Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0
to 5.5MHz.

In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay
writes
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0
to 5.5MHz.



My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz
-sidebands would be the wrong way round .

http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf

DIJ

--
Brian Howie

On 01/12/2014 08:10, Brian Howie wrote:
In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay
writes
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers
5.0 to 5.5MHz.



My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz
-sidebands would be the wrong way round .

http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf

Interesting ... I was referring to the FT-200, and I believe the FT-101E
and its derivatives have a similar mixing arrangements, though with
different combinations of VFO and pre-mix frequencies.

I suspect the FT-200 would be impossible to mod for 60m, as the required
frequencies are in the middle of its VFO coverage. Are there any mods
out there for the other 70s vintage FTs?

In message , Brian Howie
writes
In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay
writes
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers
5.0 to 5.5MHz.



My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz
-sidebands would be the wrong way round .

http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf

I've only had a quick look, but it looks like the first IF is a fixed
5.520 to 6.020MHz (wideband bandpass filter) - ie a sort-of roofing
filter, and not tuneable.


--
Ian

In message , Ian Jackson
writes
In message , Brian Howie
writes
In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay
writes
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers
5.0 to 5.5MHz.



My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz
-sidebands would be the wrong way round .

http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf

I've only had a quick look, but it looks like the first IF is a fixed
5.520 to 6.020MHz (wideband bandpass filter) - ie a sort-of roofing
filter, and not tuneable.


Yes it's wideband but the vfo is 9MHz and together with thie 3MHz IF
selects the frequency within the pass-band . 9-3 =6
--
Brian Howie

"Brian Howie" wrote in message
...
My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is
3.180MHz -sidebands would be the wrong way round .

http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf

Interesting, for I had always understood the Sommerkamp 747 to be a rebadged
FTDX560, but it's tunable IF / VFO coverage / transverter Xtals are 300 kHz
different***** and it did not have the noise blanker option. Otherwise, a
piecemeal
examination of the 560's cct diagram against the 747's cct diagram to hand
here
makes then appear to be identical.

***** Thus giving the 60m coverage and so making the gratuitous abuser
from a certain quarter look to be a babbling fool.

In message
, Brian
Reay writes
Brian Howie wrote:
In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay
writes
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers
5.0 to 5.5MHz.



My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz
-sidebands would be the wrong way round .

http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf

DIJ

So it still doesn't cover 60m.

As for side bands being the wrong way around, a popular misconception. As I
recall it came up a few
months back and was discussed at some length. Jeff explained it rather
well, as I recall.


VFO is 8.7to 9.2 and 2nd IF is 3. 180

Quick and dirty sum.

VF0 is set to 9
Carrier is 3MHZ tone is 1KHz

USB is 3.001 LSB is 2.999

9-3 = 6

1KHz tone

USB 9-3.001 = 5.999 LSB in IF

LSB

9-.2.9.999 = 6.001 USB in IF

So the sidebands are reversed in tunable IF

for 14MHz conversion crystal is about 20MHz , when the tunable IF is
subtracted, the sidebands are the right way round again.

Other rigs are probably different. Yes and this one doesn't cover
60m.Enthusiasts might want to try it for different Yaesu rigs. The FT101
looks the same. Some with the 9MHz IF might work out differently.

Brian


--
Brian Howie

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"Jeefaw K. Effkay" wrote:
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0
to 5.5MHz.

How could someone with an RAE, who claims so much experience of homebrew,
and
the hobby in general make such an error?

Especially as, if say STC, happens to ask a question the same person
derides him without mercy.

Plus, of course, this is far from an isolated incident. If ever there was
evidence needed for retesting Full licence
holders, this is it. The danger is, OFCOM may think, based on this
individual, that testing must include all three exams, even for existing
Fulls.

Don't put ideas into their heads, Brian. That's far to much of a "nice
little earner" not to be implemented.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

On 01/12/14 18:21, Brian Reay wrote:

The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence
holders on here, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting Full Licensees.

Before that, there's the problem of those that haven't progressed.

The more I hear of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Foundation
and Intermediate licence holders on the bands, the more convinced I am
that there is a case for retesting them on a regular basis. And the
trainers too, and those that train the trainers. They all need
retesting, some in Basic English, it would appear.

--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe