HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: NICE CARS & CB'S
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 13:58:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.201046.7529@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu ("Joseph D. Mazza") writes:
>
>:   What is considered the "Cadillac" of CB's?
>
>Who cares? What you want is something small that works well. The cadillac
>is likely to be large and have 50 million bells and whistles - most of which
>you will use about once a decade or so.

I guess I'll have to differ with this opinion. I find that I frequently use
dimmer switch, noise blanker, ANL, and tone controls. Less expensive radios
are likely to have less sensitivity and poorer adjacent-channel rejection
than more expensive makes. I've used cheap sideband radios that drifted so
badly that the clarifier had to be adjusted about every 20 seconds to keep
incoming signals legible.

I don't know what the "Cadillac" is, but I really like the Cobra 148GTL for
a mobile unit. Yes, it's pretty big.

>:   Are the all-in-the-mike sets any good?  
>
>Only the controls are in the mike. The bulk of the radio is just hidden
>out of sight.  I would not want a speaker in the mike, although to might
>be handy for marginal signals.

I've never had a CB with a speaker mike, but I've had a couple of 2m HTs
with speaker mikes, and they're quite handy. From my experience, generally
the larger mikes have better sound (of course, smaller mikes are easier to
deal with and less obtrusive). I would think a CB speaker/mike with channel
and volume controls and such would probably have a large enough speaker in
it to have pretty good audio quality.

>:   Are there any decent combo CB/AM/FM/etc sets?
>
>Probably not. The sets have to be type approved by the FCC. It would be
>hard to get approval for such a combined set.

There were plenty of these on the market in the mid '70s, all type approved.
I don't know if there's been enough of a demand since then to make it
worth anybody's while to manufacture them.

  -joe
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: NICE CARS & CB'S
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:54:40 GMT

jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
: In article <1992Aug25.201046.7529@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: 
: >:   Are there any decent combo CB/AM/FM/etc sets?
: >
: >Probably not. The sets have to be type approved by the FCC. It would be
: >hard to get approval for such a combined set.
: 
: There were plenty of these on the market in the mid '70s, all type approved.
: I don't know if there's been enough of a demand since then to make it
: worth anybody's while to manufacture them.
: 
:   -joe

Shows the gap in my purchasing. The ones I bought in the late 60s and early
70s did not have the combined features. Nor did those I saw in the latter
part of the 70s.  I have never seen such a set - and I spent a number of
years in the mid 70s working in a radio shop repairing rigs. Maybe they just
were not popular here in Oregon.

Bill
From: ad838@yfn.ysu.edu (Michael Rolfes)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Re: Linear
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:51:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Sep4.175142.18992
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net


> Better yet, get to know a trucker...

How about getting to know the FCC and a $10,000 fine!
-- 
Michael P. Rolfes
usr2879a@tso.uc.edu
Organization: Naval Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:16:40 -0400 
From: "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: NICE CARS & CB'S

I've got a nice car and want to install CB that works well but is also
small and unobtrusive.  The same goes for the antenna.  I'm more
concerned with reception than I am with transmission, although I'd like
to be able to transmit in a pinch.  

I've read the FAQ posts and didn't find all the answers, so here are
some specific questions that someone out there may be able to help me
with.

  What is considered the "Cadillac" of CB's?

  Do the small CB's perform as well as the larger ones, or do they just
have fewer whistles and bells?  

  What are the best of the small CB's, or are they all about the same?

  Are the all-in-the-mike sets any good?  

  Are there any decent combo CB/AM/FM/etc sets?

  Are the Cellular lookalike (althouth a bit larger) CB antennas any good?

  Are there any _dedicated_ CB antennas made to look like radio
antennas?  (My radio antenna is embedded in the rear window so I could
add an external antenna which would _look_ like it was the radio
antenna, but which could be dedicated to CB.)

  Where is the best place to shop for CB's?  (Radio Shack seems to have
plenty of radios, but few antennas.) 

