[ARC5] On Hacking and TVI

[J. Forster]

There has as yet been no answer to my question about what all those
self-appointed ham "experts on ham lore" contributed to the sets.

Just more insults and vapid pretexts for cutting up that which was not
understoods.

That, in and of itself, speaks eloquently.

-John

=========



> Ken, what do you expect from a non ham that didnt operate them? And
> apparently doesnt understand matching to the antenna very well.
>
> As for TVI that became very well known due to poor 3rd harmonic
> suppression
> from 40M use plus radiating single wire feedlines which got right into the
> house wiring.
>
> 100% sour grapes and disinformation from the usual suspects.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> To: <Arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] On Hacking and TVI
>
>
>> On 16 Oct 2012 at 10:40, J. Forster wrote:
>>
>>> I was waiting for that canard.
>>
>> Not a canard, as such: a true situation. I view it as a group of
>> misunderstandings of the true situation. TVI DID occur: the cause was
>> NOT
>> what was first thought it was.
>>
>>> The TVI rep was fror two reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. Ham gear manufacturers condemned the ARC-5 and similar sets to sell
>>> their hardware.
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> 2. The ARC-5, and many other similar vehicular transmitters, had
>>> electrically short antennas and these were resonated by the output
>>> (variable) inductors in the sets. This was a high-Q circuit, so would
>>> kill harmonics well.
>>
>> There were at least two OTHER reasons, good reasons, for TVI at the
>> time-period: 1) many, if not most, TV owners were viewing very weak,
>> marginal signals on crummy antennas, or with cheap, very poorly designed
>> preamps, and as a result, it didn't take a very strong off-frequency
>> signal to
>> cause fundamental-overload, and 2) many TV sets of the period had 21 MHz
>> IF strips. Another reason was that there was NO filtering in any TV set
>> at
>> the
>> time. The manufacturers were at fault, big time.
>>
>> I remember many, many times going to neighbors' home and seeing them
>> patiently watching pictures that were ALMOST recognizable due to the
>> noise,
>> static, lack of a decent antenna, weak, fringe-area signals, etc. I
>> hated
>> TV at
>> the time. Still do.
>>
>> However, you rightly state that the attempts at minimizing TVI by hams
>> were
>> not really conducive, in most cases, to a proper solution either. I
>> really
>> doubt
>> if any of us COULD have done anything effective against TVI over a
>> considerable period of time, due to poorly designed, manufactured, and
>> imporperly-used TV sets.
>>
>>> Any time I see an ARC-5 with a SO-239, I know it belonged to a ham
>>> with little to no understanding of its proper operation.
>>
>> Agreed. Which were most of us at the time.
>>
>> Ken W7EKB
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ARC5 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5334 - Release Date: 10/15/12
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>