Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 6A04D38000105; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 17:22:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TshXo-0003Kb-KV for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:21:16 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TshXo-0003KS-2J for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:21:16 +0000 Received: from mout3.freenet.de ([195.4.92.93]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TshXm-0003fr-8D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:21:14 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.142] (helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mout3.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TshXR-0006p8-Cv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:20:53 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1]:54932 helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TshXR-0005K9-6x for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:20:53 +0100 Received: from [195.4.92.21] (port=44998 helo=11.mx.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TshUW-0003lK-GN for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:17:52 +0100 Received: from blfd-4db02915.pool.mediaways.net ([77.176.41.21]:2642 helo=[192.168.178.22]) by 11.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TshUW-0000yk-6o for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:17:52 +0100 Message-ID: <50EC9B0F.90908@freenet.de> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:17:51 +0100 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <8BC235B3FB844638A8EF40E775AF2A68@AGB> <50EC9599.4080704@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Certainly yes... reminds me of my first MF transmitter (which was "CW only"). It used two crystal oscillators separated by 472 to 479 kHz, but I had to detune one crystal during receive because even if the mixer was not powered, enough signal escaped from the oscillators and mixed 'somewhere'. This created a permanent audio tone in the receiver. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [195.4.92.93 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dl4yhf[at]freenet.de) 0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: f1284eec928b6c66f973fc41cf683e42 Subject: Re: LF: 472.5 KHz OK for Xtal CW qrg ? GB4FPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090601080408030207020903" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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-sid: 3039ac1d7b9a50ec9c1676bc X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090601080408030207020903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Certainly yes... reminds me of my first MF transmitter (which was "CW only"). It used two crystal oscillators separated by 472 to 479 kHz, but I had to detune one crystal during receive because even if the mixer was not powered, enough signal escaped from the oscillators and mixed 'somewhere'. This created a permanent audio tone in the receiver. 73, Wolf . Am 08.01.2013 23:09, schrieb Graham: > Thanks Wolf > Ok the Tx uses qty-2 xtals , with a keyed mixer for full > break-cw , no tune facility > Assume 472.1 >> 472.3 is ok as well ? > G. > > *From:* wolf_dl4yhf > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:54 PM > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > *Subject:* Re: LF: 472.5 KHz OK for Xtal CW qrg ? GB4FPR > > Hi Graham, > > If you can pull the crystal a bit (which should be ok with a series C, > or a combination of L+C), it's ok. > > If you can only operate on exactly 472.5 kHz, potential QSO partners > on the continent may have a problem to receive you because there is a > permanent carrier on 472.5 kHz, sometimes quite strong in this part of DL. > > Depending on the other side's filter bandwidth, a few dozen Hz away > from 472.5 kHz to either side will improve things. > > If I had to use a fixed xtal frequency, I'd go for 472.3 to 472.4 kHz. > Still close enough to be heared by lazy people (like myself) who > 'park' their receiver on 472.5 kHz with 500 Hz IF bandwidth while > doing other things in the shack :o) > > Cheers, > Wolf . > > Am 08.01.2013 22:22, schrieb Graham: >> 472.5 KHz OK for Xtal CW qrg ? GB4FPR >> I did ask this a while ago, but to re-confirm suitable qrg >> for xtal cw 472.5 KHz ? >> Tnx -G.. > --------------090601080408030207020903 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Certainly yes... reminds me of my first MF transmitter (which was "CW only"). It used two crystal oscillators separated by 472 to 479 kHz, but I had to detune one crystal during receive because even if the mixer was not powered, enough signal escaped from the oscillators and mixed 'somewhere'. This created a permanent audio tone in the receiver.

73,
 Wolf .

Am 08.01.2013 23:09, schrieb Graham:
Thanks  Wolf
 
Ok   the  Tx uses  qty-2    xtals  , with  a keyed  mixer  for  full  break-cw  , no tune facility
 
Assume   472.1  >>  472.3  is  ok as well ?
 
G.
 
 

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: LF: 472.5 KHz OK for Xtal CW qrg ? GB4FPR

Hi Graham,

If you can pull the crystal a bit (which should be ok with a series C, or a combination of L+C), it's ok.

If you can only operate on exactly 472.5 kHz, potential QSO partners on the continent may have a problem to receive you because there is a permanent carrier on 472.5 kHz, sometimes quite strong in this part of DL.

Depending on the other side's filter bandwidth, a few dozen Hz away from 472.5 kHz to either side will improve things.

If I had to use a fixed xtal frequency, I'd go for 472.3 to 472.4 kHz. Still close enough to be heared by lazy people (like myself) who 'park' their receiver on 472.5 kHz with 500 Hz IF bandwidth while doing other things in the shack :o)

Cheers,
  Wolf .

Am 08.01.2013 22:22, schrieb Graham:
472.5  KHz  OK for  Xtal  CW   qrg  ?  GB4FPR
 
I did  ask  this  a while  ago,  but to  re-confirm  suitable   qrg  for  xtal  cw      472.5  KHz  ? 
 
Tnx -G..


--------------090601080408030207020903--