These may be very basic questions, but any advice would be appreciated.
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Re: Look What Showed Up in *MY* Mailbox!
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:28:50 EDT

drdowns@bach.udel.edu (David R. Downs) writes:
>In article <5Re4PB1w164w@jab.tucson.az.us> cobra@jab.tucson.az.us (Cobra) writes:
>>        (...Phantom...KB5OWZ (Tech+...which is better than what YOU'VE
>>got!......))

On behalf of the hams who read this newsgroup, I'd like to apologize to the
non-hams for this.  I'd also like to point out that contrary to Tiffany's
apparent assertion, the 50MHz attenuation figure will most certainly be off
by less than the 1MHz figure, as a quick check of the ARRL Handbook will
instantly verify to anyone who (apparently like Tiffany) doesn't actually have
the technical knowledge that a Technician license would seem to imply.

[ Figure 30, page 19-15, '84 Handbook, RG-58U, 1MHz: ~.4dB, 27MHz: ~2.4dB,
50MHz: ~3.3dB; and you'll make much better technical decisions if you used
the 3.3dB figure than the .4dB figure as an estimate]

I'd also like to give thanks that my Advanced ticket gives me plenty of HF
spectrum to avoid speaking to this particular rude individual (though also
plenty of spectrum to find others).

John, WB7EEL
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
From: wws@craywr.cray.com (Walter Spector)
Subject: RE: HANDHELD CBS
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:18:41 CDT

Does anyone manufacture a handheld with SSB capabilities?

Walt
-- 
Walt Spector
(wws@renaissance.cray.com)
Sunnyvale, California
_._ _._ _.... _. ._.
From: john.denison@yob.sccsi.com (John Denison) 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: RE: HANDHELD CBS
Date: 23 Aug 92 13:49:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: john.denison@yob.sccsi.com (John Denison) 

-> This is not true for all RS walkie-talkies. I had one, I believe the
-> TRC-217, which had an RCA phono-style plug at the bottom for an
-> external antenna. With an adapter, a PL-239 plugged in just fine and
-> it worked great.
Fine but are you going to carry a mobile antenna around with you? I
really think that the Maxon's removable antenna is more convenient than
having the load coil bulging out. I have a BNC-PL-239 adapter and I can
keep the antenna's that came with the radio stored away while using a
mobile.
From: john.denison@yob.sccsi.com (John Denison) 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: NEW RADIO SHACK HANDHELD
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: john.denison@yob.sccsi.com (John Denison) 

-> Current Drain          :        80 to 300 Ma
->
-> Transmitter:
->
->          Power Output:   Hi:  3.5 watts     Low:  1 watt
-> Modulation:                     90-100%
-> Spurious output:                -60 dB or better
-> Freq tolerance:                 .002%
-> Current drain:             Hi: 1100 ma
->                          Lo:  800 ma

My MAxon is similar, can't find the specs now, but I do remember it had
the hi/low switch, a current drain of 50-500 ma on receive, 500ma on low
transmit, and 1200ma on high transmit. According to Maxon it puts out 4
watts at 100% modulation but I haven't been able to test it and make any
corrections. I know one thing, it sure likes to eat a lot of batteries
on high power, but I use a power supply most of the time anyway.

-> It will suport a speaker microphone, such as one commonly used for 2
-> meter ahndhelds... the RS one will work

Does it accept the two prong plug or the DIN plug, like RS's other CB
HT?

-> Antenna:   It has a collapsable whip.... it attached via what they
-> call a TNC connector.... NOT a BNC (as I mentioned in a past post)
-> This

Mine came with the rubber-ducky antenna with a BNC and I had to order
the telescopic extra direct from Maxon. Either BNC or TNC just as long
as it can be removed. BTW don't they use TNC for cellular antennas and
cables?

-> Price: $139.95

Mine was $79.95 from a local two way radio shop. I wish it did have some
other features like a plug for speaker/mike though.
From: fisher2557@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Re: Re: Some More CB Questions
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:18:50 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <103400034@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
*gobs deleted*
> You CANNOT correct SWR problems by varying the cable length.  Especially
> not by simply limiting yourself to integer multiples of a quarter wave -
> for example, one-half wavelength back from the antenna (two "102-inch
*more gobs deleted*

Read this whole reply here before flaming, please.

You can lower SWR by changing cable length.  I've seen it happen.
(although I don't recommend it)

here's why:
ya see, if you have some RG-58A/U, lets say 1000 ft, hooked to your radio, (4
watts) and just plain leave the other PL sitting there looking stupid, you CAN
key into it and get a not-so-bad SWR.  The cable is eating all the power, and
at high lengths, can eat up almost ALL your power.  If you were crazy enough to
run 1000 ft of that cheap stuff, I would not be suprised to find more than a
hundred milliwatts out the other end, and if all 100% is reflecting, there
is still no chance in h@ll that it is going to make it back to the transmitter
(back thru another 1000 ft of watt eaters) with any noticable power.

A friend of mine has a high quality wattmeter, and used it to measure the
loss in 100 ft of that cheap junk.  He lost almost 3/4 of a watt in just fifty
feet.  When you're only putting out four watts, 3/4 of a watt can sure make a
difference!

with strange answers to seemingly simple questions,
 Nathan
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Re: Some More CB Questions
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:49:59 EDT

rossi@gvlf9-q.gvl.unisys.com (Pete Rossi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.101850.6253@iscsvax.uni.edu> fisher2557@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>A friend of mine has a high quality wattmeter, and used it to measure the
>>loss in 100 ft of that cheap junk.  He lost almost 3/4 of a watt in just fifty
>>feet.  When you're only putting out four watts, 3/4 of a watt can sure make a
>>difference!
>Loosing 3/4 of a watt out of 4 is less than 1 dB loss..  You'll never miss it.
>    10 * log (  (4 - 3/4) / 4 )  = -.901 dB
>That sounds about right for 50 feet of RG-58 at 27 MHz.

That is the right loss, but it's also worth noting that the original point
is correct; lossy cable *does* reduce the SWR measured *at the transmitter*
(without causing the antenna to accept any more power).  I do hope that any
hams who choose to dispute that will have their ARRL Handbooks open to the
Transmission line chapter while arguing (1984: page 19-16, and preferrably
also a copy of "Reflections" by Maxwell open before arguing that this
represents any kind of Evil Situation...

John, WB7EEL
From: barrya@heaven.gvg.tek.com (R. Barry Angell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Handheld transciever wanted
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:37:27 GMT
Reply-To: barrya@heaven.gvg.tek.com (R. Barry Angell)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

I'm looking to buy a new handheld CB transciever. Can anyone
recommend a manufacturer and model? Particularly, can anyone recommend
a good mail-order source?
The transciever will be used in boats. It's a birthday present for my
dad.
Please respond via e-mail, not to this group.

Thanks
Barry

-- 
Barry Angell
barrya@gold.gvg.tek.com
Work 916-478-3749
Grass Valley Group
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Re: NEW RADIO SHACK HANDHELD
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:33:50 GMT

john.denison@yob.sccsi.com (John Denison) writes:
>-> Sensitivity: .05 uv for 10 dB (S+N)/N
>Are you sure the spec says .05?
>I found the specs to my Maxon. They are pretty similar to what you
>posted on your model. But the Maxon specs says that the Receiver
>sensitivity is .5uv for 10 dB (s+n)/n and that seems like a big
>difference between .05 and .5.

.05uV is likely to be less than the atmospheric noise (though I don't
have a handy figure available), so it seems unlikely.  It would certainly
be a waste to design for such a sensitivity on HF.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
From: dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Subject: Re: Linear
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 20:14:07 GMT

mt615s1075@instem.UUCP (Mark Trinkwalder) writes:

>     I'm looking for someone in the
>Michigan area, preferably Macomb
>County who has a Linear that they
>would like to sell for a reasonable
>price, I'm looking for something
>between 100-200 watts.

