RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 14th 04, 04:55 PM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/2/2004 8:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

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

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message news:
...

Or, on the cheap side of the coin, "recycled" parts using mainly
technology that is 50 to 40 years old (K4YZ homepage).

What fault do you find with that and why doesn't any of it appear of
K4YZ's homepage?

Len is confused. He cannot deal with the fact that K4YZ and N2EY are
not
the
same person.

There's a whole lot that he is confused about.

For example, he keeps trying to confuse Amateur Radio with PLMRS, GMRS,
Armed Forces Communications, CB, etc etc etc.

I think Len would be very happy if Amateur Radio became just like cb.

Nothing in the Southgate Type 7 is "cheap". The parts used were very
inexpensive, but of high quality.

Geez,
absolutely zilch time spent in trying to make any of it
attractive.

Wrong again!

A lot of time and effort were spent making it attractive to the
intended
market. No time or effort was spent making it attractive to Len.

Of course...the Supreme Engineer forgot that the purpose of the
project
was to provide a functional device.

Ya missed the point.

"Attractiveness" is in the eye of the beholder. Look at how clothing
designs
have changed over the years.

Tsk. Kluges are still kluges.

I don't know of any clothing styles called "kluges".

"Kluge" isn't a clothing style.

Then why did you use the word?

It refers to a thrown-together
(usually hastily) collection of odds and ends of aerospace
things to serve a temporary purpose. Been a common term
in aerospace for a half century.

This isn't an aerospace newsgroup. And the Southgate Type 7 wasn't "thrown
together". Nor is it to serve a temporary purpose. So the term doesn't fit at
all.

You should call it "modern radio art" and thereby rationalize that
you are "advancing the state of the radio art!" :-)

Is that an order?

Tsk.

Yes or no?

Still upset about your handiwork not being admired and
respected? Even if it has the appearance of being a kluge?

"You can not answer a question with another question"

Riiiiiight...by making "modern" radio designs using tubes in the
1990s...:-)

Electro-politically incorrect to you, I suppose...

Gosh no.

Heck yes.

It seems to bother you a great deal that my rig even exists.

Forget the transistor got invented in the 1940s.

1948, actually. So what?

Tubes
are venerable, traditional, the stuff of might and brawn in hum
raddio...according to the olde-tymers.

If your radios hum, I suggest you do some work on the power supply filters.

I find that most of the "modern ready-built" radio sets are very
unattractive.

...just like all the other radio amateurs? :-)

I find some other radio amateurs unattractive too. Most I find to be
nice people.

But, you don't LIKE the "modern ready-builts." :-)

Most of them I find unattractive, and not well designed ergonomically. That's
my independent opinion. You seem to be saying that I should simply, blindly
accept what the manufacturers produce. After all, they're 'professionals'...

You want to re-invent the wheel and get all the applause for being
able to use chassis punches... :-)

??

The Type 7 is a unique design. No similar amateur radio transceiver exists,
either in current production nor in the past.

Here's a quick design problem for you: Design a heterodyne scheme to cover the
80, 40, and 20 meter ham bands (CW/data portions) using a 1400 kHz receiver IF
and a single-range VFO whose maximum frequency is less than 7 MHz. Use a
minimum of parts and allow for transceive operation, receiver offset tuning,
and bandswitching. Alignment must not require much in the way of test
equipment.

Why are the designer-manufacturers continuing (after years of doing
so) to design such "unattractive" exteriors?

One reason is that it's cheaper for them to do so. Another is that, as
in fashion, conventional marketing wisdom says that things have to
change in order to sell more product.

Is it all a conspiracy
against the superior esthetic sense of Jimmie?

You can't be talking about me, because I don't claim any "superior
esthetic sense".

HAR! :-)

It seems that you would rather have all of us amateurs simply purchase whatever
the manufacturers put out, without question or comments.

What I do have is "independent thought" about what's attractive and
not attractive. I find that most of the "modern ready-built" radio sets are
very unattractive. If that's unacceptable to you, tough.

Rationalization for being ultra-cheap...or terribly strapped for available
cash even though working as an electronics engineer (implied) for
money. Tsk.

Not at all. The Yankee word for it is "frugal".

Why should I spend more money on a transceiver that does not meet my
requirements when I can build one for less money that does?

Why should I accept the manufacturer's idea of what is "attractive" rather than
my own?

Why should I accept *your* idea of what is "attractive" rather than my own?

You seem to be saying that amateur radio must be limited to only those who are
willing to spend the money for "ready-built" equipment that meets your
approval. Even though you are not a radio amateur and never have been. Very
illogical.

Cluttered front panels, poor color choices, knobs and displays way too
small
and too close together, etc., etc. So I purposely avoid such design in my
projects. If the set is a little bigger because of it - so what?

Kluges are still kluges. :-)

Back to talking about clothing again?

Not me. "Kluge' is a familiar term in aerospace. Too bad you never
worked in that...

Why would I want to?

Decals for radio markings have been around for a half century...

So what? I don't think the use of decals would make the Type 7
attractive to you.

Tsk. Still smarting from the lack of appreciation of your personal
hobby stuff?

Nope. You behaved exactly as predicted.

are
clearer to read that scribbled felt-tip marker pen markings.

There are no such markings on the Type 7.

Hard to tell from a single picture on a personal website.

Then why did you make the statement?

But, if
those are "beauty" to you, feel free to enjoy it.

I don't need your permission, Len.

Tsk. But all NCTAs need YOUR permission to exist in here... :-)

Untrue.

Try NOT to impose
your "standards of beauty" (radio-wise) on others.

I don't. It is *you* who try to impose your standards of
"attractiveness" on others.

You've said that morse code is "music to your ears." :-)

How is that imposing my standard of beauty on others? It's music to *my* ears.

