| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
4F3EW
Joined: 30 Oct 2006 Posts: 1 Location: Bulacan, Philippines
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: Dual VFO |
|
|
| Maybe dual vfo's would be a useful addition to CQ100 ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
W0NBP
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 Posts: 22 Location: Ottumwa, Iowa
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't envision running contests on virtual radio... Hehe... but ..... it could happen....
Or perhaps.... the 'foxhunt'...???
Nah... couldn't do it.... the Foxes ears would be sticking up above the tuning line.... Hehehe....
Oh well anything is possible.... and that's the real fun of it...
de W0NBP
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
W0SDG
Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Posts: 101 Location: Apple Valley MN
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
4F3EW,
Please expand on that idea. I would like to know what the advantage of Dual VFO's would provide because I am not experienced with this concept.
Tnx,
Steve - W0SDG |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
W0NBP
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 Posts: 22 Location: Ottumwa, Iowa
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dual VFO's would allow you to receive on one freqeucy and transmit on another. Most modern transceivers have this capability. Older models used an external VFO to accomplish this. Often during contests or Foxhunts, a station will try to avoid pileups by receiving several kc's up or down from their xmit frequency.
Not feasible for the CQ100 Virtual receiver.
de W0NBP
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VE4EO
Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 27 Location: winnipeg.mb.canada
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can not see any for this this system just an unneccassary complcation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VE4EO
Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 27 Location: winnipeg.mb.canada
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I cannot see ant use for his here ....my previous remarks were a bit garbled |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KC6UVA

Joined: 09 Nov 2006 Posts: 29 Location: West Monroe LA USA
|
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:09 am Post subject: Good suggestion... |
|
|
I've spoken with quite a number of people now using CQ100 and the facination with what this new approach to communication can do is evident. One example (which involves DUAL capability)...
As we are all aware of the usefulness and practicallity of EchoLink as it concerns emergency communications, there is one drawback. The drawback is that EchoLink still has you utilizing real-world frequencies in emergency situations. The suggestion for using a system such as CQ100 is that it provides an alternate mode of communication that does not use real-world radio, thereby, freeing up those frequencies for only emergency communication. Now, please understand, that by no means am I suggesting for us to drop the use of radio bands. I am, however, suggesting that CQ100 can easily be used for message traffic. We've already experimented with running EchoLink and CQ100 simultaneously - one to receive and the other transmit - and it works without issue. Creating a Dual VFO for CQ100, in my opinion, simply increases those capabilities.
Something to think about. _________________ Mark Armstrong, KC6UVA
http://kc6uva.spaces.live.com
TechNet - Saturdays @ 1600 Zulu (14.100 Mhz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|