[Milsurplus] More Navy radio in China 1944 - 1945

[WA5CAB at cs.com]

Sorry.  Getting late here.  That's what I meant.  The A2 output would have 
been less than the A1 output.  This is the general case regardless of whether 
the transmitter is plate or grid modulated.

A2 was a carryover from the 30's for use against sets like the SCR-183/283 
and RU.  Plus against sets expecting voice when voice wasn't getting through.

As for the second part, I don't see how A2 would be more effective than A1 
given a decent receiver at the receiving end.  Even with a high level (plate 
modulated) transmitter, the relative output power running CW versus MCW would be 
typically 1.6 to 1 (the BC-610, for example) is rated 400 watt CW/250 Watt 
phone (or MCW if you built a keyed audio oscillator to use with it).  With grid 
modulated sets, worse than this.

In a message dated 6/19/2005 11:44:58 PM Central Daylight Time, 
kargo_cult at msn.com writes: 
> >Nope.  The TBW output on A2 was the same as on A3.  And MCW is less 
> effective 
> >through QRM or QRN than A1.  Plus there would have been no QRM in the 
> >Northwest Pacific in '44.  QRN maybe.
> 
> Which was actually less, i think, than its CW output, as A2-A3 was by 
> suppressor
> modulation which peaks at the previous CW level, yes?
> 
> Now the second part, i thought i'd been told, and just recently, that A2 
> could
> ( maybe: sometimes? ) exceed A1 even, under certain cirumstances.  IF the
> A2 was generated by a plate modulator i could moreso see how this could be.
> However, that wasn't the case with most mil portable equipment. Hmmm...
> so maybe that quote only referred to audible whine at the transmit site.
> That quote has its problems, but at least it does thru the smoke, identify
> the TBW and TBX. -Hue Miller

Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
<http://www.wa5cab.com> (Web Store)
MVPA 9480
<wa5cab at cs.com> (Primary email)
<wa5cab at houston.rr.com> (Backup email)