Tsk. That wasn't in any music appreciation venue that I know
of (and that's considerable).

Your experience is limited and flawed, then.

Yet we are yet to see any examples of *your* homebrew HF radio
projects, made in your own shop with only your own resources.

Ah. The "challenge" is made! Gauntlet thrown down.

If you wish to call it that.

SHOW WORK! MAKE WEB PAGES FOR DISPLAY!

Why all the shouting?

"Proof" is in the web pages! If it doesn't exist, then everyone
"lies." :-)

Nothing worth showing, huh? That means you're all talk and no action, Len. All
show and no go. Vaporware.

DOS tip, Len: AOL gives you a free home page with each screen name.
You can have up to seven! Plus they provide easy-to-use software to
help you set them up. Even I managed to get two of them done in a
short time. (Yes, there's another...)

Tsk. The limit is 2 MB per name. Good for some snapshots,
little more. :-)

They don't have to be high resolution. One would think an old-time
modem-communicator like you could do a lot with 14 MB. But so far nothing.
Nada. Zip. Zero. All talk and no action. All show and no go. Vaporware.

So *show us* what *you* could do in the home workshop, using only your
own resources.

Geez...all but baring your teeth in a snarly challenge! :-)

Not me. That would be you...

Your response is as expected, Len. You don't have any homebrew HF radio
projects to show us. Not receivers, transmitters or transceivers anyway. You'd
be at a loss to actually design and build one yourself, in your home workshop,
on your own time, with only your own resources. You talk a lot about articles
written by others and technical details, but when it comes to designing and
building a complete radio.......

Nothing worth showing.

You are still put out that all I said of your single photo was that it
was "neat."

Not "put out" at all. You behaved exactly as expected and predicted.

No gushing admiration for your prodigious chassis
punching, no respect for your mnemoic capabilities of tube circuit
recall. Sigh.

There's a lot more to building a rig like the Type 7 than "chassis punching"
and remembering circuits.

About the Type 7:

Had I used "decals" on the Type 7, you'd complain that they were
glossy and hard to read, plus easy to rub or wash off.

A simple Lucite of Plexiglass cover plate (easy to work) will
protect such things.

"Lucite of Plexiglass"? What is that?

The word is "Plexiglas", btw.

Now if it were Len writing this post, he'd go off on a long tangent about how
"Lucite" and "Plexiglas" are brand names for a certain family of clear
plastics. Lots of stuff about their history, etc. Maybe mention the big Rohm &
Haas plant in Bristol, PA, near the Burlington-Bristol bridge, just northeast
of Philadelphia on I-95. Etc., etc., etc.

Had I used tape labels, you'd complain that they looked "primitive"

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

Your behavior is very predictable, Len.

Had I used engraved nameplates, you'd complain that they looked old
and like an afterthought.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

Everyone who reads your stuff here knows what you would have done, Len.

Had I silkscreened the front panel, you'd complain that it wasn't
engraved.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

It's "what you do", Len

Had I engraved the front panel, you'd complain about the color choice.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

Or similar stuff.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

It's very clear that you are more interested in the superficial (appearance,
parts used, cost) rather than the significant (performance, reliability, usable
features, unique methods) of homebrew radio equipment.

Jim's radio did just that.

And much more.

Mission accomplished.

Not the stuff of "marketable design!"

That'd be a real problem if it was built to be a marketable design.

The intended market thinks it's an excellent design and of high quality
manufacture.

It seems that the real issue is that it bugs Len no end that someone
he considers an inferior (me) can do something he can't. Not just
building a rig, but being able to use it on the air. Not just from a
license/legal perspective, but from a practical operating skills
perspective.

Tsk. Inferiority complex you have?

Nope. But you seem to have one. Somebody has a website that shows a homebrew
ham station, and you have to attack its appearance and the technology used,
even though you know little or nothing about it.

We forget Lennie's only reason for being a "radio
professional"...profit.

Nothing wrong with that!

"Nothing wrong?"

No, there isn't.

There is wrongness in still keeping the code test in U.S. amateur radio
regulations.

No, there isn't.

Tsk. That's a hypocritical statement in here!

How? By whom?

Yourself...a PCTA extra with the Double Standard.

Explain - if you can.

Meanwhile, readers may note that you talk of "homebrewing" and "technical
subjects", but have nothing to show that isn't work-related except perhaps
having purchased a ready-built receiver 20+ years ago. For "CASH"...

It may also be noted that while you talk about only being against the Morse
Code test (not use), and being in favor of hams doing technical stuff, that
talk rapidly turns negative and critical when someone actually does such
things.

WE do what we do for FUN!

Also service to our country.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHHHAAAAA....!!!!

Engaging in a part-time HOBBY is a "service to the country?"

Sure.

It would be great if it were a full time pursuit...

Nonsense. Particularly from someone who NEVER served in
the military.

You seem to think that "the military" is the only way to be of service to our
country. You're wrong about that.

Your mindset is so engrossed in amateur radio as your raison
d'etre that you've slipped over the edge of reality into fantasy.

Not me, Len. Amateur radio is just one of many things I do, and have done for a
long time. In fact, it was 37 years ago today (October 14, 1967) that my Novice
license arrived in the mail from the FCC. 37 years of great fun, learning,
making friends all over the world, designing, building and operating rigs of
many types.

If anyone has a "mindset is so engrossed in amateur radio as your raison
d'etre that you've slipped over the edge of reality into fantasy", it would be
*you*. Len. You're not a ham, have never been one, have no apparent intentions
to become one despite that "out of the box" claim of almost 5 years ago.

Yet you post here probably more than anyone else, clutter the ECFS with long
repetitious commentary on a single small facet of amateur radio testing, and
argue even with those who agree with you.

Very illogical.