Fw: Re: [Boatanchors] rs

[James Duffer]

SNIP

>True, but not not entirely. If you hold a view or impression that you
>picked up somewhere along the line that is incorrect, but you never
>make reference or 'hear' anyone speak of it, you've lost out. I've
>learned a great deal being corrected by those in the know. I've
>explained things I didn't completely (or even remotely) understand and
>ended up with an entirely different, but much more accurate view
>afterwards. I'm not the type to be just a taker, though: I try to
>contribute as well, even if it seems insignificant to most. Type of
>knob used on xx receiver, which beer works best for radio repair,
>where to find antenna wax - good things like that. One thing I DON'T
>do is expect every post made on a forum such as this to be tailored
>just to *my* tastes and what I consider to be relevant with respect to
>old radio equipment.

SNIP

Well said.  Back in the early sixties when SSB was becoming in vogue.  I 
asked a sergeant in my unit (Signal Corps) about SSB.  Well as he began to 
explain the generation of a SSB signal (both balanced modulator/filter and 
phasing method) I suddenly realized my concept of amplitude modulation was 
flawed (the generation of the modulated envelope).  From initiating that 
discussion I learned that SSB was an amplitude modulated signal (unless 
transmitting a single tone) and that an amplitude modulated waveform 
(envelope) was the result of a multitude of different frequency signals 
(sidebands) combining adding/subtracting forming the envelope, not a single 
frequency carrier that was decreased and increased in amplitude (my former 
concept)  Further discussion then made me realize that I had also the wrong 
concept of FM!!!!.

I would be the last to disparage a thread of conversation or ideas being 
posted.  Furthermore I would not hesitate to add my two cents worth, and 
just might learn some more about radio.