The current issue of QST describes a solid state 1KW amplifer that
operates from 2 to 54 MHz.

-- 
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ 		| Views expressed here are	*
 * (310) 337-5136 		| mine and do not necessarily	*
 * dana@locus.com  DoD #466 	| reflect those of my employer	*
 * "Dammit Bones, spare me the lecture and give me the shot!"   *
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
From: R.D.Mee@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: NEW RADIO SHACK HANDHELD
Reply-To: R.D.Mee@lut.ac.uk (Richard Mee)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 09:02:32 GMT

In article <231.334.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com> john.denison@yob.sccsi.com (John Denison) writes:
>-> Sensitivity: .05 uv for 10 dB (S+N)/N
>
>Are you sure the spec says .05?
>
>I found the specs to my Maxon. They are pretty similar to what you
>posted on your model. But the Maxon specs says that the Receiver
>sensitivity is .5uv for 10 dB (s+n)/n and that seems like a big
>difference between .05 and .5. Also the Maxon draws 500 ma on low and
>1200 ma on high.
>                          

I cannot believe a CB rig has a sensitivity quoted as .05uV for 10dB
(s+n)/n... especially an AM set. 0.5 uV seems far more reasonable. Here in
the UK a decent VHF/UHF FM ham tranciever has a 0.15uV sensitivity rating. And 
an HF tranciever for 10 metres (29MHz) has a AM sensitivity of about 0.5uV.

Hope this puts these CB radio sensitivity ratings in proportion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mee (G1ZGZ)				- Computer studies dept.
Email (internet order):-			- Loughborough University
r.d.mee@lut.ac.uk				- Loughborough LE11 3TU
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mt615s1075@instem.UUCP (Mark Trinkwalder)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Linear
Distribution: world
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:41:11 EDT
Organization: The Institution - Chesterfield Twp. MI

     I'm looking for someone in the
Michigan area, preferably Macomb
County who has a Linear that they
would like to sell for a reasonable
price, I'm looking for something
between 100-200 watts.
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Re: Some More CB Questions
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:26:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvaac.1992Aug26.192609.7409
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

fisher2557@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
: In article <103400034@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
: *gobs deleted*
: > You CANNOT correct SWR problems by varying the cable length.  Especially
: > not by simply limiting yourself to integer multiples of a quarter wave -
: > for example, one-half wavelength back from the antenna (two "102-inch
: *more gobs deleted*
: 
: Read this whole reply here before flaming, please.
: 
: You can lower SWR by changing cable length.  I've seen it happen.
: (although I don't recommend it)
: 
: here's why:
: ya see, if you have some RG-58A/U, lets say 1000 ft, hooked to your radio, (4
: watts) and just plain leave the other PL sitting there looking stupid, you CAN
: key into it and get a not-so-bad SWR.  The cable is eating all the power, and
: at high lengths, can eat up almost ALL your power.  If you were crazy enough to
: run 1000 ft of that cheap stuff, I would not be suprised to find more than a
: hundred milliwatts out the other end, and if all 100% is reflecting, there
: is still no chance in h@ll that it is going to make it back to the transmitter
: (back thru another 1000 ft of watt eaters) with any noticable power.
: 
: A friend of mine has a high quality wattmeter, and used it to measure the
: loss in 100 ft of that cheap junk.  He lost almost 3/4 of a watt in just fifty
: feet.  When you're only putting out four watts, 3/4 of a watt can sure make a
: difference!
: 
: with strange answers to seemingly simple questions,

In this case, your strange answer is wrong.

You are not changing the SWR. All you are doing by lengthening the cable is
increasing the power loss in the cable.

You can prove this yourself.  Connect a long length of coax to your
transmitter, at one end, and the SWR meter (which is coupled to the
load) at the other end. Check the SWR.  Now, do the same thing with
a short piece of the same coax.  You will find that the SWR is
identical.

