Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mc03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DB477380000AB; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:18:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Sowna-0007je-TU for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:17:46 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Sowna-0007jV-AJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:17:46 +0100 Received: from out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.237]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SownY-0003Hb-DJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:17:45 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAKAMh7/U9cF/ku/2dsb2JhbABFtjADgSqBCIIbBQEBBAEIAQEDSQIsAQEDBQIBAxEEAQEKJRQBBBoGFggGEwoBAgIBAYd2Cr1Wi0CBDYFFgxwDiBaFOoh8jnSCXw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,567,1336345200"; d="scan'208";a="397836299" Received: from host-92-23-249-46.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.23.249.46]) by out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 11 Jul 2012 14:17:42 +0100 Message-ID: <003701cd5f67$8bad40f0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: , <4FFC3518.1030405@xs4all.nl>, <4FFD5313.6103.333D978@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:17:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: As I see it, for normal rigs the SSB mode is convenient, but if you had a rig with a BFO swing between 0 - 2 khz and position it around 1.5 Khz then that would work in the CW position and have the advantages of narrow cw filters. Some of the old RA17 receivers had a BFO swing of 4 Khz to interface with some external MODEMS that needed an offset of 3 Khz. If you could find an amateur receiver that had a suitable bfo offset then the CW position would work better. Opera could probably be redesigned for an ofset of maybe 800 Hz and could then be used in the normal way in CW RX mode [...] Content analysis details: (3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.237 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.4 FSL_UA FSL_UA 1.7 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 5f132ffce194fb93f2267a462d849f2b Subject: Re: LF: OPERA Question Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:437836320:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d604b4ffd7d2d0cfc X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none As I see it, for normal rigs the SSB mode is convenient, but if you had a rig with a BFO swing between 0 - 2 khz and position it around 1.5 Khz then that would work in the CW position and have the advantages of narrow cw filters. Some of the old RA17 receivers had a BFO swing of 4 Khz to interface with some external MODEMS that needed an offset of 3 Khz. If you could find an amateur receiver that had a suitable bfo offset then the CW position would work better. Opera could probably be redesigned for an ofset of maybe 800 Hz and could then be used in the normal way in CW RX mode g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Dennison" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:18 AM Subject: Re: LF: OPERA Question > > Narrow IF filters are not desirable and reduce the > > performance of the demodulator , better simply use SSB filter > > GL ..73 -G.. > > Graham, > > Why is that the case? What does the considerable extra bandwidth > achieve? Is the SSB bandwidth optimal, or would it be even better > with 10kHz bandwidth, or 100kHz?. Why is 3kHz better than perhaps > 1kHz or 2kHz? > > At first glance it appears crazy to let in all sorts of adjacent > channel QRM (the bandwidth is more than ten times the size of the > entire Opera window) when using a mode that occupies a fraction of > 1Hz. > > Is it simply that the 1.7kHz Tx tone is high enough for the SSB > filter to kill its harmonics, and on receive it is difficult to get a > 1.7kHz tone out of a CW filter, even with passband shifting. > > Am I missing something? > > 73 de Mike, G3XDV > g3xdv.blogspot.co.uk > ================ > > >