Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Heathkit AR-3 Receiver reflex BFO issue  (Read 2208 times)
N2EY
Member

Posts: 5093




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2018, 12:11:19 PM »

In the AR-3, for CW/SSB reception, the AGC does not work.

What must be done for any mode that needs the BFO is to turn the AF gain all the way up and control gain with the RF gain control. That's how Heathkit got away with the trick "reflex BFO" circuit, rather than having a separate BFO tube as in the AR-2.


Already well covered in Post 22 which quoted the manual.

I replied because AC2EU's post was Post #25. Either he did not read or did not understand Post 22.

Why did you quote what I wrote yet not attribute it to me? Did you not want people to know who you were quoting?

Another thing to consider is that since this is a kit built radio it may have never worked properly and was stored early in its life which could explain the excellent cosmetics.
Also a (or more) ground connection may be loose as I have found while servicing other Heath products.

Any old radio, kit or manufactured, may have all sorts of errors in it, either from original construction or from "fixes". Rarely does one know the provenance of something so old.

Jim, N2EY
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 12:27:05 PM by N2EY » Logged
KM1H
Member

Posts: 5491




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2018, 12:38:08 PM »

Quote
I replied because AC2EU's post was Post #25. Either he did not read or did not understand Post 22.

Why not just direct him to Post 22 instead of making it appear as your idea only?

Quote
Why did you quote what I wrote yet not attribute it to me? Did you not want people to know who you were quoting?

Why is that SO important to you or cant you remember back a few hours?
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 5093




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2018, 02:00:16 PM »

I replied because AC2EU's post was Post #25. Either he did not read or did not understand Post 22.

Why not just direct him to Post 22 instead of making it appear as your idea only?

It does not appear that it is my idea only.

However, it is clear that AC2EU either did not read or did not understand Post #22. So I wrote a clearer, more complete, easier-to-understand response.

Why does that bother you so much, Carl?

Why did you quote what I wrote yet not attribute it to me? Did you not want people to know who you were quoting?

Why is that SO important to you or cant you remember back a few hours?

It's not "SO important", Carl.

But it is interesting that you sometimes quote people without attribution. Doing so requires more keystrokes and cut/paste than simple quoting. For someone so parsimonious of effort as to not use apostrophes to go to all that trouble indicates that there's a specific reason.

Seems the answer is pretty simple: you quote like that because you don't want the person you are quoting to be notified that you replied.

Why?

Jim, N2EY
Logged
KM1H
Member

Posts: 5491




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2018, 03:20:04 PM »

Get a life Jimmy and take your PITA meds....what a dip.

Didnt you get the message from the QRZ owner when you got a good slap a few days ago?

Dont think it was missed by Eham owner and mods.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 5093




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2018, 05:24:57 AM »

Get a life Jimmy and take your PITA meds....what a dip.

Didnt you get the message from the QRZ owner when you got a good slap a few days ago?

Dont think it was missed by Eham owner and mods.

Carl,

Who are you addressing?

If you mean me, I go by Jim. Not "Jimmy". Your use of diminutives as a way of putting others down is very immature.

You mention "a good slap". Do you mean this post:

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/jack-andersons-1970s-era-ham-vs-cb-editorial.630616/page-17#post-4836299

??

If so....note that it was addressed to YOU as well. If I was "slapped" - so were you.

What is it you REALLY want, Carl?

Your behavior is very uniform and very predictable. All anyone has to do to get you angry at them is to question or disagree with anything you write. Still worse is if they bring solid facts, references and sound reasoning to a discussion, and in so doing, prove you wrong. Worst of all is if they persist and are not intimidated by you.

It's not me, either - you behave that way towards ANYONE who does the above. Particularly those you consider "inferior" for whatever reason....not being licensed a long time, not having done something or other, whatever.

You accuse others of the very behaviors you demonstrate.

Consider that others don't have to agree with you in order for them to be deserving of respect. Consider that you don't have to put others down to build yourself up. Consider that others will respect you more, not less, if you behave like an adult.

Most of all, consider that there are some folks you just can't intimidate with your bluster and immature behavior - and that they see what's really going on.

Jim, N2EY
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!