[ARC5] Drift in BC-453 - more

J Mcvey ac2eu at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 17 12:58:53 EST 2017 

I'm using the 2 minute version WSPR-2 which is what is being transmitted on 630 for the most part. 
There is no problem decoding this mode with modern radios-even better with CAT, but the new radios will work just fine with WSPR-2 without CAT.Not so much with the command set, though, and this what I am trying to remedy.
The idea behind this venture is that the beacon radios were built SPECIFICALLY for the band and may perform better than the general coverage receivers in ham transceivers which were not focusing on 630.I get lots of traces with the BC453, but they are all sideways. Now you know...
 

    On Sunday, December 17, 2017 12:36 PM, Bob kb8tq <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
 

 Hi
Ok, so just to try to get this back to some sort of solid base:
There are many different things all called WSPR. You have 2.0, 2.1 and X. Theyshare some things in common. They each have very different requirements forstability. In addition software *can* do interesting frequency tracking things with some other modes, but not so much with WSPR. 
If you go to Mr Google, he can tell you far more about each type of WSPR thanyou would ever want to know. There’s also way more about various PSK modesthan you would ever need to dig into, unless you are about to take a nap :) ….
So, back to the start of this: 
Which WSPR are we talking about? If it’s the 15 minutes  < 0.1 Hz stuff …. not going to happen with a non-crystal based tube set. It also isn’t going to work at normal HF frequencies no matter what the radio (straight off the official web site ….).
So no, this is not some sort of failing of this or that radio. It’s also not anything that changing out a cap or two will fix. The X mode stuff simply is not designedto work with this sort of gear. The other modes …. probably fine. 
Bob


On Dec 17, 2017, at 12:17 PM, J Mcvey via ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
It's good to know that you got a narrow digital signal to work on a command set.At least I now know it's not a total fools errand on my part...
thanks! 
 

    On Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 PM, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell at gmail.com> wrote:
 

 Hi,

If it matters..I have used a command receiver for PSK-31. After a warmup 
I was able to just sit and copy the mail. I have let my 80 meter command 
receiver go but that is the one that I used. I didn't mention it since 
the question is about the BC-453. Mine is much more stable and I don't 
have to let it run for hours before I can use it. Waterfalls produce 
straight lines and most transmitters stay on the same displayed 
frequency for hours.

Ken said he would try his on WSPR. I would just because I am curious now 
but I have abandoned WSPR. I also have too many other things to do. I 
would like to know if it can do WSPR and if not, why not.

I don't notice any issues with soundcards. I assume whatever bad habits 
those xtals in the sound cards may have it doesn't interfere with my 
uses. I have read reports from some hams about how they modify the sound 
card to stabilize it with rubidium or caesium or gps. I don't recall 
them claiming it solved a problem. Just that they wanted to do it. Maybe 
Beethoven sounds more mellow or something <evil grin>.

73,

Bill  KU8H

On 12/16/2017 09:09 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
> Hi
>
> You *will* notice 5 Hz a minute on SSB. Most people will notice 5 Hz /
> 10 minutes if the QSO goes on for a while. You also will get a bit
> bothered by it on 170 Hz shift RTTY if pictures or something similar is
> being sent. Net operation is yet another place you will notice it. PSK
> modes tend to be bothered by a few Hz of shift, simply because of the
> narrow bandwidth. That puts pretty much all of them in the category as well.
>
> Indeed a straight tube radio with no crystals involved will require some
> tuning to stay “on channel” for SSB. How much depends on 80M (not a
> whole lot) vs 10M (quite a bit). Both are normal HF bands that people
> run SSB on.
>
> Back in the day, the BC-453 was commonly used by a lot of us as a tack
> on “super IF” for various radios. I don’t ever remember it being an
> issue for drift compared to the radio that was feeding it. Simply put,
> the drift came from the 4 MHz -> 455 KHz process, not from the 455 -> 85
> KHz conversion.
>
> The debate seems to be 5 Hz per minute vs 5 uHz (or 5 mHz … ) per minute
> as the requirement for HF WSPR.
>
> Bob
>
>
>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 6:24 PM, J Mcvey via ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net
>> <mailto:arc5 at mailman.qth.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Neil,
>>
>> Yup!
>> I did mention 5Hz/minute.
>> The radio works fine for CW because the drift is almost imperceptible
>> to the human ear , but WSPR notices!
>>
>> I guess you haven't worked with waterfalls and these digital modes?
>> The issue is obvious.
>> This stuff requires a whole other level of timing and stability.
>> I also said that I will do a an actual analysis when time permits...
>>
>> My hope was that someone other than myself is attempting to get a
>> command set to receive  WSPR and JTXX modes.
>> Anybody?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 5:53 PM, AKLDGUY . <neilb0627 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:neilb0627 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The thread has meandered around because we haven't been given anything
>> to go on.
>> You have blamed the BFO but haven't mentioned any stability figure.
>>
>> Is the B+ feed to the BFO tube original? Are the resistors good? Have
>> they been
>> replaced by significantly different values? Is the decoupling to it
>> still present? Are the
>> caps bad?
>>
>> Sounds silly, but has a 6SR7 been fitted yet the heater line been
>> rewired for 12V? Are
>> you running 25V on the heater line and a wiring mistake has resulted
>> in 25V on the
>> 12SR7?
>>
>> I hope you've eliminated the painfully obvious.
>>
>> Neil ZL1ANM
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:50 AM, J Mcvey via ARC5
>> <arc5 at mailman.qth.net <mailto:arc5 at mailman.qth.net>> wrote:
>>
>>    This thread has taken many meandering twists and turns.
>>    It all started when I suggested that BFO stability may be the
>>    reason that WSPR cannot be decoded with a commend reciever.
>>    Yes, it is a "hobby thing" where I aspire to make a complete 630
>>    meter station from command components.
>>    One of the "Ham-mered' transmitters can be re purposed as the
>>    transmitter and the BC-453 as the receiver.
>>    The transmitter will be controlled by XCO or VCO with PLL.
>>
>>    The computer systems drift ARE NOT the issue with WSPR. It works
>>    fine with other rigs.
>>    The BC453 LO "seems" to be stable if I leave it on a weak beacon
>>    station for a period of time.
>>
>>    I built a 85 Khz fet Colpitts oscillator from some junk box
>>    components. I hope it will be more stable than the command set
>>    BFO, but
>>    it may have more phase jitter than I want.  We'll see...
>>    It will be used to drive the grid of the existing BFO oscillator
>>    disconnected from the set's BFO can. The plate circuit will remain
>>    intact .
>>
>>    I haven't had time to do  the drift measurements on the BFO and LO
>>    yet, but I will get there eventually. Stay tuned...
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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 <mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net>
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net <http://www.qsl.net/>
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>     Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>
>>
>> <x-msg://1/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
bark less - wag more
______________________________________________________________
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

   ______________________________________________________________
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



   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20171217/c7fd2275/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARC5 mailing list