs) would be helpful. Recall that very
few receivers had "dial the kHz and go" type of tuning;but they did have
BFO's and "zero beating" is easy enough.
Some Wise Men even thought that receivers locking into a reduced carrier
would prove to be essential, because
- It was Evident that Not a Single Person could tune in an SSB signal
(well, _they_ couldn't, anyway)
- It was Inevitable that Not a Single Receiver was stable enough to stay
on it (well, _theirs_ wasn't, anyway)
To humor them and speed things up, a reduced carrier possibility was
provided - it cost practically nothing, so why argue.
Naturally, users were a lot quicker adopting the whole lot than
anticipated, and - while Full carrier was sometimes handy to be copied on
an old receiver -, reduced carrier was never in actual use.
Rudolf, PF1F
Heemskerk, JO22im
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