Now - with a long length of coax, the transmitter is not seeing this
reflected power. However, it is still there - it is just radiated by
the coax.

Bill
From: fisher2557@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Re: NICE CARS & CB'S
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:31:30 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Aug27.135840.3300@rti.rti.org>, jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.201046.7529@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu ("Joseph D. Mazza") writes:
>>
>>:   What is considered the "Cadillac" of CB's?
>>

...

> 
>>:   Are there any decent combo CB/AM/FM/etc sets?
>>
>>Probably not. The sets have to be type approved by the FCC. It would be
>>hard to get approval for such a combined set.
> 
> There were plenty of these on the market in the mid '70s, all type approved.
> I don't know if there's been enough of a demand since then to make it
> worth anybody's while to manufacture them.
> 
>   -joe

I've got one over here -- an ol' Pioneer AM/FM radio/CB.  This one has the
sticker "must have a license to operate..." on it, so you know it's aged a few
years.  The sound quality on the speaker is somewhat marginal, but other than
that, it works great. (40ch) It mounts in the dash, so sitting in my clothset
with that basic metal case all the car radios have makes it look pretty drab. 
(the missing radio knobs don't help any) Want it?  I don't.
-- 

later,
 Nathan                           (this tag line is umop ap!sdn)
  FISHER2557@ISCSVAX.UNI.EDU             "do I know WHO?..."
 ---------------------------------
| "I'd challenge him to a battle  |
|  of wits, but I don't fight     |
|  the unarmed...."               |
 ---------------------------------
*this is a .sig antivirus virus.  please copy over any .sig antiviruses*
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Re: SOME MORE CB QUESTIONS
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:28:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvaac.1992Aug26.192809.7575
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

johnw@bluemoon.rn.com (John L. Wilkerson Jr.) writes:
: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: 
: > jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
: > : 
: > : On a somewhat related note, I have heard that many CBs are designed with a
: > : circuit that decreases output power as SWR increases, with the aim of
: > : protecting the output stage from damage. Anyone know if this is true?
: > 
:  
:     Look in the owner's manual..... My Uniden Grant's book sez over 2.0 
: could cook it.
:  
:      A lot of Cobra CBs say in the book that the output transistors are 
: protected up to a 25:1 mismatch.     Best bet is to look in the manual 
: first to see what the deal is.

Just a nit - but, why are you listing me when nothing you quoted was written
by me? The statement was made by jbs.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
From: elesatz@cassandra.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Subject: Radio Shack Handheld
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 22:24:32 GMT

Just in the interest in comparing specs:

                        RS                     Uniden Pro-310E

Current Drain  :    80 to 300 Ma               TX:Full Mod  1.4A
					       RX:Full Vol  0.5A

Transmitter:

    Power Output:   Hi:  3.5 watts             Hi: 4 watts
    Modulation:     90-100%                    Doesn't Say
 Spurious output:  -60 dB or better
 Freq tolerance:   .002%		       +/-0.005%
 Current drain:     Hi: 1100 ma
                    Lo:  800 ma
 Frequency Response:			       300-3000 Hz

Other:

Frequency Control:			       PLL
Size:					       2 5/8W x 1.5D x 5.5H
Image Rejection:			       75dB Typical

Maybe someone can fill in the RS blanks.

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________
|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}  I've got seven in the clip and one      |
|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}  in the chamber. Will that be enough??   |
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Drop it!
From: nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 06:39:13 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

	DROP IT PEOPLE!  This is Rec.radio.cb!  Not Alt.flames or some other
ridiculous newsgroup!  Keep your personal arguments OFF UseNet and stop
wasting the bandwidth.  It's over...

-- 
Michael G. Larish       | Amateur Radio Callsign:  KD6CTZ
aka Nomad the Wanderer  | Golden Empire Amateur Radio Society (GEARS) - W6RHC
nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu | Chico State Amateur Radio Society (CSARS)
CSU Chico, CA           | rram FAQ Maintainer email: hamradio-faq@uts.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb