RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 1st 04, 08:14 PM

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

snip of Len's lecture on IC's

What was his point, anyway? That 74192s aren't in current production?

I've run into more than a few hams who say they "hate contests because
they make the bands so noisy". What's really going on, in at least
some cases, is that the effects of so many strong signals on the air
all at once raise the apparent noise floor of their *modern*
transceivers, in part due to phase-noisy oscillators in the
contest-haters equipment.

So...you hate the contest haters all on account of "phase noise?"

Not at all!

The effect was mentioned to demonstrate the impact of phase-noisy oscillators
in HF ham rigs. Those same hams might find the bands a lot less noisy with
different equipment, allowing contesters and noncontesters alike to enjoy the
same band.

Where was all that talk about "phase noise" over a decade ago?

Hint: Cellular telephony had not the impact on electronics design
a decade and a half ago. "Phase noise" wasn't talked about much
back then. Some MUST have their buzzwords to sound "grown-up"
in hum raddio... :-)

There were contests a decade ago and farther back. Those that
don't have much to communicate can always have "contests" to
prove they are "somebody" through point scores. :-)

Especially good point scores through the efforts of "reducing
phase noise." :-)

Not everyone likes sports, either. Particularly when the roads are clogged
with
people going to and from the stadiums, TV programs are preempted for sports
coverage, etc.

So...all the citizenry must learn and test for morse code in order to
"enjoy sports?" :-)

My reply makes about as much sense as Jimmie's...:-)

Were the recent Olympics all about "contests for the simple reason that they
are contests, organized by contestant-wannabes so that they can Win and show
off that they are "better" than the non-contestants"?

Perhaps we should inform the IOC.

Let the IOC work out their present problems.

NOBODY has yet to petition the IOC for "radiosport." :-)

Len can enter any amateur radio contest he wants to.

Why should I?

Are your "roads so clogged with traffic" that you need to engage in
"radiosport" to enjoy yourself? :-)

All that's needed is for
him to obtain a valid amateur radio license, and an amateur radio station.

Why are you so focussed on all MUST have a ham license to
discuss anything in here? Are you finally starting to see that
your vapid arguments for the code test retention are that weak?

His choice of home location may be more suited to listening to cbers on the
nearby freeway than to working the rest of the USA, however.

Tsk. Bringing out the old bigoted remarks about CB, ey? :-)

More tsk. My choice of residence location is NOT primarily
motivated by any slavering desire to erect a radio station of
any kind. Residences are HOMES, a place of living.

I've lived ON a huge radio station long ago, one much bigger than
is possible in any residential area. Not my idea of living for the
rest of my life...but important back then. If you want to live ON
or IN a radio station, feel free to apply for a broadcasting license
and make sure the local ordinances allow living on business
premises.

For a small part of my life the radio station complex was built
ON an old airfield. Not even the old Press Wireless station
in Palos Verdes, CA, (the one bought by a ham) was that large.

So...you think vacuum tubes will be with you always? :-)

If he doesn't have enough, I'll give 'em to him. If I die first, I'll
will them to him.

Thank you, Dave!

In fact, I've been reducing my tube and parts stock because I have far more
than enough. It would be wonderful if I could live long enough to wear them
all out!

So...what marvelous improvements in the state of the art have you
conjured up with all those vacuum tubes?

I've heard that hams are supposed to keep up with the state of the
radio art...that was in the Amateur's Code way back (before the FCC
existed) and stuffed in to the 97.1 definitions by the FCC.

The fact remains, however, that a lot of solidstate electronic devices
(including ham gear) were made with custom parts which can be difficult or
impossible to find, or even identify.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Excuses, excuses. :-)

I can look in one of several distributor and retailer catalogs and get
tens of thousands of solid-state parts which can be bought for
very low cost. Look in Digi-Key's paper or on-line catalog...almost
overwhelming that quantity...and quality.

Problem is, you will NOT find many of the "traditional ham parts"
that were once on the market back in the 40s. You CAN get some
old style parts in niche resellers such as Ocean State Electronics
(specializing in sales to hobbyists...not all of whom are hams).

End result is "can't fix it because the
parts cannot be had". It is probably easier to restore a 40 year old R-390A
or 75S3 than a 20 year old R-70, if certain parts are needed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!

Riiiiight. Try to find a replacement for an R-390 power transformer...
or anything inside that PTO...even in 1980... :-)

The designer-manufacturers of electronics and radios "didn't" use
house numbers back in the 40s and 50s? It only happened when
solid-state era arrived? Tsk. Untrue.

TUBES need to be replaced because their operating life is short
compared to solid-state devices. That's why they were mounted in
sockets...so consumers (like hams) could remove them and "test
them in tube testers" such as what used to be in supermarkets
and drug stores. :-)

Of course this is driven by a whole bunch of factors, ranging from increased
reliability (if it doersn't break you don't need to be able to fix it) to
length of production (the R-390A was manufactured for at least 30 years by a
number of companies, including a few made under a contract awarded to Helena
Rubenstein), to the fact that newer electronics are often not designed to be
fixable, and are meant for a limited design life - if it fails, you just get
a new one.

Oh ho! Sound the Alarum, start the Hue and Cry, FACTUAL ERROR!

Helena Rubenstein (or whatever the cosmetic company was) NEVER
MADE any R-390s. According to legendary story, they thought to
expand their business horizon by going for a contract bid to the DoD
on building those (DoD owned all the plans and data, would supply
them). Once the executives saw what was involved and that they
were WAY out of their league trying to make those, they went out
and bought someone else's R-390s and stuck on their nameplate
identification in order to avoid contract fraud and other problems.
The cosmetics company didn't make any profit on that venture and
never tried it again.

Of course there are exceptions, like Ten Tec's policy of board-swapping. And
there are specialists who can bring almost anything electronic back to life.

You should open up a business with a name like "Lazarus Inc." or
whatever. Do it with tubes. You can memorize all the plans and
schematics, cut the paperwork enormously.

One of the design parameters of all my homebrew projects is that the result
must be serviceable with parts and tools on hand. Nothing is built with "one
of a kind" or rare parts, and nothing is pushed hard. Result is that I've had
very few problems.

Hnarf! :-)

He can have enough to see him through his lifetime.
Does that suit your definition of "always"?

I hope to outlive my supply...

Remember Jim Fixx... :-)

Of course...you can "recycle" them...somewhat after their useful
life...and "impress all who visit your shack."

??

A recycled component is still in its useful life, because I'm getting use out
of it. Nothing in the Type 7 is "after its useful life".

Wonderful. But...Kluge City stil looks the same with "remodeling"
from other kluge parts.

And when a tube finally fails, its base is often useful as a connector or
plug-in coil form. Other defective components sometimes yield useful parts,
too. Nothing goes to waste at N2EY.

Keep a hammer and anvil handy...flatten all those tin and aluminum
cans to use for chassis.

"Plug-in coil forms?" You have coils that burn out?

Don't you ever try to impress folks who visit your shack, Len?

What impresses folks most is that I can recall schematics and other info from
memory.

Wow! Like "so few" are able to do that? :-)

You know, take 'em in to view the R-70?

When it was new, the only one "taken in to see the R-70" was Al
Walston, W6MJN, when he was over to my house. We talked
over the design, features, etc., looked at the rather large schematic
supplied with the Manual, usual stuff. Wasn't to "show off."

He bought it for CASH, Dave ;-) Somehow, that is supposed to be significant.

I recycled some money. :-)

I find it interesting, though, that Len does not tell us of *his* homebrew
radio projects.

HAR! Not in THIS newsgroup full of PCTA extras! :-)

Frankly, I would have thought that he designed and built his
own receivers, rather than buying a ready-built imported unit like the R70.

Last vacuum tube receiver I DESIGNED and built was in 1964-1965.

HF. Wasn't for listening to on-off keyed radiotelegraphy! [horrors!]

Terrible thing! NOT A LICENSED AMATEUR DESIGNING AND
BUILDING AN HF RADIO! Call out the radio police!

It didn't use any "recycled parts."

A person doesn't need any knowledge or skill in radio-electronics to buy or
use
one of those.

Riiiiight...why "everyone knows all about" RIT and AGC time-constants
and stuff like that there...just ask any civilian customer at Best Buy
or Circuit City...they all KNOW everything about HF radio! :-)

"Common knowledge" in consumer electronics, right? :-)

And while we're on the subject, how about these specs for a new receiver:

MDS -135dBm
AM Sensitivity -110dBm
Blocking Dynamic Range 5Khz 119dB, 20Khz 119dB
3rd Order dynamic Range 5Khz 87.7dB, 20Khz 95dB
Image rejection 152dB
IF Rejection 106dB

No, it's not the Southgate Type 7.

"Sounds just like his 'high school friend'..." :-)