[ARC5] Inspired hack job

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi,

I'm certainly a fan. I have four of those here of my own (lucky me). One
is hopefully destined for use on a new 600 meter ham allocation. Another
will be listening to 160 meters with a purpose converter. The other two
I suppose will be spares. Only one of them is 'not working' right now
but is not too far gone to get it back online. There is another receiver
here that does very well compared to those. I have a RAK-7 that does
wonderful things. I have been evaluating my present antenna which seems
to have useful lobe straight out the St Lawrence Seaway from my location
in northern Michigan. I recall that one of them is about 1025 miles
away. RAK and BC453 can hear it. Ten Tec can't.

73,

Bill  KU8H

On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 19:08 -0500, Robert Eleazer wrote:
> You know it occurs to me that you would have considerable difficulty in
>  finding a receiver that would do a better job over the 190 -550 KHZ
>  range as compared to an ATA, BC-453, R-11A, or others of that series. 
>  
> 
> 
> I very much doubt the ADF sets, either WWII vintage or more modern,
>  would do as well as a BC-453 or its LF brethren.  After all, the 453
>  was designed for com use on the control tower frequencies, not driving
>  an indicator.
> 
>  
> 
> I have not done a comparison, but I doubt a BC-348 can hold a candle to
>  a BC-453.  I built a Tec Tec receiver kit some years ago that covers
>  100 KHZ -30 MHZ; it cost me $200 in kit form and is a nice design, but
>  its performance at the lower frequencies was just terrible. 
> 
>  
> 
> Unless you are talking something like an R-389, I doubt that even today
>  you could do better than a BC-453 for 190 - 550 KHZ, and mostly not as
>  well.   
> 
>  
> 
> Given the gradual Federal abandonment of NDB's the 453 may just be the
>  best thing ever produced for that band and the best thing that ever
>  will be produced in significant quantities.  
> 
> 
> Wayne