[Milsurplus] New MF band

Sat Sep 16 14:45:52 EDT 2017

Does anybody have a rcvr for the mf and lf bands that I can have or get, already modified? I'm also looking for an arc 5 that covers 40m.  That was the radio that got me hooked on ham radio. Also looking for mil whips.  I'm disabled, low income and cannot do any modifications.

Randy Ka4nma 

> On Sep 16, 2017, at 1:56 PM, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:
> 
> Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
>    milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: 500 Kc XMTR (Kenneth G. Gordon)
>   2. The "new" MF band. (Kenneth G. Gordon)
>   3. Re: 500 Kc XMTR (David Stinson)
>   4. Re: 500 Kc XMTR (Richard)
>   5. Re: 500 Kc XMTR (George Babits)
>   6. Re: 500 Kc XMTR (WF2U)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:46:23 -0700
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> To: Ed Sharpe via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] 500 Kc XMTR
> Message-ID: <59BD474F.13308.D55C1 at kgordon2006.frontier.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
>> On 16 Sep 2017 at 2:06, Ed Sharpe via Milsurplus wrote:
>> 
>> what power limit is there,at 500 kc?
> 
> I believe it is 5 watts EIRP, but the notification on the FCC's site will tell for sure.
> 
> BTW, given how inefficient any reasonably sized antennas are on that band, output power 
> from your amp will have to be much higher than 5 watts.
> 
> There was recently a contact on that band between an experimental station in Australia and 
> another in Tennessee, so DX is not all that unusual there.
> 
> Ken W7EKB
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 09:02:03 -0700
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Cc: Arc5 at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Milsurplus] The "new" MF band.
> Message-ID: <59BD4AFB.23573.1BAF47 at kgordon2006.frontier.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> I, along with some others, have been using a refurbished BC-453 on that band for receiving. 
> I couple mine to my computer which has various pieces of software on it.
> 
> The BC-453 and the R-23*/ARC-5s work very, very well there. 
> 
> There are some modes being used on that band which require very high stability, and the 
> "ARC-5" receivers, although they are quite stable already, can be improved by using 
> regulated DC on the filaments.
> 
> As to whether or not the resultant stability is sufficient for those modes remains to be seen, 
> however.
> 
> Of course, regulated B+ must be used too. In addition, that B+ should be kept "low". As I 
> have mentioned here before, a B+ voltage of around 170 VDC appears to be the optimum.
> 
> Even the small variations in line voltage cause obvious instabilities due to the changes in 
> filament voltage with some of those high stability modes.
> 
> If you decide to use the lower B+, it is a good idea to move the screen voltage feed from the 
> original midpoint of the two filament voltage divider resistors to the hot end, increasing the 
> screen voltage to a point closer to that required by the tubes' specification. 
> 
> Too low screen voltage causes a significant worsening of overall sensitivity.
> 
> Measured MDS sensitivity for my refurbished "ARC-5s" is 0.1 microvolt on that band.
> 
> Ken W7EKB
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 11:25:08 -0500
> From: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> To: "'MilSurplus'" <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] 500 Kc XMTR
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
> 
> I intend to use my WWII rigs with real, manly CW 
> and NO bloody computer anything.  And some phone, too. 
> God bless those who want to digital do-dad and
> take 48 hours to send their call sign- good 
> on them.  Just not for me.
> 73 Dave S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 12:40:43 -0400
> From: Richard <brunneraa1p at comcast.net>
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] 500 Kc XMTR
> Message-ID: <45fb9fbe-fa3b-ccd5-67bb-a2f6cd87dbe6 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> I haven't run the math yet, but think I will need about 200 Watts to 
> achieve 5 Watts EIRP.
> 
> All those extremely long distance reports are most likely using very 
> slow transmission methods, which are merely, "Hi, I logged your signal 
> last night."  In my mind that's not communication and is mostly 
> useless.  Am I missing something?  On the other hand shore stations on 
> 500 Kc. reported hearing half the hemisphere at night, and working ships 
> out 1000 miles was not uncommon.  A local station (New England) once 
> worked a ship off the coast of Peru. There is reason for hope.
> 
> FYI, VO1NA in Newfoundland is running a beacon on 477.7 Kc at 12 wpm 24 
> hours a day.  I didn't hear him last night, but didn't have my best 
> receiving antenna and receiver on.
> 
> I am ready to go with a TBW, RAL, RAK, and upconverters.  Also a GP I 
> haven't fired up yet.  I suspect I may be too close to a transmission 
> line, and will know soon enough.
> 
> Richard, AA1P
> 
> 
>> On 09/16/2017 11:46 AM, Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:
>>> On 16 Sep 2017 at 2:06, Ed Sharpe via Milsurplus wrote:
>>> 
>>> what power limit is there,at 500 kc?
>> I believe it is 5 watts EIRP, but the notification on the FCC's site will tell for sure.
>> 
>> BTW, given how inefficient any reasonably sized antennas are on that band, output power
>> from your amp will have to be much higher than 5 watts.
>> 
>> There was recently a contact on that band between an experimental station in Australia and
>> another in Tennessee, so DX is not all that unusual there.
>> 
>> Ken W7EKB
>> 
>> ---
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 11:11:12 -0600
> From: "George Babits" <gbabits at custertel.net>
> To: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>,    "'MilSurplus'"
>    <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] 500 Kc XMTR
> Message-ID: <6223C2B4C4D142ABA734C51F2B8EB6FC at GeorgePC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>    reply-type=original
> 
> Yup, me too.  Great incentive to get one of my TA-12Gs  going!
> 
> 73,
> George
> W7HDL
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> To: "'MilSurplus'" <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 10:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] 500 Kc XMTR
> 
> 
>> I intend to use my WWII rigs with real, manly CW 
>> and NO bloody computer anything.  And some phone, too. 
>> God bless those who want to digital do-dad and
>> take 48 hours to send their call sign- good 
>> on them.  Just not for me.
>> 73 Dave S.
>> 
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Milsurplus mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 13:56:35 -0400
> From: WF2U <wf2u at ws19ops.com>
> To: David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> Cc: 'MilSurplus' <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] 500 Kc XMTR
> Message-ID: <f7cec3de-5275-450e-acf7-346eb55f7ec6 at ws19ops.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> My plan was also to get on 600 meters with surplus equipment. I have a few options:
> 1. ATD transmitter - I have the low frequency antenna tuner for it; my ATD is operational, running it with the original dynamotor.
> 2. ART-13 - I have one with the OA-16 and one with the OA-17 option and none of the LF/MF CU-26, -26 or -32 boxes, so that they're out until I acquire one of the CU's.
> 3. GO-9 - my GO-9 has both the HF and the LF/MF section. Need to build a HV power supply. LV and keying relay supplies are already in the power supply compartment, mod that was done by the previous owner. I bought the GO-9 without the external homebrew HV supply. 
> 4. Royal Canadian Navy CM-11 console (Canadian Marconi). The transmitter contains tank and antenna matching circuits for HF and LF/MF. Tested through with bench supplies, except the 813 PA section. Need to build a power supply.
> Lots of options for WW2 vintage receivers. 
> BC-348, BC-453, ARB, RBA, RAK, RBL, Canadian CSR-5.
> Already filed with PLC. Hope they clear me and finally we can go classic on a classic band.
> 
> 73. Meir WF2U
> Landrum, SC
> 
> 
> ?Sent from BlueMail ?On Sep 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> I intend to use my WWII rigs with real, manly CW 
> and NO bloody computer anything. And some phone, too. 
> God bless those who want to digital do-dad and
> take 48 hours to send their call sign- good 
> on them. Just not for me.
> 73 Dave S.
> 
> 
> 
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2017, 12:25 PM, at 12:25 PM, David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I intend to use my WWII rigs with real, manly CW 
>> and NO bloody computer anything.  And some phone, too. 
>> God bless those who want to digital do-dad and
>> take 48 hours to send their call sign- good 
>> on them.  Just not for me.
>> 73 Dave S.
>> 
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Milsurplus mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20170916/6abfa02b/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> 
> 
> End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 161, Issue 55
> *******************************************