RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 16th 04, 12:57 PM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

"Kluge" isn't a clothing style.

Then why did you use the word?

Tsk. Those of us in the real electronics industry (which includes
aerospace) know the word KLUGE and are familiar with it and what
it means. Tens of thousands of us, in fact. It's been in use for a
half century by us electron-pushers. :-)

So why did you use it?

This isn't an aerospace newsgroup.

Tsk. Then why did you carry on like you were such a space business
guru, etc., a couple months ago? :-)

When was that?

Nope, THIS newsgroup seems to be a hang-out for the mighty macho
morsemen, PCTA extras who want to keep shoving the morse code
test on all newcomers to the PCTA's HF playground...

If so, why are you here?

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"

Tsk, tsk. A kluge is a kluge, despite the self-enoblement you put
on it.

Whatever. That term does not apply to the Type 7.

Here's a quick design problem for you:

Tsk. Have your agent call mine, they can "do lunch" and talk over
the contract terms... :-)

Such an electron pusher as yourself shouldn't require any time at all to solve
such a problem.

Design a heterodyne scheme to cover the 80, 40, and 20 meter ham bands

That was done well before 1990 by others. :-)

But not by you. And not using a 1400 kHz IF

Tsk. You should have read all about the past. Try Collins Radio circa
the end of the 1940s for some examples. You need the TMs for their
government designs?

Don't need any of that, Len. I solved the problem. Can you? I think not.

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

Nooooo...NOT what "I seem to be doing." :-)

OK. It's *exactly* what you're doing.

I called your kluge pile a KLUGE. My opinion.

"Hnarf!"

I didn't try to misdirect
into a discussion of ready-builts.

Yes, you did.

The picture of your transceiver (the
collection of tube-holding chassis) spoke for itself.

You mean the modular construction?

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

CHEAP is still cheap. You can dress it up in fine words but it is
still CHEAP.

"Cheap" means poorly made. Doesn't apply to the Type 7.

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

Why would I want to?

Tsk. I doubt anyone in the aerospace industry really cares what you
want to do personally, but that's just an off-the-cuff opinion. :-)

You haven't answered the question.

Exciting work in aerospace in the USA in the last half century,
really advancing the state of all electronics' art in most disciplines,
making high-performance aircraft and spacecraft that landed on the
moon, plus many other achievements.

The last moon landing was 32 years ago, Len. Why are you stuck in the past?

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

Whatever floats your auditory boat. :-)

Too much hip-hop in your headphones, Len ;-)

Your experience is limited and flawed, then.

It always is according to the PCTA extras. :-) Hi hi.

A fact is a fact.

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

Tsk, tsk. It's been shown but not as a single-photo home page on
AOL. :-)

Not in any issue of "ham radio". Not anywhere easily referenced.

I think you don't have anything to show. Nor can you solve the problem posed.
So it's all bafflegab and diversion.

Your response is as expected, Len. You don't have any homebrew HF radio
projects to show us. Not receivers, transmitters or transceivers anyway.

Heh heh heh.

You don't, then.

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.......

Tsk. Still incorrect, Jimmie.

Then show us what you've actually done, on your own time and only using your
own resources.

I predict you won't. Or can't.

Nothing worth showing.

Tsk. Still snarly and angry about your collection of un-enclosed chassis
(using tubes) built in the 1990s being called a KLUGE?

Diversion and bafflegab.

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

Oooooo..."as expected" and "as predicted!" :-)

"Predicted" to whom? :-)

To the newsgroup.

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

Can't see that. You haven't documented any of that.

Solve the heterodyne problem. That's the first step. You can't do it, can you?

All us readers saw was a single photo of a bunch of tube-holding un-
enclosed chassis.

More than a few readers have heard it on the air. Reports are uniformly
excellent. That's what really counts, btw - what the signal sounds like.

You didn't show anything else. No show, no blow...by your "rules." :-)

You don't know where to look. Remember that AOL allows up to 7 home pages on a
single account.

At least one receiver of mine (Southgate Type 4, built over 30 years ago) is on
another web page.

It's still much more than *you* have shown.

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.

"Very clear?" :-)

Abundantly clear. You're a spectator, so appearances are all you have to go on.

Tsk. I didn't see any MTBF figures or environmental test reports
on the Famous Type 7 home page on AOL. :-)

You won't - your approval isn't needed.

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.

"Attack?" :-)

Yes.

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"...

Tsk. Someone else having money gets you UPSET does it?

Nope. Someone actually homebrewing without your approval gets you upset,
though.

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.

Awwwwww....

It's true!

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

Tsk. You are getting repetitious with your "you're wrong about that."

Your mistakes and errors are reptitious, Len..

*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.

Tsk. You're still going on and on with that schtick, aintcha? :-)

Gets you upset, does it?

Did you pledge your allegiance to amateur radio? Take your vows
as a good little morseman, never to sully your soul with an evil
microphone used for speech?

Naw. I've used a wide variety of modes. SSB, AM and FM voice modes, FSK RTTY,
SSTV, etc. as a ham.

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.

Tsk. Up till last night, I'd made ONE post in five days. I guess that's
"posting more than anyone else!" :-)

Look at the past month and it's a different story...

I "clutter the ECFS" [at the FCC website] with "long repetitious
commentary
on a single small facet of amateur radio testing?"

Yes.

Tsk. Mikey Powell
should ban me for "overcrowding" the gullfoss server? HAR! Hi hi. :-)

I'm still waiting for you to call him "Mikey" to his face. You sure manage to
bow, scrape and tug the forelock in your comments to the Commission. Easy to
cut and paste, isn't it?

There are no less than 18 petitions on the ECFS towards a proposed
NPRM on amateur radio restructuring. Nearly all of those 18 involve
the manual morse code test. I've commented on nearly all of the 18.

So?

Very illogical.

Yes, isn't it? Jimmie got all put out by not having his handiwork loved
admired, praised, etc. and then made a bunch of factual ERRORS in
closing. Tsk.

The only errors are yours, Len.

A kluge is a kluge. A picture of one speaks for itself.

Is that why you don;t have any pictures of *your* homebrew projects on the web,
Len?

It sure seems to be.