[Milsurplus] BC-221

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:47:53 -0700

I have both LM and BC-221 and have used them both as external BFO with =
the BC-348.It seems to me that the BC-221 has better long term =
stability.I would have to use the same power supply to be sure.I think =
the LM looks more "aircraftish" though.
 Jay=20

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:26 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-221

[email protected] writes:
> Has anyone ever used a regulated DC supply for the BC-221 filaments?
> >Results worth the work?
>=20

As originally issued, the BC-221 was running on DC which was (for all=20
practical purposes) regulated since it was 4 large 1.5 volt batteries in =
series. =20
That should give a pretty good idea of how it performs when "regulated." =
 I=20
realize that long term there would be a downward shift of the filament =
voltage as=20
the battery is drained.  But, short term, it would be very stable.

73,

Norm Hall, W6JOD

p.s. I've run BC-221 freq meters with an AC supply (homebrew) over the =
years=20
and was very pleased with the stability with B+ regulated and filaments =
AC=20
without regulation.  In fact, we used to use the 221 as BFO on input =
frequency=20
when receiving RTTY on 80 meters with drifty receivers and left the =
receiver BFO=20
off.  Tone frequencies then dependent only on the stability of the =
incoming=20
signal and the BC-221.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
_______________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus