Message-ID: <00a201bfc0c2$0ff89140$2301a8c0@maly.cz.gmc.net>
From: "Petr Maly" <p.maly@gmc.net>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <2000051810113968199@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: LF: Re: Re: LF receivers
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:10:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

I used IC-751A till now.  I mind that it has scale with resolution of 100 Hz
and tuning step 10 Hz - too  imprecise for LF. When we describe our
receivers, we mostly talk about antenna input, LPF and a first mixer. But
mind that these transceivers have 1st IF on fq around 70 MHz (unnecessarily
too high) with 15 kHz wide filter (and no chance to change this). It means
that strong signals like DCF39 go thru all the 1st IF amplifier as far as to
the 2nd mixer and the first x-tall filter in the 2nd IF without any
attenuation. This leads me to think that this is wrong by conception and I
decided to desing my own special RX for this band.

73, Petr, OK1FIG

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Dodd <g3ldo@zetnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 11:11 AM
Subject: LF: Re: LF receivers


> I am working on the Receiver chapter for the LF book. I have a good
> introduction written by John 4GVC (with a description of the TS850,
> which caused many of us, including myself, to go this route) but
> would like to bring it up to date in the light of your collective
> experience. While I was up at Crawley I found that Derek was using
> the 990 to good effect.
> What is your favorite receiver and how does it compare with others
> that you might have tried?
>
>
> --
> Regards, Peter, G3LDO
>
> <g3ldo@zetnet.co.uk>
>
>
>