[Milsurplus] More Navy radio in China 1944 - 1945

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

On 20 Jun 2005 at 15:36, Marty Reynolds wrote:

> > Agree, though, that A2 would still be less effective than A1.
> 
> Only if there's no BFO on the receiving end.

I think Marty means that A-2 would be MORE effective than 
A-1 only if there was no BFO on the receiving end.

> 
> Those OTs thot of everything

Actually, A-2 is more effective than A-3 by far, especially if it is 
"enhanced" by attention getting modulation. And it is even 
better if the carrier is keyed along with the modulation. 

Its primary original purpose was to communicate with receivers 
that didn't have a BFO....like a crystal set, which was often the 
required emergency receiver aboard merchant ships.

As Marty says, those OT thought of everything.

Ken W7EKB