[Milsurplus] RBB/RBC overload - NOT!!!!!!

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

Robert Downs wrote:

> That's the second time someone has mentioned that the RBB and RBC overload
> easily.

Whoops! I never said they over load easily! I was just quoting an OT 
Navy op. As William Donzelli said, it was probably just an excuse.

> I beg to differ.

I agree, and I will explain below.

> In the mid 60's, I did training duty aboard USS
> Bushnell at Key West, which still had RBB's and RBC's as the only communications
> receivers aboard. As an E2 I didn't sit any radio watches (and a hurricane came
> through and threw another monkey wrench into things), but I distinctly recall
> the more senior RM's using the receivers (which of course had their own
> antenna(s)) as keying monitors (no muting or standby or any of that nonsense).
> From not long after that until '73 when I moved to Houston, I had a Super Pro
> (SP-110-LX), an RBB, an RBC, a T-47/ART-13 and a BC-610-F. The T-47 or the 610
> had one antenna. The receivers used a separate one. And I also used the RBB/RBC
> as a keying monitor. The Super Pro took several seconds to recover after a dot.
> I've never owned an RAL.

OK. Now MY story about my use of an RBB. I used one for several 
years as my main receiver for 80 meter traffic handling. I ran a KW to a 
TechRad T-350XM transmitter. I used separate antennas for full-QSK.

The RBB NEVER overloaded while in use by me. In fact, IMHO, the 
RBB/RBC has possibly the very best audio limiter I have ever used in 
ANY receiver...EVER...BAR NONE.

I could be in QSO with a station that was about S-5 or less, and when I 
keyed the transmitter, the signal in my headphones or speaker was no 
louder than the S-5 or weaker signal I was listening to, and with NO 
detectable distortion either. I just loved that! :-)

In fact, one of my early "Elmers" happened into the shack during a 
traffic session and was totally amazed at what he heard. He asked me 
how I did that. I said, it wasn't me; it was the RBB, its excellent audio 
limiter, and fast-recovery RF and IF stages.

I really liked the RBB and wish I had another one. I wasn't as 
enamoured with the RBC though. It tuned too fast for me. I preferred 
the RAL for anything above 4 Mhz, which is where the RBB stopped.

The way I understood the OT op's comment about the RBB/RBC was 
that it "heard", or received interference, hash perhaps, shotgun splatter, 
etc., caused by transmitters on nearby frequencies to which it wasn't 
tuned, while the RAK/L didn't, but I certainly never experienced such.

I repeat: as William Donzelli says, it was probably just an excuse.

Ken W7EKB